A question to atheists.

[alwight]

That is a good question.
If energy is eternal, is it also possible that 'eternal energy' has intelligence, omniscience?

Occam's razor will deal with that idea.

 

[6days]

Occam's razor will deal with that idea.

I think if you really apply that principle to your 'eternal energy' you hypothesized, you would follow the evidence to an omnipotent and omniscient Creator.

Andrew Flew, who at one time was the worlds most prominent atheist followed the evidence, even though it lead him where he did not want to go. He said "I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

 

[musterion]

Why shouldn't energy/matter be eternal if you think God is?

Why do you extrapolate from inside our matter/space/time "box," which limits our perceptions, to outside of it in an effort to tie God to His creation?

In order to create "the box," He would have to exist before, above, beyond, independent of and unrestricted by the box.

When you view God in that light - which is to say, the biblically correct light - your question becomes worse than moot. It is illogical.

 

[Tyrathca]

That is a good question.
If energy is eternal, is it also possible that 'eternal energy' has intelligence, omniscience?

Sure, it's also possible that this energy wears a tutu, love chocolate but doesn't know how to make it, had the intelligence of a five year old (which would fit the bible now that I mention it...), is omniscient except for my pin number and has a child called Steve (who doesn't call anymore).

OR

We should stop inventing additional attributes to something for no reason. My ramblings however silly are just as well supported by argument as yours so far.

 

[musterion]

What does the word 'begin' mean when applied to the universe as a four dimensional structure?

You're limited by the "box" that limits us all, and that limitation restricts your ability to properly frame your questions, even as mere hypotheticals.

Here: accept just for a moment that the God of the Bible exists and did exactly what the Genesis account records. Question: what does that account tell us about the nature of God Himself and of the realm (for lack of a better word) which He inhabits?

Answer: Nothing, really, except that He is not inside nor bound by the "box" in which He created us. He can operate within it whenever and however He chooses but He Himself is, and indeed must be, "something else" and must exist "somewhere else."

Time is a feature of the universe

Yes it is, but that helps make my point. As far as we can know, time is a feature only of the box which we inhabit. Atheists have no rational justification to insist nothing exists outside of the box, much less to extrapolate from what happens INSIDE the box to what may take place OUTSIDE of it.

 

[alwight]

I think if you really apply that principle to your 'eternal energy' you hypothesized, you would follow the evidence to an omnipotent and omniscient Creator.

You might perhaps but I see no particular reason to suppose that any man made doctrine based gods are likely to be true.

Andrew Flew, who at one time was the worlds most prominent atheist followed the evidence, even though it lead him where he did not want to go. He said "I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

Good for Andrew Flew then but becoming a deist late in life is one thing while adopting Christianity is something else never mind a literal adherence to Genesis.

 

[musterion]

Quantum physics says that's not true (it true only at our macroscopic level under present conditions which we experience)

Translation: according to hypotheses based only on what we are able to observe from within the box, which do not and cannot reflect what lies OUTSIDE of it or which took place BEFORE it.

It is unknown whether this is true. We could be in an infinite repetition of universes before us from which we formed.

Convenient, lazy nonsense designed to avoid the First Cause question.

Or we could be in an infinite causal loop.

Still avoids First Cause. You've watched too much ST:TNG.

Or it could be a misleading statement much like asking what is north of the north pole. Or.... I could keep positing alternatives.

You do that, but your alternatives are literally, technically stupid ["without thought"] because they're all in-box questions that seek to explain the box. They can't explain it; the absolute best they can do is describe observable aspects of it. At worst they're speculative fantasies designed to ignore God.

You'd rather give the box credit for creating itself than credit to God. That's right out of Romans ch. 1.

The point is we don't know whether the universe began,

Yes we do. It's here and it's gradually winding down, so it had to come into existence at some point in the past. Your posited eternality of the space/time/matter/energy box is not science, it's pagan religion.

we merely know that within our universes past was a singularity.

No we don't.

Or the universe itself is the first uncaused cause / prime mover / whatever you want to call it.

Matter and energy calling themselves into orderly existence from non-existence? How long have you been a pagan?

Or there was no first cause....

If it exists, there was a cause.

I don't know and neither do you, despite how confidence you may have in your special feeling / faith / whatever.

My faith in what the Bible says is more reasonable and in-line with observable box science than any of the heathen swamp fever hallucinations you just posted.

 

[Tyrathca]

If it exists, there was a cause.

To borrow an argument from someone you may know that argument of yours is according to hypotheses based only on what we are able to observe from within the box, which do not and cannot reflect what lies OUTSIDE of it or which took place BEFORE it.

I actually think it works better on your argument than mine...

My faith in what the Bible says is more reasonable and in-line with observable box science than any of the heathen swamp fever hallucinations you just posted.

And yet you didn't actually say why any of my heathen swamp fever hallucinations aren't possible. My argument was simply that there are many possible explanations and we know exactly nothing to tell us which are true, not that I actually believe any. A good rebuttal would be why a god is the only possible explanation (but remember not to use hypotheses based only on what we are able to observe from within the box, such as first causes )

 

[gcthomas]

Yes it is, but that helps make my point. As far as we can know, time is a feature only of the box which we inhabit..

So my question about what existence before the universe could possibly mean in this case still stands, since 'before' has no meaning here.

Atheists have no rational justification to insist nothing exists outside of the box, much less to extrapolate from what happens INSIDE the box to what may take place OUTSIDE of it.

Of course, and no rational atheist would insist on such a thing.

But then again, I am happy to insist that neither you nor I have the evidence to make any firm claim on anything alleged to be 'outside' the universe. Your own extrapolations are entirely unjustified, and are based on nothing more than a wish that what you'd like to be true was indeed true.

 

[musterion]

To borrow an argument from someone you may know that argument of yours is according to hypotheses based only on what we are able to observe from within the box, which do not and cannot reflect what lies OUTSIDE of it or which took place BEFORE it.

I actually think it works better on your argument than mine...

Nope. Mine aligns with what God's Word says as well as observable science. Something can't come from nothing, and something can't call itself into existence from nothing. Period.

And yet you didn't actually say why any of my heathen swamp fever hallucinations aren't possible.

Yes I did. You assume the box is eternal and/or self-creating, because it's all you CAN assume.

My argument was simply that there are many possible explanations

Random self-creation and eternality of the box are not possible. Observable science not only does not support either, but denies them. To believe that is to be more religious than I am.

and we know exactly nothing to tell us which are true

The Bible does. Someday you'll acknowledge that.

not that I actually believe any.

Then what do you believe?

A good rebuttal would be why a god is the only possible explanation

Because the box -- carefully balanced and ordered, from planetary orbits down to atoms -- can't exist without someone outside the box putting it together from scratch and designing it to do exactly what it does.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. Mine aligns with what God's Word says as well as observable science. Something can't come from nothing, and something can't call itself into existence from nothing. Period.

Umm, quantum physics says you're wrong.

Yes I did. You assume the box is eternal and/or self-creating, because it's all you CAN assume.

No, he assumes that the 'box' may be eternal or self-creating. There is a difference.

Random self-creation and eternality of the box are not possible. Observable science not only does not support either, but denies them.

The current cosmological creation theory is called Chaotic Eternal Inflation. Look it up: seems you're wrong again.

Because the box -- carefully balanced and ordered, from planetary orbits down to atoms -- can't exist without someone outside the box putting it together from scratch to do exactly what it does.

The box is not its contents. How can you not get that? Tell me why the universe as the whole of space-time itself must follow the same rules as those objects subject to the internal rules of that space-time?

That is just a self-serving extrapolation.

 

[musterion]

So my question about what existence before the universe could possibly mean in this case still stands, since 'before' has no meaning here.

It does, but only if one makes God the starting point. Your alternative first cause is either an unexplained pre-existing chaos, an eternal regression of prior universes, or nothingness. To believe any of those came to be The Box without an intelligent first cause is insane. They are far less in line with our observable science than the Genesis account.

Of course, and no rational atheist would insist on such a thing.

Then there's no such thing as a rational atheist because they all say a Creator was unnecessary. That's what an atheist is, genius.

But then again, I am happy to insist that neither you nor I have the evidence to make any firm claim on anything alleged to be 'outside' the universe.

I do. God gave it to us -- to you as much as He did to me. Someday you'll accept it as fact.

Your own extrapolations are entirely unjustified

Unjustified according to what measure?

and are based on nothing more than a wish that what you'd like to be true was indeed true.

Oh, now I see what measure: according to what YOU want to be true. Got it.

 

[gcthomas]

It does, but only if one makes God the starting point. Your alternative first cause is either an unexplained pre-existing chaos, an eternal regression of prior universes, or nothingness. To believe any of those came to be The Box without an intelligent first cause is insane. They are far less in line with our observable science than the Genesis account.

So if I were to choose between as unexplained, uniform chaos as a first cause, or an un-caused yet infinitely complex being, Occams's razor says choose the first.

If a simpler set of assumptions explains the evidence that it is rather foolish to choose the one with the most complexity and so missing answers. Only the theists suggest that the existence God doesn't need a reason. No reason at all.

(And you still haven't thought carefully about the problem with your confusion about the nature of time - you used the phrase 'first cause' again, but that is only necessary of there was a time when the universe didn't exist, followed by a creation event. And since time in internal to the universe the concept of a pre-universe time is meaningless. You ought to give this time issue more consideration.)

 

[musterion]

Umm, quantum physics says you're wrong.

No it doesn't. You like Star Trek, right? Sure you do. "Nothing unreal exists." That's true. Nothing that doesn't exist is just that -- nothing. Nothing can't turn itself into Something because...it's nothing. It isn't real.

No, he assumes that the 'box' may be eternal or self-creating. There is a difference.

No, he believes that it must be because the only alternative - God - is unacceptable.

The current cosmological creation theory is called Chaotic Eternal Inflation. Look it up: seems you're wrong again.

You're not getting it. Human theories are just that - theories. They are theoretical. No, they're hypothetical because they can't be adequately tested and falsified. They cannot extend outside the Box.

God says He did it Himself. Someday you'll accept that fact.

The box is not its contents.

Who said it was?

Try this on for size.

You know the universe? At least as much as we can know of it?

Where'd the space come from that contains the universe? Where is that space, and why does that space even exist?

No possible in-box observation or hypothesis can explain that, yet you'll insist from inside the box that God does not exist outside of it.

Tell me why the universe, as the whole of space-time itself, must follow the same rules as those objects subject to the internal rules of that space-time?

Come with me back outside of the box for just a second.

We agree the box exists. Why does the box even exist? It's orderly...why is it orderly? It's balanced...why is it balanced?

You'll say, "Yeah, it exists. Yeah, it's pretty balanced and orderly, cool, BUT THAT DOES NOT DEMAND GOD MADE IT."

When you say that, you're not even extrapolating from within the box to outside of it. What you're doing is far worse because you're not even extrapolating from observable fact (there's no observable fact that indicates God does not, cannot or doesn't need to exist). No, what you're doing is spouting off hypotheses that can know and test NOTHING of outside and before the box, and pretending they inform you of what DID NOT EXIST OUTSIDE AND BEFORE THE BOX...namely, God.

That's very anti-science, anti-rational, anti-logic. It's stupid at best and insane at worst.

 

[musterion]

So if I were to choose between as unexplained, uniform chaos as a first cause, or an un-caused yet infinitely complex being, Occams's razor says choose the first.

No it doesn't, because "Nothing unreal exists." Chaos is not order; it is the absence of order. What you propose amounts to saying "Something unreal DID exist." It's idiotic.

And not only is it idiotic. It still doesn't address the question of where the chaos came from or why and how it managed to pull itself into order. You don't care about that of course...you'll cite any absurd hypothesis that comes down the line that denies any God outside of the box.

If a simpler set of assumptions explains the evidence that it is rather foolish to choose the one with the most complexity and so missing answers. Only the theists suggest that the existence God doesn't need a reason. No reason at all.

A Creator the most complex possibility? You can't hope to explain eternality of matter or infinite regression of universes or chaos turning itself into order, and YOU want to complain about foolish and complex assumptions?

As to missing answers...yes. God did not tell us HOW. He only told us WHAT. And there is nothing in our observable science that has EVER contradicted the basic premise of that what.

(And you still haven't thought carefully about the problem with your confusion about the nature of time - you used the phrase 'first cause' again, but that is only necessary of there was a time when the universe didn't exist, followed by a creation event.

It's simply an accommodation to the limits of our conceptual ability and our abilities to express it, nothing more. Don't read more into it than is there.

And since time in internal to the universe the concept of a pre-universe time is meaningless. You ought to give this time issue more consideration.)

I don't need to. If our matter/space/energy/time box was called into existence, and it had to have been even if you reject Genesis, then the use of "before creation" is, again, simply an accommodation to that which we cannot even conceptualize, but which nonetheless was. I'm humble enough to admit that.

 

[gcthomas]

You're not getting it. Human theories are just that - theories. They are theoretical. No, they're hypothetical because they can't be adequately tested and falsified. They cannot extend outside the Box.

God says He did it Himself. Someday you'll accept that fact.

Not necessarily true - YOU SAY that God says such and such. It is just a human theory, and a theory with no theoretical or empirical support. It cannot be tested or falsified in your eyes. Why do you cling to it?

 

[musterion]

Not necessarily true - YOU SAY that God says such and such. It is just a human theory, and a theory with no theoretical or empirical support. It cannot be tested or falsified in your eyes. Why do you cling to it?

Good question. Answer: Because there we must get into the proofs for the veracity and reliability of the Scriptures. If it weren't for that, I would not be here.

But since you no doubt have been exposed to such evidence and have already rejected it, I won't belabor it here.

 

[gcthomas]

Good question. Answer: Because there we must get into the proofs for the veracity and reliability of the Scriptures. If it weren't for that, I would not be here.

But since you no doubt have been exposed to such evidence and have already rejected it, I won't belabor it here.

The are no proofs of the veracity of scripture, only human opinions and theories. You don't have access to infallible truths, so you can't claim a special status for your faith.

 

[Hedshaker]

Your avoidance dance is clumsy and toddlerlike.

That's it? That's your rebuttal? I show you clearly how the Kalam argument is deeply flawed and all you can do to save face is come up with a bunch nonsense like that?

 

[6days]

*Sure, it's also possible that this energy wears a tutu...

There is no evidence of such a thing. However there is evidence and logic that says an uncaused cause, caused everything. And there is lots of evidence that suggests the cause had unlimited power and intelligence.*