Listening to atheistic rant proves to me that the world is too screwed-up to have evolved from nothing. --Explain "entropy". Things wind down to nothingness more than they are derived from it by un-natural selection. Prove to me you have humility and I will consider your evidence for "non-diety" influence. The fact that there are so many false gods in contention for "something" suggests that there is only one true ONE. You have no distinction..Your thinking is oblique to any form of objectivity.
@microvantastic Entropy is the second law of thermodynamics; Do you know what the first law is? Look it up, as it explicitly states energy cannot be *created*. Opps, there goes your god.
@vicachcoup Dontcha know..? Pluralism also entertains a myriad of religious faiths. Truth is not a smogasbord. Obviously you're not a Christian: "..Only one name is given whereby one is saved." Believing alone would certainly be enough if there were no counterfeits or imposters in the mix.
A new conscience is the discerning factor & living standard to judge by: 10 laws X atonement= wisdom.
--Nor is Truth is not a cosmic cloud of incantations..like atheism wants you to "believe".
here's how it all happens..the universe only seems like it is eternally expanding(for now) then science will find out that it is actually starting to contract upon itself..until it is so compressed that..walla! another big bang. the expansion begins again,lucky,but almost certain conditions will happen and energy will once again go from matter evolved, to ape-people(or whatever it may be next time) talking on youtube about yet again another primitive "godcreation"...all natural see?
@xfactorb25222 like the repetitive heartbeat of the universe...no god needed,as far as the big bang is concerned...how did energy begin in the first place?it was just always there..lol. just like if god created everything,who created him? he was just always there right? ;) we're humans,our little brains aren't equipped for the creator of the creator of the creator questions yet.this was eternal universe or god created universe.....back to my bong now..cheers all.
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
@BreakoutLuceal Natural phenomenon like the big bag act in accordance with their inherent nature. We describe the laws of nature using mathematics, but that is not to say there are "laws" which the universe must follow. The singularity acted according to its own nature, and I do not see the need to invoke a spearate causal agent - let alone label it "god" with all the associated baggage that comes with it.
In that case, lets just say one day an apple falls from an apple tree, then, I ask you this:
Based on our scientific understanding of apples and logic itself , Do you accept that the apple could not of caused itself to fall from the apple tree?
@BreakoutLuceal The apple followed the natural and innate laws of the universe, which are our mathematical models of how the universe actually is. The apple didn’t “cause itself” to do anything
@BreakoutLuceal So what’s your answer? God makes the apple fall from the tree and sparks the big bang? Any answer which answers everything is no answer at all.
WHOA.You are getting ahead of yourself. I never asked you about what the cause is but whether there is a cause at all. You did not answer my last question. Can you please do so. Why is there an inconsistency with the apple and the singularity?
@BreakoutLuceal There is no inconsistency. The BB did not “cause itself” to do anything anymore than the apple did. Both followed the innate laws of the universe, they were not guided by some additional force.
I am confused. If you are saying the BB singularity and the apple did not cause itself to do anything, then How can you also say there was not an outside force that caused it?
@BreakoutLuceal Let me put it this way - if there was an outside force that made the apple fall and spark the BB, then what “force” caused this force? If this “force” did not require a force, then why does the apple and the BB?
Well In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don’t need an explanation of explanation (x). If the best explanation always requires an explanation, we’re left with an infinite regress. We would not get the explanation of anything if this were a real scientific requirement. Gravity would be the explanation for the apple falling from the tree and a cause that could not of been natural would essentially be the explanation for the BB singularity.
Well I did not exactly said it had to be a super natural explanation. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity, which is considered to be all of the universe. Since this was the case. I said it could not have been a natural cause. Therefore you can infer that this cause had to be supernatural ,which is something beyond the universe, based on the previous claim.
@BreakoutLuceal I agree - the observable universe seems to have “begun” with the BB, but to conclude that there could be no possible natural explanation for this and leap to a supernatural explanation is a massive jump. Note the apple falls from the tree for reasons entire contained within the realm of the natural, and while we may not know what “caused” the BB we DO know that the supernatural has never explained anything.
I am saying the evidence suggests that there could not be a natural explanation. Second, you even said yourself that "the apple falls from the apple tree for reasons entire contained within the realm of the natural". What you are implying is that there is another realm outside of our own that is not natural when it comes to the BB singularity. This is what "supernatural" means: Something beyond the universe.
@LibertyLuvr1969 you can't prove that God doesn't exist just like you can't prove that batman or spiderman don't exist . God does exist but your argument is wrong xD
You have got to be kidding me Corey Hart. Modern science provides us with proof and evidence that the Universe had a beginning in time and space. So to "differentiate" one created by God has a beginning and one(eternal) doesnt. Good thing my 4 year old asked me this the other day or you would have demolished my whole worldview.
Creation doesnt even exist, nothing is ever created, matter can only be transformed, so why even think at universe being created? why would universe need to be created when it could simply exist since forever? big bang theory doesnt work, considering that an event (like big bang) could not occur if time itself didn't even exist. If big bang was true,where would it come from, anyways? I'll just stick with eternal universe for now, sounds more plausible and cool :P
@Kenoburned totally agree EVERYONE should follow Parmenides Poem, that´s the way of truth! check out Pierre Grimes about Parmenides in youtube you will like it...
if i started a rumour, and it began to spread, i bet it would be elabourated so much in a year that it would be totally different! so imagine if someone told an already elaborate story 2000 years ago!
Totally off subject, but this puts a mean twist on Darwinism: Thats if you actually believe in Darwinism being the answer for mankind after watching this clip!
Is Empirical Evidence acceptable for the existence for God? Do mathematical truths found nature and the animal kingdom (relative numerosity) acceptable for the existence of GOD? Does God even have to have an official name or religion since the greatest idea of a God is in the realm of a shapeless, formless conscious entity beyond space, time and matter? I just want to know what you are willing to accept as evidence for these questions?
The Kalam Ontological Argument sums up the philosophical inference to a God:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Any System "Closed or Open" that shows Autonomy infers Design. Since the Universe is based on a "closed system" (*Law of Thermodynamics confirms this) we can agree that the Universe is finite (Not Eternal), it had a beginning, a first cause.
@askegg You will be the first person I call when I hear a rebuttal that can even come close to negating the Kalam Ontological Argument, my reference to the laws of thermodynamics (closed system - heat death), quantum gravity in the case of the singularity (first cause to set laws in motion), the philosophical inferences of design in any autonomous system and the empirical evidence found within nature using the Fibonacci numbers. Peace!
@777equals666 The universe did not begin in the sense that is sprang from nothing at all. It came from pre-existing matter - quantum foam, a singularity. This is an entire universe away from being nothing.
You may asked what caused that but at the moment we do not know. I will not pretend to know by inserting a deity.
Nature proves nature, not the super-natural.
What does Fibonacci have to do with anything? Using numerology?
@askegg Humor me? Isn’t quantum gravity (First Cause?) a necessary pre-requisite for the singularity to exist in the first place? I dare not ask you a question that I already know the answer to. Believe, because it feels right, but know that science will never explain the nature of love, because love is supernatural, animals feel it and even nature makes the wind blow to push you in the right direction once in a while...
@777equals666 "sn’t quantum gravity (First Cause?) a necessary pre-requisite for the singularity to exist in the first place?"
Sure, but simply asserting your god is responsible for creating quantum foam is not actually an answer - it's just an assertion. You need to provide evidence if you want me to believe you.
"...science will never explain the nature of love"
Love is not a thing - it is a label we give desirable behaviours of emotions.
@askegg This is not a God of the Gaps Argument and there is no assertion to God if you can present evidence for a first cause, which is what you just admitted to with quantum gravity having to be in place in order for a singularity to exist in the first place. Before you know it, you'll see yourself arguing in circle (fallacy argument). The singularity in itself proves that the Kalam ontological argument holds true!
@777equals666 No. Know one knows where the singularity came from, or quantum foam. You are taking this unknown and calling it "god" - probably the specific god you believe in. Then you claim this isn't a "god of the gaps" argument (which it clearly is). Sorry - you lose.
@askegg If I can show a first cause to the universe then the god of the gaps argument does not apply. (I.E. Kalam Ontological Argument). Once you see yourself arguing in circle trying to figure out the nature of God, you have gone in the wrong direction. The famous fallacy argument of who "created the creator" is an example of this. Infinity doesn't exist in nature so why argue for it?
@askegg There is nothing that has ever come out of Science or the human record for that matter that inhibits the characteristics of infinity. Infinity is man made idea, its an illusion. That is a fact. If you have something to share like a scientific source which negates my claim, you would have my attention and respect for the share?
@777equals666 Actually, what you have shown is the singularity had a cause, but you have no idea if this was "the first cause". You still have your work ahead of you.
Also, if "god" is an entity, then by the same logic used to "prove" Kalam you must also hold that god had a cause. To deny this throws away the first premise and the argument fails.
@askegg The singularity is said to be the point of infinity at which nothing existed before it, yet recent scientific evidence proves that laws (quantum gravity) had to be in place for this singularity to exist in the first place, thus a law maker had to exist to cause the laws into existence that made the singularity. *Case Closed... If you understand that GOD is beyond Space, Time and Matter, than there is no gaps!
@777equals666 An argument from analogy will not fly here. The laws of the universe are not prescriptive, they describe realities innate nature as best we can with the mathematical tools we have. They do not require a "law maker" to write them down.
Moreover, you just made another claim about god's nature (beyond space and time). Do you have any actual evidence this is the case, or just seemingly logical arguments?
@askegg I am just pointing out the philosophical inferences in a design and how the argument is applied in the case of the singularity. I guess we can argue for infinity on this point, but it wont prove infinity is a real phenomenon. All creators are beyond the parameters of their own creations and this logic applies to the Universe. Believe what you want but Science and Philosophy prove GOD. It was real brother! Peace!
@askegg Well as for an eternal universe I can decisively disprove this with the holographic principle and the 2nd law when applied to the horizon of the universe: watch?v=5xqztxP0SJc
As for the initial bit of information that generated the initial four Planck areas of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, that would need to be produced via wave-function collapse, but in the case of the wave-function of the universe this would necessarily have been an Orch-OR collapse: watch?v=sTnnZNNbrUc
@askegg Well no, not by itself, but the holographic principle relates a volume of space to its surface area and that surface area to its entropy. (via S = A/4: S = Entropy, A = Area) So if S = 0, A = 0 also)
Uhhhh, if you deny the big bang your basically a crack pot in the scientific community. Now, something had to bring that tiny spec into being and cause it to expand faster than the speed of light, it was g-d. The god who created it is the same god who chose the jewish people to keep his commandments (the christians n muslims took this same god and twisted his holy torah and added to it). As a non jew you just have to follow 7 of the 10 commandments- namely the last 7, if u do ur in good shape!
God does not come from anywhere, nor does anything preclude him. He is the end all be all, that is why in hebrew- and in the jewish torah- god has no name. Jewish people refer to god as Hashem (literally meaning "the name"). Now, you could grant me that the last 7 of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with g-d, they are just moral/ethical codes. Non-jews just have to follow that and they will have a portion in the world to come. The evidence i have is the torah- 3 mill ppl stood at mt Sinai
If one entity (God) can exist without creation, then the premise of causation fails. Demonstrate that the universe is not one such entity, otherwise I see no need to assume a God - let alone the God of the Jewish people or their cultish offspring the Christians.
@askegg agreed...however i stand by you in that you can not demonstrate that the universe is not eternal for it is in fact eternal...or at least the evidence points that way...furthermore to have something eternal you would need eternity right? if forever exists then that would be god ..because forever is the sum of all that has been...is now...and forever will be=truth or god or higher power..whatever it needs no defintion..it aint christian...but its there forever..indians always knew this
@revahp001 the fact galaxies are getting away from each other and that all of them seem to come from the same direction (the origin of universe), doesnt mean they have been created there, maybe its not even the center of the universe. Maybe the billions of galaxies we see are just coming from a "pack of galaxies" and that there are billions of those packs in the universe. So....there would be like billions of big bang......(even if they are not big bang)
I think what you should consider is that the Bible has never been DISPROVEN!!! Prove to me that your theories are true... well it all comes down to, having faith. You have faith that what you believe is true and I have faith in what I believe that is fair to say is it not?
To the ancient Greeks, Zeus, Apollo, etc. were NOT creator gods. They were part of and evolved with the universe. The Greeks already talked about evolution of species & universe at around 600 BC.
The Greeks said the universe was eternal. They had it right all along. It was the monotheistic Judaism that conjured up a magic creator. Christianity followed suit. They HAD to because they preached ABSOLUTE TRUTH stemming from a creator.
if you're basing God's existance on observable, physical evidence, that is the reason why you believe when you die, you will rot in the ground, and when I die, I will go to heaven, because I have faith.
Faith is believing without clear evidence. All you need is your faith.
Also, you can believe in whatever God(s) you want, or whatever religion you choose, but you really should believe in something...
If you just need faith and no evidence, then why not have faith in any other notion? Face it - you have just enough evidence to convince yourself you presuppositions are correct, but not enough to convince anyone else.
Atheism is not nihilism. Why should I believe in something like a god?
If I were to ask you to make milk from nothing, would you be able to? You would need a cow first. Can you make a cow out of nothing? No, of course you can't. Everything has to be made by something. What made the milk? The cow did. What made the cow? Evolution, probably. What made all these laws of science and such? What made all the elements in the universe? The Big Bang. But what made the big bang? Nothing? Because you cannot make something from nothing. There has to be a God.
by your own logic - the more complex a thing is proves it was created. name the most complex thing that created everything. the answer is god. if u want me to believe that the most complex thing, was not created, your logic is not sound. if yu want me to believe that nothing created god, then its logical that less complex things could also have been.
and yet you use the same logic in saying the universe is eternal, and not created.
couldn't God be eternal? if you think the universe is eternal, and/or created from nothing, is it not possible that the universe was created by God, and God is eternal and/or created from nothing?
god is great. nothing else is needed to be said. but, which theory do you worship? big bang needed fuel, where did it come from? GOD!!! thus god is great.
We do not know the state of the Universe prior to the Planck length, but we are working on it.
If you are going to ask "where did the big bang come from", then at least be honest and ask "where did god come from" or explain why god does not need a creator but everything else does.
Maths shows it was planned? You really have no idea do you?
Cosmology mathematics is a way of describing the universe, which just is the way it it. In your scenario God just is the way he is, yet you refuse to accept the same can be said of the universe itself.
I believed for 20 years but then I did the unbiased research and woke up. So do you think that you have proven something to me by removing the s from god?
i did the research and found that there must me more. you called me a name because i believe in something greater than myself. i did not attack you because you didn't have the faith, you attack because i did. you have the right to disagree, you have the right to call me an idiot, i also have the right to allow you to, and not counter with other insults. thus i will respect your right to disagree.
i'm not sure where deist stand in general, but once motion was started why would it need to be changed if it was planned. we as a people have delusion of control, i can't stop the rain, or create something out of nothingness. all i can do is direct at best, hopefully leave something a little better than i found it. deism is just a way to admit that we are a spec of the smallest debris in the universe. but deist, i'm not sure if i am.
In general a deist does believe in a creator but that the creator put everything on autopilot and isnt involved in our reality whatsoever. When I first woke up from my 20 year Christian drunkenness I was a deist but now Im agnostic.
still by your explanation i still not sure i'm a deist. because if the creator decides to change a course that an action is taking, how would we know it. agnostic does at least have an open mind and thinks for themselves. i find most hardcore atheist to be well below the ave. i.q. but most agnostics to have on ave. a higher i.q.. not to offend anyone. but, i was agnostic when i was in school. "a man to be a man must believe in something greater than themselves." not exact but a close quote.
Well I think there are people of many beliefs with varying IQs. since most religion isnt based on logic but early training. I believe in the possibility of someone/thing greater than me. I mean there are people who tower over me in many aspects. We wont know until dead I guess.
univse (space/time) had a beginning... either this beginnning started from nothing with no intention.... or something out of time.space had an intention to create it. Charles Darwin, himself would even disregard his thory of evolution, as he said "100 yrs from now if u do not find 100s, 1000s, of transitional fossils then to disregard my theory" not ONE transitional fossil has been found and it is stilll being taught in schools which i find horifying!
univse (space/time) had a beginning... either this beginnning started from nothing with no intention.... or something out of time.space had an intention to create it. Charles Darwin, himself would even disregard his thory of evolution, as he said "100 yrs from now if u do not find 100s, 1000s, of transitional fossils then to disregard my theory" not ONE transitional fossil has been found and it is stilll being taught in schools which i find horifying!
1) show the universe had a beginning: Do some research!
2) What kind of intermediate fossils are you expecting to see? I would like to see 1/100th of a wing, 2/100th of a wing, 50/100th of a wing etc if so called evolution took billions of years to take place. I would like to see the octopus with less than 8 legs, or the sea creature with 8 legs that is not an octopus.. the turtle without its shell, the giraffe with a short neck.. or a horse with a long neck.. NEVER found..NEVER will be!
1) The big bang (if that's what you are referring to) traces the universe back to the size of the Planck length, which while being amazingly small is still literally an entire universe away from being nothing. So tell me again - where did the universe begin exactly?
regarding infinite regress again, it amuses me how theists claim a spirit( not of this universe) created ours, ok but even if they had some proof of that, (which they dont,) what is their to say that some such immaterial, mystical, creative force is also not subject to some form of infinite regress? i mean why do material objects alone have to have that problem? the question still needs to be answered what created god, regardless of if it/him/her is made from matter or not?
we have been on this planet a bare blink of the eye and as such our primitive brains cannot comprehend the possibility of infinity, so many people in their minds have to believe in a supreme creator, but ther is nothing at all to state that there has to be one! its just how we think! as richard dawkins points out theists have the problem of inifinite regress, if god exists, what then created him and so on?
i mean as u correctly point out its all well to make an assumption but unless u can back it up its useless! i would b more inclined to blv what theoretical physisists claim (that a multiverse is possible) over what many philosophers and theologians guess at! sir martin rees is a beliver in the multiverse hypothesis, and if it exists it takes a creator out of the equation, no need 4 a god!
good vid mate, i was having this same argument with seanboy360 about how theists say god exists outside of a physical universe but is able to create one from outside it? they claim he,s not material but then how does something not made of matter actually cr8 matter? its all well to say he is beyond our comprehension etc, but theists dont seem to observe the fact that infinity and a multiverse that could have always existed is also beyond r comprehension?
I respect your questioning of the existence of God and here is my response. The reason why we cannot comprehend God is because humans think about everything in relation to time and space. However, God does not fit in either category. He is beyond our comprehension. But since we have the Holy Spirit, which is basically the "counselor" of God and another form of Him, through Him we can understand God. We [Christians] have faith in God. Why? We have experienced Him. Nothing can beat experience. :)
The thought of dying scares me beyond comprehension. Therefore, I have to fight to stay alive for eternity. Even living for a few billion years doesn't seem long enough, because I know that, eventually, I will die. I'm just 17 years of age and I know you guys on this page will think I'm an idiot, or words to that effect, because I desire to be immortal. I believe anything is possible, and I'm not saying that just because I WANT to believe it but because miracles have happened.
I can understand the fear of death. Actually I fear the transition to death - once I am dead it's like before I was born. Remember that?
The big question here is "which god should I believe in and follow to gain a chance at immortal life"? That's a difficult question to answer. What's even more difficult is proving a god exists at all, let alone one in particular.
It certainly is very difficult proving that God/a god exists. However, I have to believe that, if I die, there is a god because I don't want to just rot in my grave.
The Raelians teach eternal life through cloning. that someday we shall be able to transport one's memory into a clone, and you'll just wake up in a new body. Of course they also believe that aliens created us so...;)
While most theists do believe in Creation ex nihilo, you create a false dichotomy - Theists can believe that the world is eternal. Many classical philosophers believed that God was continually causing the universe into being. While this interpretation of God is foreign to most theists (He does not and cannot know you, since we are potential beings and he is a fully actualized being) They nonetheless insist that God exists.
(cont.) and God is the energy beyond the space-time continuim, no 1 can prove the universe and all space-time was just "there" always and/or popped in by itself. no matter what name or personification you think God "only is" God is the energy beyond the space-time continuim.
nice loaded question but i did NOT try to prove any "one God in particular". no 1 can go beyond the universe and prove/disprove these answers. YOUr making these claims, so plz stop trying to shift the burdon of proof. anything beyond space/time is really 1 reality. beyond your brain is the universe; personify/classify it as u will. i believe it based on the logic/evidence.
Actually, I am not making any claims, merely questioning yours. By your own admission you cannot provide any evidence that what you say is true, so why should I believe you?
God is beyond space time and creates the universe eternally. the universe is created, evolves, and is destroyed eternally. its both. btw i didnt see this vid yet just the title and wanted to share that. see my vids for these kinds of "major" questions and answers.
You're asking for proof man. And you should know that if something exists outside of time space and matter, then there is no way to prove that. You can't prove that God exists. But as far as the universe being eternal and always existing..Scientists already agree that the universe is not eternal. Some things that show why the universe is not eternal are the background radiation echo, thermodynamics, the motion of the galaxies. Even stephen hawking agrees that the universe in fact had a beginning
@askegg (cont.) also in "Eastern" religion they knew of nearly everything from atoms to the universe and much in between in percise detail so long ago and no ones has been able to answer how they knew if its not from the supreme authority? this isnt guessing. so its proven its reliability/validity. plz see my eternal religion 1 vid and pt 2 if ur serious about talking/coming to answers on this issue. if not never mind arguing i find is futile
I never understood why the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God when theists are the overwhelming majority. I think it should be the other way around, but I'll bite: When you say "eternal universe", what do you mean? Do you really mean eternal matter and energy? Because the universe isn't really an entity as much as it is the sum of a lot different parts, all of which constantly changes (stars explode, bodies decay, etc.)
"I never understood why the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God when theists are the overwhelming majority"
A) The majority can be wrong.
B) On the question of existence - given the attributes common to gods - it is not possible to prove non-existence.
C) Atheism is the default position.
D) Theists make a positive claim and just like in a court of law if they cannot prove "guilt" than the default position of non-belief (innocence) is assumed.
"the universe isn't really an entity as much as it is the sum of a lot different parts"
What's really interesting is that the "sum" of those parts seems to be zero. The idea of "eternal" implies time, but before the big bang time did not exist. The most common view today, as I understand it, is that there was "something" "before" the big bang - be it a quantum vacuum or whatever. When askegg says "eternal universe" he doesn't mean it has been eternally as it is now.
If space and time had a beginning, then space and time cannot be infinite. So thank you for debunking the claim of an eternal universe. I owe you one.
The universe is composed of more than just space and time. Just because space and time "began" does not disqualify the idea of an eternal universe. Once again, the term "universe" does not mean only the planets and stars and space we see in its current state.
The "universe" refers to all matter, space, and time. Take anything, like planets and stars, and you could break it down to matter, space, and time. And since matter exists in space and time, it would make no sense to say that matter is infinite but space and time are not.
Actually, after reading what I wrote, I want to rephrase something. There is a reciprocal relationship between space and matter, space is essentially based on the positions that two or more substances have to one another. I don't buy the Newtonian view that there could exist space with absolutely no objects. Yet material objects must be extended in some way, which requires space. And since matter is never static, we know that it exists in time.
"the positions that two or more substances have to one another"
And if the matter was, as is theorized, condensed into an infinitely dense spot, there is no space or time. Did what we call matter exist before the big bang? We don't know. As I said, as far as I know, the most we can say at the moment is that there was something. The quantum vacuum hypothesis seems to be favored but without a principle to unify Einstein's physics with quantum mechanics, we don't know.
Intrinsic in the idea of "matter" is the idea of a physical extension. It has height, weight, and placement. This presupposes space. So that automatically precludes the existence of matter before space. So if space began with the Big Bang, then matter had a beginning and therefore matter cannot be finite.
"Intrinsic in the idea of "matter" is the idea of a physical extension"
No. As Einstein showed with E=MC², matter is just energy. The two are interchangeable. Energy does not require space.
"if space began with the Big Bang, then matter had a beginning"
Simply ignoring the concept of an infinitely dense singularity isn't going to mean it's not possible. And as I've said multiple times, you keep applying the current state of the universe to pre-big bang. You need to get off that train.
E=MC2 states that Energy equals MASS x the speed of light. MASS and MATTER are two different things. Energy doesn't require space, but energy is ontologically dependent on objects, since energy is defined as an object's ability to do work. I am applying the principle of contradiction to the pre-big bang state. I'm not going to stop doing that.
Now you're just being stupid. Mass is a unit of measuring matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.
"energy is defined as an object's ability to do work"
It would be more correctly defined as a system's potential to do work. Look, you can disagree with the vast majority of the physics community, I don't care. We don't know for sure, but evidence suggests there was *something* prior to the big bang.
What contradiction? You need to understand that the very laws of physics that you're claiming have been contradicted did not exist before the big bang. Dark matter and dark energy make up about 95% of the universe and we don't have a clue what they are. All we know is they seem to not play by the "rules". You are applying a Newtonian view to a non-Newtonian system and then declaring it must not exist. I'm tired of you. No more responses from me.
(A)The majority can be wrong, but so can the minority.. ever consider that? (B) Sure it is. If I walk into a funeral home and show everyone a corpse as proof that my grandmother doesn't exist, then I have proved that my grandmother does not exist. (C) You take that claim on faith. (D) Would it make you happy if I just said that we deny the non-existence of God? Then we're making a negative claim.
"(A)" Yes, but I'm not the one trying to make a point about the likelihood of a belief based on popular opinion.
"(B)" As stated your grandmother and a god do not share common attributes. If I tell you fairies are real but they are invisible and undetectable by any means other than subjective feelings, there is no way for you to empirically prove me wrong.
"(C)" No, disbelief should be the default position. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
(A) I'm not either. I'm just saying that it is odd the burden of proof is on the overwhelming majority, (B) Or perhaps there's no good argument for the non-existence of God because he exists. And people have put forth such arguments, (C) Disbelief is NOT the default position. When I'm born, I do not have beliefs OR disbeliefs about God. I have no knowledge on the topic and therefore I assert no premises (and yes, saying "God does not exist" is a premise.) (D) Except for your mother.
(A) Then you lack a basic understanding of the concept. Read about it.
(B) What is your good argument for the non-existence of my fairies?
(C) This depends on how you define "disbelief". To be an atheist one does not necessarily have to believe there are no gods. Etymology-wise an atheist is simply one who is without theism, and so babies are atheists. You either believe, or you don't. "X" or "not X".
Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. The burden of proof always lies on the one who alleges, which means the atheist can't escape if s/he claims that God does not exist. Existence is based on what is revealed to us through the external world. We can extrapolate the existence of God through our knowledge of the universe, this doesn't apply to your fairies.
Your definition of "atheism" makes your claim of the "default position" trivially true. But if we define "atheism" as practically everyone else defines it, then we know that it is not the default position. And I never said that I was a Christian.
"if we define "atheism" as practically everyone else defines it"
Everyone else? From Wikipedia: "Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism."
Obviously my definition is quite rare. Or maybe you just don't like it because it doesn't fall into your straw man? You don't get to define me either.
Why use Wikipedia? Did you just edit it? LOL. By your defition, all agnostics and Buddhists are atheists. From dictionary: "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"My fairies are what make dark matter. Dark matter is real, we can't explain it, therefore my fairies are the best explanation.".. speaking of straw men.
Not a straw man, simply an example of how proving non-existence of these supernatural beings is not possible. You cannot prove that I am wrong; it's not your responsibility to do so. Just like a theist, I am putting forth a positive claim, and the burden is on me to provide evidence that fairies really do create dark matter. That is all this demonstrates.
Science cannot answer everything. It does not adress some of lifes most important questions such as. Why are we here, morality, what is our purpose, what happens when we die. God and he bible address all of these issues.
Unicorns and fairy dust address all these issues as well. Making up an answer doesn't automatically mean the answer is correct.
Secular philosophy is nothing new, and addresses all these question just as well, if not better, than religious philosophy. Just because science doesn't attempt to make teleological or moral claims doesn't mean God is the only alternative.
Excellent! I will collect some rocks as my daughter has been an insolent and disobedient little brat (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and frankly I was tired of shaving (Leviticus 21:5). I will get the town to together to deal with the prostitutes (Leviticus 21:9), but if my children survive I can sell them for a tidy sum (Exodus 21:7-10). My wife should get back in her box (1 Corinthians 11:9 & Leviticus 27:1-7).
Another case of people not actually reading into the bible, determining what are metaphors, parrabels etc. Some of those things were meant for a certain group of people at a certain point in time for a certain reason after God had warned them many of times. Then when Jesus came, he wiped away with most of the old laws, such as these things. So no it is not ok stone people sell people etc.
What's really amazing is that over time what are metaphors, parables, etc, changes to fit the modern shifting zeitgeist.
"So no it is not ok stone people sell people etc."
Where specifically does Jesus condemn slave ownership or stoning? And to preempt what I know you'll say, the story in John of the adulteress was added long after the original book was written and probably never happened.
Another example of people who do not understand the bible is this one...At One point in the bible it says that it's ok to own slaves. And yes it does say that... But people do not understand the meaning and language in the bible. When it was talking about slaves back then, slaves were people who could not find work, people would hire them and pay them average money as well. So a slave in the context being used then is equal to if you hired a maid to clean your house and do yard work etc.
You don't understand that apologists lie to you to make you feel better about your archaic book. There were special rules for some slaves, specifically slaves of Hebrew decent. These rules did not apply to slaves taken from other nations and these slaves were not just "like modern maids". These people were slaves in every sense of the word. When the "good book" says you may beat them as long as they don't die after a couple days, the meaning is obvious.
If God exists then he is outside of time space and matter. So the law of cause and effect, and that nothing can come from nothing doesn't apply to God. Sure it sounds like a copp out. But if God is outside of time then these just can't apply. If something did create God then that something would be God instead. More powerful and what not. Then we would ask what every it was that created God....then what created that and so on and so forth.
"If God exists then he is outside of time space and matter"
That's a big "if". Care to provide any evidence it's true?
"If something did create God then that something would be God instead"
That's the point - you have no idea how far the chain goes back, or if the chain exists in the first place. Heck, you don't even know if the god you are worshipping is the god responsible.
Well to you that is a big "IF" for others it's not so big of an "if". Some evidences for the existance of God is the existance of the universe itself! I pointed out the three possible scenerios, and to me the first two are ruled out by scientific and philisophical grounds. Even common sense. Which leaves us with the third option that it was created. Also the life of Jesus Christ is evidence for God, the entire bible etc.
"I pointed out the three possible scenerios, and to me the first two are ruled out by scientific and philisophical grounds"
First off, your whole argument is based off a false trichotomy. There are more possibilities than what you suggest; multiverse, "matrix", etc. Secondly you're wrong about any perceived scientific consensus that your options 1 or 2 are false. Some of the most interesting recent hypotheses suggest it may be a combination of always existing and coming from nothing.
Nothingness is not a term physicists take lightly. Whether nothingness is theoretically possible is still under debate. Concepts such as uncertainty principles and the unstableness of symmetry (nothingness being very symmetrical) suggest that it may not be possible for nothingness to exist. I know of no physicist who claims the universe popped out of nothing.
On the other hand the universe may itself actually be nothing. Evidence suggests that the total energy of the universe may actually be 0.
To actually quote Stephen Hawking: "[T]hat just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity....[I]n a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. One can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter."
The simple fact is that at this point no one knows. And none of your possibilities have been proven wrong or right. As for my stance on the "God" option, I use Occam's razor and come to the same conclusion as Issac Asimov who said, "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
Science does not, in any way, prove God. If anything it shows that God is simply an unnecessary assumption.
You're right, no one knows. Therefor there is a possibility for the God theory. If there is even a possibility of God, heaven and hell etc. and it is as life changing as people say then wouldn't you want to at least look into it.Like to seriously look into it with an open mind and heart.Why do you think that it is ignorance to believe in God?? Of course you can't scientifically prove God, You can't put "God" in a test tube or antyhing like that. But science cannot answer all of lifes questions.
"...and it is as life changing as people say then wouldn't you want to at least look into it?"
It certainly changes people lives, but I have yet to be convinced it does so for the better. Although I don't believe in any deity I have managed not to kill anyone. Matter of fact I believe I am quite highly regarded by those I know, but I will let them be the judge of that.
Listening to atheistic rant proves to me that the world is too screwed-up to have evolved from nothing. --Explain "entropy". Things wind down to nothingness more than they are derived from it by un-natural selection. Prove to me you have humility and I will consider your evidence for "non-diety" influence. The fact that there are so many false gods in contention for "something" suggests that there is only one true ONE. You have no distinction..Your thinking is oblique to any form of objectivity.
microvantastic 3 weeks ago
@microvantastic Entropy is the second law of thermodynamics; Do you know what the first law is? Look it up, as it explicitly states energy cannot be *created*. Opps, there goes your god.
askegg 2 weeks ago 3
You have your faith (in eternal matter/energy) and I have mine in the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus came to validate Yahweh.
theist77 1 month ago
The secnond point you make about which God created teh universe. The answer is obvious - my God did! All the others are wrong.
Just got to decide what to call the creator now.
Silly mistake atheists make - different names don't make different Gods.
The point is a large number of believers beieve in a creator - the name doesn't matter.
The names and religions are details and often details which are confused poorly understood - by atheists and atheists.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup *Your* god? How do you know? I think you’re an epic troll because no one can honestly be this stupid.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
You sound like you look
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Dontcha know..? Pluralism also entertains a myriad of religious faiths. Truth is not a smogasbord. Obviously you're not a Christian: "..Only one name is given whereby one is saved." Believing alone would certainly be enough if there were no counterfeits or imposters in the mix.
A new conscience is the discerning factor & living standard to judge by: 10 laws X atonement= wisdom.
--Nor is Truth is not a cosmic cloud of incantations..like atheism wants you to "believe".
microvantastic 3 weeks ago
Without going through a long exchange - 2 things you should check out - William Craig - explains the proof of God.
Fine tuning of the universe.
Now - you atheist - explain that.
THis 'devise me an experiment' is simply a game.
I could say the same - devise me an experiment to prove there isn't a God.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Just because the universe *looks* fine tuned does not mean it is. You must provide evidence for that. Good luck.
Shifting the burden of prove is a coward’s move.
askegg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@askegg
'Just because the universe *looks* fine tuned does not mean it is.'
Yawn.
''I think you’re an epic troll because no one can honestly be this stupid.''
Bye . . .
vicachcoup 2 months ago
watch?v=kMJfuS70zqY
Check this out
debateyourfaith 3 months ago
here's how it all happens..the universe only seems like it is eternally expanding(for now) then science will find out that it is actually starting to contract upon itself..until it is so compressed that..walla! another big bang. the expansion begins again,lucky,but almost certain conditions will happen and energy will once again go from matter evolved, to ape-people(or whatever it may be next time) talking on youtube about yet again another primitive "godcreation"...all natural see?
xfactorb25222 3 months ago
@xfactorb25222 like the repetitive heartbeat of the universe...no god needed,as far as the big bang is concerned...how did energy begin in the first place?it was just always there..lol. just like if god created everything,who created him? he was just always there right? ;) we're humans,our little brains aren't equipped for the creator of the creator of the creator questions yet.this was eternal universe or god created universe.....back to my bong now..cheers all.
xfactorb25222 3 months ago
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Natural phenomenon like the big bag act in accordance with their inherent nature. We describe the laws of nature using mathematics, but that is not to say there are "laws" which the universe must follow. The singularity acted according to its own nature, and I do not see the need to invoke a spearate causal agent - let alone label it "god" with all the associated baggage that comes with it.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
In that case, lets just say one day an apple falls from an apple tree, then, I ask you this:
Based on our scientific understanding of apples and logic itself , Do you accept that the apple could not of caused itself to fall from the apple tree?
Would you give the same answer?
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal The apple followed the natural and innate laws of the universe, which are our mathematical models of how the universe actually is. The apple didn’t “cause itself” to do anything
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
if that is the case, then How can you say the big bang singularity caused itself to do anything?
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal So what’s your answer? God makes the apple fall from the tree and sparks the big bang? Any answer which answers everything is no answer at all.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
WHOA.You are getting ahead of yourself. I never asked you about what the cause is but whether there is a cause at all. You did not answer my last question. Can you please do so. Why is there an inconsistency with the apple and the singularity?
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal There is no inconsistency. The BB did not “cause itself” to do anything anymore than the apple did. Both followed the innate laws of the universe, they were not guided by some additional force.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
I am confused. If you are saying the BB singularity and the apple did not cause itself to do anything, then How can you also say there was not an outside force that caused it?
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Let me put it this way - if there was an outside force that made the apple fall and spark the BB, then what “force” caused this force? If this “force” did not require a force, then why does the apple and the BB?
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
Well In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don’t need an explanation of explanation (x). If the best explanation always requires an explanation, we’re left with an infinite regress. We would not get the explanation of anything if this were a real scientific requirement. Gravity would be the explanation for the apple falling from the tree and a cause that could not of been natural would essentially be the explanation for the BB singularity.
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Why is gravity (a natural process) a sufficient explanation for the apple falling, yet the BB must have a supernatural explanation?
askegg 3 months ago
@as
Well I did not exactly said it had to be a super natural explanation. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity, which is considered to be all of the universe. Since this was the case. I said it could not have been a natural cause. Therefore you can infer that this cause had to be supernatural ,which is something beyond the universe, based on the previous claim.
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal I agree - the observable universe seems to have “begun” with the BB, but to conclude that there could be no possible natural explanation for this and leap to a supernatural explanation is a massive jump. Note the apple falls from the tree for reasons entire contained within the realm of the natural, and while we may not know what “caused” the BB we DO know that the supernatural has never explained anything.
askegg 3 months ago
@askegg
I am saying the evidence suggests that there could not be a natural explanation. Second, you even said yourself that "the apple falls from the apple tree for reasons entire contained within the realm of the natural". What you are implying is that there is another realm outside of our own that is not natural when it comes to the BB singularity. This is what "supernatural" means: Something beyond the universe.
BreakoutLuceal 3 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal I know what supernatural means - show there IS actually something beyond the natural world. Good luck.
askegg 3 months ago
@LibertyLuvr1969 you can't prove that God doesn't exist just like you can't prove that batman or spiderman don't exist . God does exist but your argument is wrong xD
Gorosu 6 months ago
You have got to be kidding me Corey Hart. Modern science provides us with proof and evidence that the Universe had a beginning in time and space. So to "differentiate" one created by God has a beginning and one(eternal) doesnt. Good thing my 4 year old asked me this the other day or you would have demolished my whole worldview.
jbama21 9 months ago
Creation doesnt even exist, nothing is ever created, matter can only be transformed, so why even think at universe being created? why would universe need to be created when it could simply exist since forever? big bang theory doesnt work, considering that an event (like big bang) could not occur if time itself didn't even exist. If big bang was true,where would it come from, anyways? I'll just stick with eternal universe for now, sounds more plausible and cool :P
Kenoburned 1 year ago
@Kenoburned totally agree EVERYONE should follow Parmenides Poem, that´s the way of truth! check out Pierre Grimes about Parmenides in youtube you will like it...
megustaelpingpong 1 year ago
if i started a rumour, and it began to spread, i bet it would be elabourated so much in a year that it would be totally different! so imagine if someone told an already elaborate story 2000 years ago!
johnnie160 1 year ago
Totally off subject, but this puts a mean twist on Darwinism: Thats if you actually believe in Darwinism being the answer for mankind after watching this clip!
watch?v=moEYqLdupIA
777equals666 1 year ago
Dear Askegg,
Is Empirical Evidence acceptable for the existence for God? Do mathematical truths found nature and the animal kingdom (relative numerosity) acceptable for the existence of GOD? Does God even have to have an official name or religion since the greatest idea of a God is in the realm of a shapeless, formless conscious entity beyond space, time and matter? I just want to know what you are willing to accept as evidence for these questions?
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 "Is Empirical Evidence acceptable for the existence for God?"
Yes.
"Do mathematical truths found nature and the animal kingdom acceptable for the existence of GOD?"
No, they only show maths and animals exist.
"Does God even have to have an official name ...."
Define him how you like - then demonstrate existence.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg
The Kalam Ontological Argument sums up the philosophical inference to a God:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Any System "Closed or Open" that shows Autonomy infers Design. Since the Universe is based on a "closed system" (*Law of Thermodynamics confirms this) we can agree that the Universe is finite (Not Eternal), it had a beginning, a first cause.
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 1) Name one thing that began to exist.
2) The universe did not being at the singularity - the singularity existed first, then expanded into the current universe.
3) Congratulations, you have renamed the universe prior to the BB "god"
4) This in NO WAY demonstrates the god you believe in.
Other than that - good argument. I guess.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg You will be the first person I call when I hear a rebuttal that can even come close to negating the Kalam Ontological Argument, my reference to the laws of thermodynamics (closed system - heat death), quantum gravity in the case of the singularity (first cause to set laws in motion), the philosophical inferences of design in any autonomous system and the empirical evidence found within nature using the Fibonacci numbers. Peace!
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 The universe did not begin in the sense that is sprang from nothing at all. It came from pre-existing matter - quantum foam, a singularity. This is an entire universe away from being nothing.
You may asked what caused that but at the moment we do not know. I will not pretend to know by inserting a deity.
Nature proves nature, not the super-natural.
What does Fibonacci have to do with anything? Using numerology?
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg Humor me? Isn’t quantum gravity (First Cause?) a necessary pre-requisite for the singularity to exist in the first place? I dare not ask you a question that I already know the answer to. Believe, because it feels right, but know that science will never explain the nature of love, because love is supernatural, animals feel it and even nature makes the wind blow to push you in the right direction once in a while...
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 "sn’t quantum gravity (First Cause?) a necessary pre-requisite for the singularity to exist in the first place?"
Sure, but simply asserting your god is responsible for creating quantum foam is not actually an answer - it's just an assertion. You need to provide evidence if you want me to believe you.
"...science will never explain the nature of love"
Love is not a thing - it is a label we give desirable behaviours of emotions.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg This is not a God of the Gaps Argument and there is no assertion to God if you can present evidence for a first cause, which is what you just admitted to with quantum gravity having to be in place in order for a singularity to exist in the first place. Before you know it, you'll see yourself arguing in circle (fallacy argument). The singularity in itself proves that the Kalam ontological argument holds true!
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 No. Know one knows where the singularity came from, or quantum foam. You are taking this unknown and calling it "god" - probably the specific god you believe in. Then you claim this isn't a "god of the gaps" argument (which it clearly is). Sorry - you lose.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg If I can show a first cause to the universe then the god of the gaps argument does not apply. (I.E. Kalam Ontological Argument). Once you see yourself arguing in circle trying to figure out the nature of God, you have gone in the wrong direction. The famous fallacy argument of who "created the creator" is an example of this. Infinity doesn't exist in nature so why argue for it?
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 "Infinity doesn't exist in nature so why argue for it?"
There is another claim you need to provide evidence for.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg There is nothing that has ever come out of Science or the human record for that matter that inhibits the characteristics of infinity. Infinity is man made idea, its an illusion. That is a fact. If you have something to share like a scientific source which negates my claim, you would have my attention and respect for the share?
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 The burden of proof falls on those making the claim.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg I can't prove to you that infinity exist because it has never been proven. But, I can show a first cause to the universe... *Case close...
The ball is in your court. Play it well....
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 Actually, what you have shown is the singularity had a cause, but you have no idea if this was "the first cause". You still have your work ahead of you.
Also, if "god" is an entity, then by the same logic used to "prove" Kalam you must also hold that god had a cause. To deny this throws away the first premise and the argument fails.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg The singularity is said to be the point of infinity at which nothing existed before it, yet recent scientific evidence proves that laws (quantum gravity) had to be in place for this singularity to exist in the first place, thus a law maker had to exist to cause the laws into existence that made the singularity. *Case Closed... If you understand that GOD is beyond Space, Time and Matter, than there is no gaps!
777equals666 1 year ago
@777equals666 An argument from analogy will not fly here. The laws of the universe are not prescriptive, they describe realities innate nature as best we can with the mathematical tools we have. They do not require a "law maker" to write them down.
Moreover, you just made another claim about god's nature (beyond space and time). Do you have any actual evidence this is the case, or just seemingly logical arguments?
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg I am just pointing out the philosophical inferences in a design and how the argument is applied in the case of the singularity. I guess we can argue for infinity on this point, but it wont prove infinity is a real phenomenon. All creators are beyond the parameters of their own creations and this logic applies to the Universe. Believe what you want but Science and Philosophy prove GOD. It was real brother! Peace!
777equals666 1 year ago
@askegg Well as for an eternal universe I can decisively disprove this with the holographic principle and the 2nd law when applied to the horizon of the universe: watch?v=5xqztxP0SJc
As for the initial bit of information that generated the initial four Planck areas of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, that would need to be produced via wave-function collapse, but in the case of the wave-function of the universe this would necessarily have been an Orch-OR collapse: watch?v=sTnnZNNbrUc
JohananRaatz 11 months ago
@JohananRaatz The second law does not state the universe will cease to exist (this would violate the first law), it just stops "working".
askegg 11 months ago
@askegg Well no, not by itself, but the holographic principle relates a volume of space to its surface area and that surface area to its entropy. (via S = A/4: S = Entropy, A = Area) So if S = 0, A = 0 also)
JohananRaatz 11 months ago
the big bang created the earth, god sucks the end....
TheBroom123 1 year ago
When we breathe our last breath, we will will know everything.
NCAstronut 1 year ago
Uhhhh, if you deny the big bang your basically a crack pot in the scientific community. Now, something had to bring that tiny spec into being and cause it to expand faster than the speed of light, it was g-d. The god who created it is the same god who chose the jewish people to keep his commandments (the christians n muslims took this same god and twisted his holy torah and added to it). As a non jew you just have to follow 7 of the 10 commandments- namely the last 7, if u do ur in good shape!
revahp001 1 year ago
What evidence do you have that it was he Jewish God who made it all happen? Where did this God come from?
askegg 1 year ago
God does not come from anywhere, nor does anything preclude him. He is the end all be all, that is why in hebrew- and in the jewish torah- god has no name. Jewish people refer to god as Hashem (literally meaning "the name"). Now, you could grant me that the last 7 of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with g-d, they are just moral/ethical codes. Non-jews just have to follow that and they will have a portion in the world to come. The evidence i have is the torah- 3 mill ppl stood at mt Sinai
revahp001 1 year ago
If one entity (God) can exist without creation, then the premise of causation fails. Demonstrate that the universe is not one such entity, otherwise I see no need to assume a God - let alone the God of the Jewish people or their cultish offspring the Christians.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg agreed...however i stand by you in that you can not demonstrate that the universe is not eternal for it is in fact eternal...or at least the evidence points that way...furthermore to have something eternal you would need eternity right? if forever exists then that would be god ..because forever is the sum of all that has been...is now...and forever will be=truth or god or higher power..whatever it needs no defintion..it aint christian...but its there forever..indians always knew this
arkee71 1 year ago
1 Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2 Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3 A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4 Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. The first cause is god.
Also, because god is not a finite and contingent being he doesnt not need a cause- and nothing precludes him.
The jewish god is the true god- as evidenced by the survival of his ppl n the 3 mill ppl who stood at sinai recieving the torah aftr leavinegyp
revahp001 1 year ago
1. I can agree with that for the sake of argument.
2. Agreed.
3. Why not?
4. If there can be one uncaused cause, then how many others can there be? How would you know?
5. You make an argument for a deist God then simply state the Jewish God is the one true God without any evidence whatsoever. Fail.
askegg 1 year ago
@revahp001 Dude, your "causal chain" can be eternal, maybe we live in an eternal causal chain.
Kenoburned 1 year ago
@revahp001 the fact galaxies are getting away from each other and that all of them seem to come from the same direction (the origin of universe), doesnt mean they have been created there, maybe its not even the center of the universe. Maybe the billions of galaxies we see are just coming from a "pack of galaxies" and that there are billions of those packs in the universe. So....there would be like billions of big bang......(even if they are not big bang)
Kenoburned 1 year ago
I think what you should consider is that the Bible has never been DISPROVEN!!! Prove to me that your theories are true... well it all comes down to, having faith. You have faith that what you believe is true and I have faith in what I believe that is fair to say is it not?
MrWalterSparrow 1 year ago
"You have faith that what you believe is true..."
No - I have evidence.
askegg 1 year ago
God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Noah's flood really happened. The earth is flat. Pi is exactly 3.
All of these things have been disproven conclusively.
rondus18 1 year ago
with all of the self contradictions the bible disproves itself
homer091 1 year ago
To the ancient Greeks, Zeus, Apollo, etc. were NOT creator gods. They were part of and evolved with the universe. The Greeks already talked about evolution of species & universe at around 600 BC.
The Greeks said the universe was eternal. They had it right all along. It was the monotheistic Judaism that conjured up a magic creator. Christianity followed suit. They HAD to because they preached ABSOLUTE TRUTH stemming from a creator.
fatfist 2 years ago
if you're basing God's existance on observable, physical evidence, that is the reason why you believe when you die, you will rot in the ground, and when I die, I will go to heaven, because I have faith.
Faith is believing without clear evidence. All you need is your faith.
Also, you can believe in whatever God(s) you want, or whatever religion you choose, but you really should believe in something...
a4zk42 2 years ago
If you just need faith and no evidence, then why not have faith in any other notion? Face it - you have just enough evidence to convince yourself you presuppositions are correct, but not enough to convince anyone else.
Atheism is not nihilism. Why should I believe in something like a god?
askegg 2 years ago
How can you (et al) stand arguing with these weasels? It doesn't seem to do any good. I'm just embarrassed for them. Nice video btw.
rediband 2 years ago
If I were to ask you to make milk from nothing, would you be able to? You would need a cow first. Can you make a cow out of nothing? No, of course you can't. Everything has to be made by something. What made the milk? The cow did. What made the cow? Evolution, probably. What made all these laws of science and such? What made all the elements in the universe? The Big Bang. But what made the big bang? Nothing? Because you cannot make something from nothing. There has to be a God.
a4zk42 2 years ago
What made god?
askegg 2 years ago
by your own logic - the more complex a thing is proves it was created. name the most complex thing that created everything. the answer is god. if u want me to believe that the most complex thing, was not created, your logic is not sound. if yu want me to believe that nothing created god, then its logical that less complex things could also have been.
RevSpike 2 years ago
and yet you use the same logic in saying the universe is eternal, and not created.
couldn't God be eternal? if you think the universe is eternal, and/or created from nothing, is it not possible that the universe was created by God, and God is eternal and/or created from nothing?
a4zk42 2 years ago
I'm not endorsing either one as logical.
I'm attempting to reiterate the logic that I am told to observe.
At which point do I not understand the logic?
1. Am I asked to see the logic in the idea that because something is complex that it indicates intelligent design?
2. If yes, then does more complexity further indicate this?
3. So it would be logical that the most complex thing was also created this way?
4. If no, then it indicates that less complex things were also not designed.
RevSpike 2 years ago
The word universe is a root word of "universal" or "everything". So the very definition of "universe" means eternal or Universal.
socksumi 2 years ago
god is great. nothing else is needed to be said. but, which theory do you worship? big bang needed fuel, where did it come from? GOD!!! thus god is great.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
We do not know the state of the Universe prior to the Planck length, but we are working on it.
If you are going to ask "where did the big bang come from", then at least be honest and ask "where did god come from" or explain why god does not need a creator but everything else does.
watch?v=PtEqOYkzwoE
askegg 2 years ago
god created all. including all mass and energy. the heavens was his canvas. thus all the math shows it was a planned creation.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
Maths shows it was planned? You really have no idea do you?
Cosmology mathematics is a way of describing the universe, which just is the way it it. In your scenario God just is the way he is, yet you refuse to accept the same can be said of the universe itself.
askegg 2 years ago
Just saying your gods are great isnt proof of anything except your idiocy.
Steadno 2 years ago
not gods. a god. the god of us all. "i am" "lord" "god" or any of the many ways we can use his names to praise him. you believe don't you?
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
I believed for 20 years but then I did the unbiased research and woke up. So do you think that you have proven something to me by removing the s from god?
Steadno 2 years ago
i did the research and found that there must me more. you called me a name because i believe in something greater than myself. i did not attack you because you didn't have the faith, you attack because i did. you have the right to disagree, you have the right to call me an idiot, i also have the right to allow you to, and not counter with other insults. thus i will respect your right to disagree.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
Saying that there is more and narrowing it down to a specific title/religion/faith are two different things. Are you saying that you are a deist?
Steadno 2 years ago
i'm not sure where deist stand in general, but once motion was started why would it need to be changed if it was planned. we as a people have delusion of control, i can't stop the rain, or create something out of nothingness. all i can do is direct at best, hopefully leave something a little better than i found it. deism is just a way to admit that we are a spec of the smallest debris in the universe. but deist, i'm not sure if i am.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
In general a deist does believe in a creator but that the creator put everything on autopilot and isnt involved in our reality whatsoever. When I first woke up from my 20 year Christian drunkenness I was a deist but now Im agnostic.
Steadno 2 years ago
still by your explanation i still not sure i'm a deist. because if the creator decides to change a course that an action is taking, how would we know it. agnostic does at least have an open mind and thinks for themselves. i find most hardcore atheist to be well below the ave. i.q. but most agnostics to have on ave. a higher i.q.. not to offend anyone. but, i was agnostic when i was in school. "a man to be a man must believe in something greater than themselves." not exact but a close quote.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
Well I think there are people of many beliefs with varying IQs. since most religion isnt based on logic but early training. I believe in the possibility of someone/thing greater than me. I mean there are people who tower over me in many aspects. We wont know until dead I guess.
Steadno 2 years ago
Why are god and an eternal universe mutually exclusive? maybe you're not saying that.
coolandcalculated 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
univse (space/time) had a beginning... either this beginnning started from nothing with no intention.... or something out of time.space had an intention to create it. Charles Darwin, himself would even disregard his thory of evolution, as he said "100 yrs from now if u do not find 100s, 1000s, of transitional fossils then to disregard my theory" not ONE transitional fossil has been found and it is stilll being taught in schools which i find horifying!
Tahnz86 2 years ago
univse (space/time) had a beginning... either this beginnning started from nothing with no intention.... or something out of time.space had an intention to create it. Charles Darwin, himself would even disregard his thory of evolution, as he said "100 yrs from now if u do not find 100s, 1000s, of transitional fossils then to disregard my theory" not ONE transitional fossil has been found and it is stilll being taught in schools which i find horifying!
Tahnz86 2 years ago
1) Show the universe had a beginning
2) What kind of intermediate fossils are you expecting to see? Every single fossil we have discovered in inline with evolutionary theory.
askegg 2 years ago
1) show the universe had a beginning: Do some research!
2) What kind of intermediate fossils are you expecting to see? I would like to see 1/100th of a wing, 2/100th of a wing, 50/100th of a wing etc if so called evolution took billions of years to take place. I would like to see the octopus with less than 8 legs, or the sea creature with 8 legs that is not an octopus.. the turtle without its shell, the giraffe with a short neck.. or a horse with a long neck.. NEVER found..NEVER will be!
Tahnz86 2 years ago
1) The big bang (if that's what you are referring to) traces the universe back to the size of the Planck length, which while being amazingly small is still literally an entire universe away from being nothing. So tell me again - where did the universe begin exactly?
2) You ain't looking too hard.
askegg 2 years ago
why would u even post his video if your not skeptical that there really is a god??
It is a fact the universe is not eternal... the
Tahnz86 2 years ago
regarding infinite regress again, it amuses me how theists claim a spirit( not of this universe) created ours, ok but even if they had some proof of that, (which they dont,) what is their to say that some such immaterial, mystical, creative force is also not subject to some form of infinite regress? i mean why do material objects alone have to have that problem? the question still needs to be answered what created god, regardless of if it/him/her is made from matter or not?
daztot 2 years ago
Comment removed
daztot 2 years ago
we have been on this planet a bare blink of the eye and as such our primitive brains cannot comprehend the possibility of infinity, so many people in their minds have to believe in a supreme creator, but ther is nothing at all to state that there has to be one! its just how we think! as richard dawkins points out theists have the problem of inifinite regress, if god exists, what then created him and so on?
daztot 2 years ago
i mean as u correctly point out its all well to make an assumption but unless u can back it up its useless! i would b more inclined to blv what theoretical physisists claim (that a multiverse is possible) over what many philosophers and theologians guess at! sir martin rees is a beliver in the multiverse hypothesis, and if it exists it takes a creator out of the equation, no need 4 a god!
daztot 2 years ago
good vid mate, i was having this same argument with seanboy360 about how theists say god exists outside of a physical universe but is able to create one from outside it? they claim he,s not material but then how does something not made of matter actually cr8 matter? its all well to say he is beyond our comprehension etc, but theists dont seem to observe the fact that infinity and a multiverse that could have always existed is also beyond r comprehension?
daztot 2 years ago
God didn't create anything, he doesn't exist.
Evolution for the win
TheFlST 2 years ago
what created evolution?
bluejaysj 2 years ago
Fallacy, evolution was not created. It is an observable ongoing natural process. Creation is, and always will be, myth.
TheFlST 2 years ago
Exactly!
bluejaysj 2 years ago
Huh?
TheFlST 2 years ago
I respect your questioning of the existence of God and here is my response. The reason why we cannot comprehend God is because humans think about everything in relation to time and space. However, God does not fit in either category. He is beyond our comprehension. But since we have the Holy Spirit, which is basically the "counselor" of God and another form of Him, through Him we can understand God. We [Christians] have faith in God. Why? We have experienced Him. Nothing can beat experience. :)
jihwan12 2 years ago
The thought of dying scares me beyond comprehension. Therefore, I have to fight to stay alive for eternity. Even living for a few billion years doesn't seem long enough, because I know that, eventually, I will die. I'm just 17 years of age and I know you guys on this page will think I'm an idiot, or words to that effect, because I desire to be immortal. I believe anything is possible, and I'm not saying that just because I WANT to believe it but because miracles have happened.
ColinJC1992 2 years ago
I can understand the fear of death. Actually I fear the transition to death - once I am dead it's like before I was born. Remember that?
The big question here is "which god should I believe in and follow to gain a chance at immortal life"? That's a difficult question to answer. What's even more difficult is proving a god exists at all, let alone one in particular.
askegg 2 years ago
It certainly is very difficult proving that God/a god exists. However, I have to believe that, if I die, there is a god because I don't want to just rot in my grave.
ColinJC1992 2 years ago
The Raelians teach eternal life through cloning. that someday we shall be able to transport one's memory into a clone, and you'll just wake up in a new body. Of course they also believe that aliens created us so...;)
coolandcalculated 2 years ago
While most theists do believe in Creation ex nihilo, you create a false dichotomy - Theists can believe that the world is eternal. Many classical philosophers believed that God was continually causing the universe into being. While this interpretation of God is foreign to most theists (He does not and cannot know you, since we are potential beings and he is a fully actualized being) They nonetheless insist that God exists.
kerplunk288 3 years ago
(cont.) and God is the energy beyond the space-time continuim, no 1 can prove the universe and all space-time was just "there" always and/or popped in by itself. no matter what name or personification you think God "only is" God is the energy beyond the space-time continuim.
Playitalready 3 years ago
How many other things exist beyond space and time? How can you be certain of any answer? How does any of this prove any one god in particular?
askegg 3 years ago
nice loaded question but i did NOT try to prove any "one God in particular". no 1 can go beyond the universe and prove/disprove these answers. YOUr making these claims, so plz stop trying to shift the burdon of proof. anything beyond space/time is really 1 reality. beyond your brain is the universe; personify/classify it as u will. i believe it based on the logic/evidence.
Playitalready 3 years ago
Actually, I am not making any claims, merely questioning yours. By your own admission you cannot provide any evidence that what you say is true, so why should I believe you?
askegg 3 years ago
God is beyond space time and creates the universe eternally. the universe is created, evolves, and is destroyed eternally. its both. btw i didnt see this vid yet just the title and wanted to share that. see my vids for these kinds of "major" questions and answers.
Playitalready 3 years ago
1+1= 65 millions
farerse 3 years ago
You're asking for proof man. And you should know that if something exists outside of time space and matter, then there is no way to prove that. You can't prove that God exists. But as far as the universe being eternal and always existing..Scientists already agree that the universe is not eternal. Some things that show why the universe is not eternal are the background radiation echo, thermodynamics, the motion of the galaxies. Even stephen hawking agrees that the universe in fact had a beginning
pricer5 3 years ago
By the same logic you cannot prove god does exist, therefore we are both agnostic on the issue.
Secondly the big bang only goes to the planck length, which is literally a universe away from being nothing. Even Stephen Hawking will tell you that.
askegg 3 years ago
@askegg (cont.) also in "Eastern" religion they knew of nearly everything from atoms to the universe and much in between in percise detail so long ago and no ones has been able to answer how they knew if its not from the supreme authority? this isnt guessing. so its proven its reliability/validity. plz see my eternal religion 1 vid and pt 2 if ur serious about talking/coming to answers on this issue. if not never mind arguing i find is futile
Playitalready 3 years ago
I never understood why the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God when theists are the overwhelming majority. I think it should be the other way around, but I'll bite: When you say "eternal universe", what do you mean? Do you really mean eternal matter and energy? Because the universe isn't really an entity as much as it is the sum of a lot different parts, all of which constantly changes (stars explode, bodies decay, etc.)
pariah1982 3 years ago
"I never understood why the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God when theists are the overwhelming majority"
A) The majority can be wrong.
B) On the question of existence - given the attributes common to gods - it is not possible to prove non-existence.
C) Atheism is the default position.
D) Theists make a positive claim and just like in a court of law if they cannot prove "guilt" than the default position of non-belief (innocence) is assumed.
Drewdood 3 years ago
"the universe isn't really an entity as much as it is the sum of a lot different parts"
What's really interesting is that the "sum" of those parts seems to be zero. The idea of "eternal" implies time, but before the big bang time did not exist. The most common view today, as I understand it, is that there was "something" "before" the big bang - be it a quantum vacuum or whatever. When askegg says "eternal universe" he doesn't mean it has been eternally as it is now.
Drewdood 3 years ago
If space and time had a beginning, then space and time cannot be infinite. So thank you for debunking the claim of an eternal universe. I owe you one.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"If space and time had a beginning..."
The universe is composed of more than just space and time. Just because space and time "began" does not disqualify the idea of an eternal universe. Once again, the term "universe" does not mean only the planets and stars and space we see in its current state.
Drewdood 3 years ago
The "universe" refers to all matter, space, and time. Take anything, like planets and stars, and you could break it down to matter, space, and time. And since matter exists in space and time, it would make no sense to say that matter is infinite but space and time are not.
pariah1982 3 years ago
Actually, after reading what I wrote, I want to rephrase something. There is a reciprocal relationship between space and matter, space is essentially based on the positions that two or more substances have to one another. I don't buy the Newtonian view that there could exist space with absolutely no objects. Yet material objects must be extended in some way, which requires space. And since matter is never static, we know that it exists in time.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"the positions that two or more substances have to one another"
And if the matter was, as is theorized, condensed into an infinitely dense spot, there is no space or time. Did what we call matter exist before the big bang? We don't know. As I said, as far as I know, the most we can say at the moment is that there was something. The quantum vacuum hypothesis seems to be favored but without a principle to unify Einstein's physics with quantum mechanics, we don't know.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Intrinsic in the idea of "matter" is the idea of a physical extension. It has height, weight, and placement. This presupposes space. So that automatically precludes the existence of matter before space. So if space began with the Big Bang, then matter had a beginning and therefore matter cannot be finite.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"Intrinsic in the idea of "matter" is the idea of a physical extension"
No. As Einstein showed with E=MC², matter is just energy. The two are interchangeable. Energy does not require space.
"if space began with the Big Bang, then matter had a beginning"
Simply ignoring the concept of an infinitely dense singularity isn't going to mean it's not possible. And as I've said multiple times, you keep applying the current state of the universe to pre-big bang. You need to get off that train.
Drewdood 3 years ago
E=MC2 states that Energy equals MASS x the speed of light. MASS and MATTER are two different things. Energy doesn't require space, but energy is ontologically dependent on objects, since energy is defined as an object's ability to do work. I am applying the principle of contradiction to the pre-big bang state. I'm not going to stop doing that.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"MASS and MATTER are two different things"
Now you're just being stupid. Mass is a unit of measuring matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.
"energy is defined as an object's ability to do work"
It would be more correctly defined as a system's potential to do work. Look, you can disagree with the vast majority of the physics community, I don't care. We don't know for sure, but evidence suggests there was *something* prior to the big bang.
Drewdood 3 years ago
"I am applying the principle of contradiction"
What contradiction? You need to understand that the very laws of physics that you're claiming have been contradicted did not exist before the big bang. Dark matter and dark energy make up about 95% of the universe and we don't have a clue what they are. All we know is they seem to not play by the "rules". You are applying a Newtonian view to a non-Newtonian system and then declaring it must not exist. I'm tired of you. No more responses from me.
Drewdood 3 years ago
(A)The majority can be wrong, but so can the minority.. ever consider that? (B) Sure it is. If I walk into a funeral home and show everyone a corpse as proof that my grandmother doesn't exist, then I have proved that my grandmother does not exist. (C) You take that claim on faith. (D) Would it make you happy if I just said that we deny the non-existence of God? Then we're making a negative claim.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"(A)" Yes, but I'm not the one trying to make a point about the likelihood of a belief based on popular opinion.
"(B)" As stated your grandmother and a god do not share common attributes. If I tell you fairies are real but they are invisible and undetectable by any means other than subjective feelings, there is no way for you to empirically prove me wrong.
"(C)" No, disbelief should be the default position. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
"(D)" Double negatives make no one happy.
Drewdood 3 years ago
(A) I'm not either. I'm just saying that it is odd the burden of proof is on the overwhelming majority, (B) Or perhaps there's no good argument for the non-existence of God because he exists. And people have put forth such arguments, (C) Disbelief is NOT the default position. When I'm born, I do not have beliefs OR disbeliefs about God. I have no knowledge on the topic and therefore I assert no premises (and yes, saying "God does not exist" is a premise.) (D) Except for your mother.
pariah1982 3 years ago
(A) Then you lack a basic understanding of the concept. Read about it.
(B) What is your good argument for the non-existence of my fairies?
(C) This depends on how you define "disbelief". To be an atheist one does not necessarily have to believe there are no gods. Etymology-wise an atheist is simply one who is without theism, and so babies are atheists. You either believe, or you don't. "X" or "not X".
(D) How Christian of you.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. The burden of proof always lies on the one who alleges, which means the atheist can't escape if s/he claims that God does not exist. Existence is based on what is revealed to us through the external world. We can extrapolate the existence of God through our knowledge of the universe, this doesn't apply to your fairies.
pariah1982 3 years ago
Your definition of "atheism" makes your claim of the "default position" trivially true. But if we define "atheism" as practically everyone else defines it, then we know that it is not the default position. And I never said that I was a Christian.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"if we define "atheism" as practically everyone else defines it"
Everyone else? From Wikipedia: "Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism."
Obviously my definition is quite rare. Or maybe you just don't like it because it doesn't fall into your straw man? You don't get to define me either.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Why use Wikipedia? Did you just edit it? LOL. By your defition, all agnostics and Buddhists are atheists. From dictionary: "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
pariah1982 3 years ago
"Why use Wikipedia?"
These concepts require more than a one line dictionary explanation.
"By your defition, all agnostics and Buddhists are atheists"
Yes, they are. You either believe a proposition (there is a god) or you don't. "X" or "not X".
"From dictionary"
Nice citation. WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University, atheism: "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Dueling dictionaries! Websters has atheism as synonymous with wickedness. You think that's accurate?
Drewdood 3 years ago
"on the one who alleges"
And theists do a lot of alleging.
"if s/he claims that God does not exist"
Which is not a prerequisite of atheism.
"We can extrapolate the existence of God through our knowledge of the universe"
We can extrapolate the existence of the universe through our knowledge of the universe.
"this doesn't apply to your fairies"
My fairies are what make dark matter. Dark matter is real, we can't explain it, therefore my fairies are the best explanation.
Drewdood 3 years ago
"My fairies are what make dark matter. Dark matter is real, we can't explain it, therefore my fairies are the best explanation.".. speaking of straw men.
pariah1982 3 years ago
"speaking of straw men"
Not a straw man, simply an example of how proving non-existence of these supernatural beings is not possible. You cannot prove that I am wrong; it's not your responsibility to do so. Just like a theist, I am putting forth a positive claim, and the burden is on me to provide evidence that fairies really do create dark matter. That is all this demonstrates.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Science cannot answer everything. It does not adress some of lifes most important questions such as. Why are we here, morality, what is our purpose, what happens when we die. God and he bible address all of these issues.
pricer5 3 years ago
"Science cannot answer everything"
No one claims it does.
"God and he bible address all of these issues."
Unicorns and fairy dust address all these issues as well. Making up an answer doesn't automatically mean the answer is correct.
Secular philosophy is nothing new, and addresses all these question just as well, if not better, than religious philosophy. Just because science doesn't attempt to make teleological or moral claims doesn't mean God is the only alternative.
Drewdood 3 years ago
"God and he bible address all of these issues."
Excellent! I will collect some rocks as my daughter has been an insolent and disobedient little brat (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and frankly I was tired of shaving (Leviticus 21:5). I will get the town to together to deal with the prostitutes (Leviticus 21:9), but if my children survive I can sell them for a tidy sum (Exodus 21:7-10). My wife should get back in her box (1 Corinthians 11:9 & Leviticus 27:1-7).
Great morality.
askegg 3 years ago
Another case of people not actually reading into the bible, determining what are metaphors, parrabels etc. Some of those things were meant for a certain group of people at a certain point in time for a certain reason after God had warned them many of times. Then when Jesus came, he wiped away with most of the old laws, such as these things. So no it is not ok stone people sell people etc.
pricer5 3 years ago
"determining what are metaphors, parrabels etc"
What's really amazing is that over time what are metaphors, parables, etc, changes to fit the modern shifting zeitgeist.
"So no it is not ok stone people sell people etc."
Where specifically does Jesus condemn slave ownership or stoning? And to preempt what I know you'll say, the story in John of the adulteress was added long after the original book was written and probably never happened.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Another example of people who do not understand the bible is this one...At One point in the bible it says that it's ok to own slaves. And yes it does say that... But people do not understand the meaning and language in the bible. When it was talking about slaves back then, slaves were people who could not find work, people would hire them and pay them average money as well. So a slave in the context being used then is equal to if you hired a maid to clean your house and do yard work etc.
pricer5 3 years ago
"people do not understand..."
You don't understand that apologists lie to you to make you feel better about your archaic book. There were special rules for some slaves, specifically slaves of Hebrew decent. These rules did not apply to slaves taken from other nations and these slaves were not just "like modern maids". These people were slaves in every sense of the word. When the "good book" says you may beat them as long as they don't die after a couple days, the meaning is obvious.
Drewdood 3 years ago
If God exists then he is outside of time space and matter. So the law of cause and effect, and that nothing can come from nothing doesn't apply to God. Sure it sounds like a copp out. But if God is outside of time then these just can't apply. If something did create God then that something would be God instead. More powerful and what not. Then we would ask what every it was that created God....then what created that and so on and so forth.
pricer5 3 years ago
"If God exists then he is outside of time space and matter"
That's a big "if". Care to provide any evidence it's true?
"If something did create God then that something would be God instead"
That's the point - you have no idea how far the chain goes back, or if the chain exists in the first place. Heck, you don't even know if the god you are worshipping is the god responsible.
askegg 3 years ago
Well to you that is a big "IF" for others it's not so big of an "if". Some evidences for the existance of God is the existance of the universe itself! I pointed out the three possible scenerios, and to me the first two are ruled out by scientific and philisophical grounds. Even common sense. Which leaves us with the third option that it was created. Also the life of Jesus Christ is evidence for God, the entire bible etc.
pricer5 3 years ago
"I pointed out the three possible scenerios, and to me the first two are ruled out by scientific and philisophical grounds"
First off, your whole argument is based off a false trichotomy. There are more possibilities than what you suggest; multiverse, "matrix", etc. Secondly you're wrong about any perceived scientific consensus that your options 1 or 2 are false. Some of the most interesting recent hypotheses suggest it may be a combination of always existing and coming from nothing.
Drewdood 3 years ago
Nothingness is not a term physicists take lightly. Whether nothingness is theoretically possible is still under debate. Concepts such as uncertainty principles and the unstableness of symmetry (nothingness being very symmetrical) suggest that it may not be possible for nothingness to exist. I know of no physicist who claims the universe popped out of nothing.
On the other hand the universe may itself actually be nothing. Evidence suggests that the total energy of the universe may actually be 0.
Drewdood 3 years ago
To actually quote Stephen Hawking: "[T]hat just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity....[I]n a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. One can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter."
Drewdood 3 years ago
The simple fact is that at this point no one knows. And none of your possibilities have been proven wrong or right. As for my stance on the "God" option, I use Occam's razor and come to the same conclusion as Issac Asimov who said, "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
Science does not, in any way, prove God. If anything it shows that God is simply an unnecessary assumption.
Drewdood 3 years ago
You're right, no one knows. Therefor there is a possibility for the God theory. If there is even a possibility of God, heaven and hell etc. and it is as life changing as people say then wouldn't you want to at least look into it.Like to seriously look into it with an open mind and heart.Why do you think that it is ignorance to believe in God?? Of course you can't scientifically prove God, You can't put "God" in a test tube or antyhing like that. But science cannot answer all of lifes questions.
pricer5 3 years ago
"Therefor there is a possibility for the God theory"
No one said there wasn't.
"wouldn't you want to at least look into it"
Why do you assume I haven't?
"Why do you think that it is ignorance to believe in God?"
That's not what I said. I said you use God as an answer to your ignorance, and that is a logical fallacy.
"you can't scientifically prove God"
Science is designed to measure anything that has an effect. Does God have an effect?
Drewdood 3 years ago
"...and it is as life changing as people say then wouldn't you want to at least look into it?"
It certainly changes people lives, but I have yet to be convinced it does so for the better. Although I don't believe in any deity I have managed not to kill anyone. Matter of fact I believe I am quite highly regarded by those I know, but I will let them be the judge of that.
God is unnecessary for a moral existence.
askegg 3 years ago