# Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 10, 2021)

Science admits there's much it doesn't know.  That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.

Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


Standard 'God of the Gaps' arguments.  We don't know or can't explain it so it must have been God.  The argument also assumes that if there is a creator he must be the same God as in the OT/NT.  Every religion has creation myths and there is no link between the creator and God beyond some meaningless semantic argument (e.g., in English they are considered synonyms).


----------



## occupied (Jan 10, 2021)

If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe. That alone would make God nothing like any religion says he is and his existence an unanswerable and therefore meaningless question.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Jan 10, 2021)

It is always been so. When something can't quite be answered scientifically YET..well it must be God. When the day time sun went dark every now and then it was universally believed it was a sign from God, until astronomy eventually explained it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 10, 2021)

*NO!*


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


There are no first principles of logic that support claims to supernaturalism.

Metaphysics may suggest anything you want because ultimately there is no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not.

Metaphysics is the sacred cow of ID'iot creationer ministries because magic and supernaturalism is not a of science. Metaphysics is as useful as tarot card reading when introduced into the realm of science. It produces nothing of any real utility for investigating the natural world and ultimately, no requirement for 'philosophical' arguments to be true or factual.

By way of example, the Disco'tutes' definition of ID'iot creationism is ''metaphysical''.  Their FAQ answering questions about ID:


> "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''



Evolutionary theory, for one example, is a theory consistent with the scientific method analyzing data. It is not a philosophically as is metaphysics or a religion.

Getting your limited knowledge of science from cut and paste youtube videos is a mistake.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .
> ...


How did the big bang, happen?  How did a bunch of cells suddenly evolve into sapient creatures of thought, without any intelligent design?  If there was none, then we would all look like a Picasso painting.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

Mac1958 said:


> Science admits there's much it doesn't know.  That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.
> 
> Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.



Speak for yourself.  I know God exists.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...





alang1216 said:


> Standard 'God of the Gaps' arguments.  We don't know or can't explain it so it must have been God.  The argument also assumes that if there is a creator he must be the same God as in the OT/NT.  Every religion has creation myths and there is no link between the creator and God beyond some meaningless semantic argument (e.g., in English they are considered synonyms).



Standard atheist in the gaps slogan speak.   The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be.  Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable.  An actual infinite does not and cannot exist.  The physical world began to exist in the finite past.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Getting your limited knowledge of science from cut and paste youtube videos is a mistake.



You don't fly anywhere near my altitude of learning in the pertinent sciences.  Not even close.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

occupied said:


> If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe. That alone would make God nothing like any religion says he is and his existence an unanswerable and therefore meaningless question.



Baby talk.  Classic theism asserts no such thing.  Where did you get your degree in religious studies?  From the School of Hackneyed Slogan Speak?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> *NO!*



*Yes!*


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> It is always been so. When something can't quite be answered scientifically YET..well it must be God. When the day time sun went dark every now and then it was universally believed it was a sign from God, until astronomy eventually explained it.



Pseudoscientific gibberish.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Did you know i was agreeing with you?  That there must be intelligent design, because babies are not just a bunch of cells that randomly come together.....


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


There was no big bang. There was no explosion. The Ill-named "Big Bang" refers to the expansion of universe, not a literal explosion. The idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption in time and space followed by expansion of the universe.

Contrary to the indoctrination you received at your ID'iot creationer ministries, biochemistry is not a ''chance'', occurrence. It inevitably produces complex products.  Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space. The major elements of life are abundant in the universe and there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

The ramifications of the first principles of magic, supernaturalism and metaphysics tells us that ID'iot creationers will invoke magic and supernaturalism to account for their gods but that suggests a plethora of gods.

How did your gods and all the other gods come into existence? What was the first cause of the gods?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Getting your limited knowledge of science from cut and paste youtube videos is a mistake.
> ...


I certainly don't fly at your altitude of learning which is a low, thick fog. 

It seems you're little more than a YouTube groupie so you might want to be silent and learn.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


So who caused the universe in the first place then?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



I have no reason to accept any ''who'' caused the expansion. 

It might have been Amun Ra.  Borrowing an argument from the hyper-religious: "can you disprove it''?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Standard 'God of the Gaps' arguments.  We don't know or can't explain it so it must have been God.  The argument also assumes that if there is a creator he must be the same God as in the OT/NT.  Every religion has creation myths and there is no link between the creator and God beyond some meaningless semantic argument (e.g., in English they are considered synonyms).



Standard atheist in the gaps slogan speak. The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be. Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable. An actual infinite does not and cannot exist. The physical world began to exist in the finite past.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 10, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> Did you know i was agreeing with you?  That there must be intelligent design, because babies are not just a bunch of cells that randomly come together.....



That post wasn't intended for you.  I was trying to isolate alang's post.  Disregard.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Science admits there's much it doesn't know.  That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.
> ...


If you say so.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be.


No they don't.  Not even close.



Ringtone said:


> Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable.


So man is never wrong?  Every religion is true?



Ringtone said:


> The physical world began to exist in the finite past.


Again, you don't know this.  You already believe God is eternal.


----------



## Briss (Jan 11, 2021)

The whole argument boils down to the question:  Does matter spring forth from consciousness, or does consciousness spring forth from matter?  Which seems more likely?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Mac1958 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



So you don't believe the imperatives of logic, physics and cosmology are true?


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I don't claim to know where we came from.

I doubt that I will during my lifetime, and I can live with that.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Briss said:


> The whole argument boils down to the question:  Does matter spring forth from consciousness, or does consciousness spring forth from matter?  Which seems more likely?



Logic and physics tells us that the physical world began to exist in the finite past.  An actual infinite is an absurdity.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Mac1958 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



No!  This nonsense about you not knowing comes down to you not believing that these imperatives are true.  An actual infinite is an absurdity.  More to the point, the ramifications of the logical and mathematical imperatives of both metaphysics and physics are self-evident.  The principles of eternalism and sufficient causation are self-evident.  The physical world (nature) did not cause itself to exist before it existed.  That's patently absurd on the very face of it.  I don't believe in magic.  You apparently do.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> An actual infinite is an absurdity.


Why so?  Does space have a boundary of is it infinite?  Didn't the laws of nature exist before our universe and our universe created within the existing laws of nature?  Was there ever a time or place where 1 + 1 did not equal 2?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *NO!*
> ...





Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”


----------



## Hollie (Jan 11, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be.





alang1216 said:


> No they don't.  Not even close.





Ringtone said:


> So you believe in magic?


____________


Ringtone said:


> Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable.





alang1216 said:


> So man is never wrong?  Every religion is true?





Ringtone said:


> LOL!  The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics ultimately go to the universally _objective_ principles of eternalism and sufficient causation, not to mere opinion.
> 
> They are always affirmed.  They are never falsified.
> 
> ...


___________


Ringtone said:


> The physical world began to exist in the finite past.





alang1216 said:


> Again, you don't know this.





Ringtone said:


> Yes, I do, because the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell me it's true.  An actual infinity is an absurdity.  Hello!  _Knock Knock_  Anybody home?





alang1216 said:


> You already believe God is eternal.





Ringtone said:


> Behold the unwitting circularity of the atheist's mindset or that of the so-called agnostic who doesn't grasp the ultimate ramifications of logic and mathematics regarding origins.  No, *alang*!  Because you've been spouting slogans all of your unexamined life, rather than thinking things through, You have the order of _rational_ apprehension backwards!  The necessary principles of eternalism and sufficient causation precede the conclusion that God—i.e., an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial, immutable being of incomparable greatness—must be.
> 
> When you imply that God, who by definition, mind you, _is_ necessarily an eternal being, is _not_ necessarily an eternal being:  are you saying that existence came into existence sans a sufficient cause, i.e., that it caused itself to exist before it existed?
> 
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 11, 2021)

It seems there is agreement that when one understands the ramifications of the first principles of fear and superstition, there is no reason to believe in any of the currently configured gods.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> An actual infinite is an absurdity.





alang1216 said:


> Why so?  Does space have a boundary of is it infinite?



You need to rewrite the second question.  I'm not sure what you're asking, but it doesn't seem that you understand what an actual infinite would be.  Only potential infinities exist.  God is not the concept of an actual infinite either, by the way.

What is the numeric value of infinity, precisely, in terms of mathematics and magnitude?

_crickets chirping_

If you really want to understand these things, read my refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's nonsense:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion .  You must have a Youtube account and sign in before clicking on the link.



alang1216 said:


> Didn't the laws of nature exist before our universe and our universe created within the existing laws of nature?



The laws of logic and mathematics are incontrovertibly true, but you don't believe that . . . except when you unwittingly do, when you assert anything intelligible, that is, anything discernibly true or false.  The laws of logic and mathematics tell us that the laws of physics existed prior to the existence of nature.  The physical world was created in accordance to and is bound by the preexistent laws of physics.  _Created within_ may be interpreted to mean something nonsensical or absurd.



alang1216 said:


> Was there ever a time or place where 1 + 1 did not equal 2?



No.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Hollie, you pedantic nitwit,  Prager knows that the term commonly used by laymen and scientists alike, by the way,  regarding inflationary theory is not literally descriptive.  LOL!  And the Bible most certainly does assert _creatio ex nihilo_.  You're such a ditz.  Are you a blond? 

Hollie


----------



## Hollie (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh, dear. It seems your feelings are hurt. If Prager knew the terms he was using, he would know enough to use the correct term. You and he both are quite unschooled in the sciences so it’s not surprising that you defended his ignorance. You both share a lack of education in the sciences. That’s not unusual for the angry, self-hating Bible thumpers.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm sorry, Hollie, but I just can't be seen talking to you anymore.  You're just too obliviously  unhinged and stupid.  It's embarrassing.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 11, 2021)

IMO no it does not suggest the existence or lack of existence of any of the Gods humans have believed in.

But I did ask mother nature that very question.  She said nothing and just looked at me with those devine/evil eyes and half-smiled.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Yes, do run along. Your schoolboy antics prevent you from participating in any meaningful way.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > An actual infinite is an absurdity.
> ...


Does space have a boundary or is it infinite?

Infinity is a concept, it has no actual or numeric value.

Instead of trying to insult me why don't you explain how the laws of logic and mathematics point to God.  Please use small words and show your work.  Thanks.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 11, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> How did the big bang, happen



After they realized the universe was expanded at an exponential rate in different directions, somebody voiced the concept "Hey where the fuck is it all coming from?" and poof a theory was born.



andaronjim said:


> How did a bunch of cells suddenly evolve into sapient creatures of though



Which theory says it was sudden?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Infinity is a concept, it has no actual or numeric value.



Correct.  More precisely, infinity, in this sense, goes to quantity, not quality.  It goes to the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.



alang1216 said:


> Does space have a boundary or is it infinite?



Assuming I know what you mean by _space_, it's not actually infinite, and we know from observation and the prevailing dynamics of physics that it's currently expanding, indeed, currently, at an exponentially accelerating rate toward a state of absolute entropy, or "heat death."  So, yes, it has a boundary, currently, of growing proportions.



alang1216 said:


> Instead of trying to insult me why don't you explain how the laws of logic and mathematics point to God.  Please use small words and show your work.  Thanks.



I'm not insulting you.  On the contrary, I assume you can understand the matter, and I gave you a link to my own work.  Do you have a Youtube account?

By the way, from what source does Ehrman get this notion that only three people (human beings) witnessed the resurrected Christ?  See link:  The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 11, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> . . .


Oh, by the way, I get into the details regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities beginning at Part XI of the refutation.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Infinity is a concept, it has no actual or numeric value.
> ...


If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space?  If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.

I appreciate the link, I really do, but I'm way too paranoid to subscribe to your channel.  You seem fine and normal but hey, this is the internet.

Ehrman is a scholar who has written many books, some of which I've read and highly recommend.  The evidence he cites is way too deep for me to attempt to summarize, you'll need an understanding of textual criticism to find your answers.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space?  If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.
> 
> I appreciate the link, I really do, but I'm way too paranoid to subscribe to your channel.  You seem fine and normal but hey, this is the internet.
> 
> Ehrman is a scholar who has written many books, some of which I've read and highly recommend.  The evidence he cites is way too deep for me to attempt to summarize, you'll need an understanding of textual criticism to find your answers.



An actual infinity cannot exist.

I've studied textual criticism.  You still haven't told me why _you_ believe Ehrman's count of three is true.  What is his source?  It cannot be the Bible, as it specifically names 17 witnesses, including Paul, of the resurrected Christ and 500+ unnamed followers who witnessed the resurrected Christ at a gathering, which probably included all of the original 16, prior to his ascension.


----------



## Briss (Jan 15, 2021)

What is the universe expanding _into_?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space?  If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.
> ...


Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it.  Curious...

The only source is the Bible of course but, unless you are a Biblical literalist, the Bible is a compendium of oral histories passed down for decades. Like the game telephone, the story gets changed with every telling. Ehrman has dissected the stories to parse what is original and what was added later.  You may or may not agree with him but his interpretation rings true to me.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?*




ABSOLUTELY.  Contrary to athiest argument, God and science are not mutually exclusive.  They don't want to admit it, but science both predicts, confirms and demands that there be a God.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it.  Curious...
> 
> The only source is the Bible of course but, unless you are a Biblical literalist, the Bible is a compendium of oral histories passed down for decades. Like the game telephone, the story gets changed with every telling. Ehrman has dissected the stories to parse what is original and what was added later.  You may or may not agree with him but his interpretation rings true to me.



So says the worldview of historical naturalism, which, by the way, is the minority view of biblical scholarship and circularly begs the question.  The only aspect of the Bible that's strictly that of oral tradition is Genesis.   And the written tradition of the New Testament is demonstrably concurrent to the historical events described.  Actually, I'm familiar with Ehrman and his reasoning.  He proceeds from naturalism; i.e., he holds that miracles are not possible.  For example, water cannot be turned into wine, people cannot walk on water, persons cannot be raised from the dead and so on. . . .

Why?

Because, of course, God does not exist in the first place, so it was all made up or imagined, including the mass hallucination of the 500+.

I was just wondering if you were aware of the underlying presupposition of the "scholarship" of historical naturalism.  I see that you're not.

Now what are these supposed contradictions in the New Testament regarding the Christ?  Can we have and examine them one at a time, please?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > *Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?*
> ...



Indeed, per the first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology, science necessarily proceeds from the imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation.  Further, sans God, there is no reliable ontological foundation for science, let alone for the first principles of logic and mathematics proper.

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it.  Curious...
> ...


Ehrman's take on miracles is a bit more subtle.  He says that as a historian he can't say if something was miraculous or not, he can only comment on if there is historical evidence for it.

I gave you an accounting of Jesus' resurrection and asked you why the different authors have different stories.  How many people directly experienced the risen Jesus was a tangent.  Who first went to Jesus' tomb and was the rock in place?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Fine words but just that.  Science does NOT point to God unless you mean God is the forces of nature.  Not exactly biblical.


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 15, 2021)

occupied said:


> If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe


The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God GREATED the universe. He exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He is bound by the rules that govern His creation


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Indeed, that is so silly. Indeed, you make unsubstantiated assertions here, sans reasoning, sans evidence presented to support them.

Indeed, there are no first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology which support supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism.

"Every effect has a cause." This is an empirical fact of the universe. From this we are forced to conclude that the causal chain is infinite, since any "beginning" would violate this axiom.

The attempt by supernaturalists ie: “_the gods did it’ists_”, to get around their appeals to supernaturalism is the qualification that, no, the proper formulation should be that “everything _that has a beginning_ has a cause.” Thus they hope to exempt their respective eternal gods from requiring a cause by asserting that they always existed and had no beginning… because they say so.

But this is merely an assertion. We certainly have no evidence for it, and the agendum behind the alteration is driven by circular reasoning, i.e. it is an attempt to force the argument to conform to the desired outcome rather than allowing the outcome to flow naturally from the premises.

We *can* empirically state that “every effect has a cause.” But we have the same level of empirical evidence that “everything that exists has a beginning.” We have no such evidence for *anything* that is eternal.

An infinite causal chain satisfies all these conditions, requiring no assumption of an entity for which we have no evidence (i.e. an eternal entity). The chain is itself eternal, but it is not an entity _per se_. It is the sum of an infinite number of discrete ephemeral entities, all of which have a beginning, and all of which have a preceding cause.

This is why the question “so what created the gods” is not a glib one. It is the only question about one or more “creators of the universe gods” than can be justified by reason and evidence. To deny that the gods had a beginning is fine apologetics. But it is not good logic.

We have vast amounts of observational evidence that both the above axioms are true, while we have zero observational evidence of any violations of or exceptions to them.

Looking as far back in time as we are capable of observing (i.e. billions of light years across space which is also billions of years into the past) we see that this is true as far back as we are able to observe. So the chain of causality is at the least as old as the observable universe.

_Hyper-religion'ism _is endless appeals to magical, supernatural gods absent any evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe
> ...


The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God _The Easter Bunny_ GREATED the universe. He _The Easter Bunny _exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He _The Easter Bunny_ is bound by the rules that govern His creation


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Briss said:


> What is the universe expanding _into_?











						If the Universe Is Expanding, What Is It Expanding Into?
					

There's a short answer and a long answer to this mysterious question.




					www.discovery.com


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > What is the universe expanding _into_?
> ...


Pffft. Who can believe anything those evilutionist, atheist scientists claim.

_Atheistism is hilariously stupid.™️_


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


Deeply thought out contribution.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Atheistism is hilariously stupid.
> ...




Your claim that inclusion of the god principle as an adjunct to the sciences must be part of supernaturalism, thus magical and discounted is fallacious.  There does not have to be anything supernatural or magic about the existence of God.  What is "magic" is the atheistic suggestion that it makes more sense that our complex phenomenal universe and its many laws came all out of NOTHING rather than some original cause.

The failing of atheism is that because they cannot explain the place of God in the order of things, they prefer to rest their own belief system in nothingness thus absolving themselves of the problem.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


Appropriate in view of the comment.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jan 15, 2021)

Human perception is based upon contrast and opposites. White exists in contrast to black; no black, no white and vice versa. Up, down, life, death, etc., etc. 
So, if there is a creator of everything, there would be no contrast to that, no 'non-created' parts to indicate what parts were 'created'. "God", being all and everything, would be impossible to perceive. Of course, on the other hand, if there were no "God", it would be impossible to perceive "God".
This is the dilemma for humans. Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above. 

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 15, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay


Absolutely agree with this


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Well, of course, I can't possibly mean that God = "the forces of nature."  That's not only unbiblical, but nonsensical, and, in any event, what does the existence of the forces of nature have to do with their origin?

The substance of the origin of the physical world is simply beyond the purview of science.  To say that science doesn't point to God is undefined and, essentially, nonsensical.  But assuming that what you mean by, in this instance, _pointing to God _goes to_ God's existence. . . ._

It is the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that directly point to the necessity of God's existence.  Science is necessarily predicated on eternalism and sufficient causation.  Astrophysics and cosmology concur with the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that the physical world began to exist in the finite past.

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Clean up your grammar.

It's  "gods" unless you're speaking of the One True "God,"


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god



You'd be wrong to assume that.



> How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?


The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation.  If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not in my Christianity. I dont believe in the Trinity. That comes from Catholicism. 

MY VIEW of the DUAL NATURE OF GOD
My last name is Brown.
My FAMILY is "Brown"

"God" is the FAMILY NAME we refer to these Beings. 

There are CURRENTLY 2  members of the God Family.

At the Resurrection of the Dead AT CHRIST'S RETURN, there will be MANY MORE members of the God Family


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god
> ...


I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


It seems your arguments about Christianity are with other, competing versions of Christianity.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


So this "God" is the same being that did what?  Create Adam and Eve?  Make it rain for 40 days?  Talk to Moses?  Etc., etc.  Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




What's with this sudden pluralism?  We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians).  We are talking about GOD.  God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause.  God is God.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.



No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation.  The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings.  The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans.  LOL!

They are not competitors.  They're not even in the same ballpark.

The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.



Hollie said:


> Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”.



False!  Christianity asserts no such stupid thing.  Accordingly, God is both apprehendable _and_ knowable.  He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds.  How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?



Hollie said:


> The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s.



Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God.  The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes.  We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.

Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant.  God is not an actual infinite.  Actual infinities cannot and do not exist.  In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence.  We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity.  God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself.  He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways.  He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What's with this sudden pluralism?  We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians).  We are talking about GOD.  God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause.  God is God.





Hollie said:


> Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?



Dissembling again, Hollie?  You're academically obligated to grasp the categorical distinction between contingent concepts of divinity and the noncontingent concept of classical theism, as well as to address the concept of divinity being asserted, not the concepts of your theological illiteracy and misrepresentations.  Otherwise you're just spouting mindless slogans and arguing with straw men.

Arguing against concept _A_, when the issue pertains to concept _B_ is problematic, Hollie.  

But, then, your ignorance and lack of understanding has been pointed out to you by me and others again and again.  Are you a pathological liar or pathologically stupid?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?



No, Hollie, it's that of a triune being.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Human perception is based upon contrast and opposites. White exists in contrast to black; no black, no white and vice versa. Up, down, life, death, etc., etc.
> So, if there is a creator of everything, there would be no contrast to that, no 'non-created' parts to indicate what parts were 'created'. "God", being all and everything, would be impossible to perceive. Of course, on the other hand, if there were no "God", it would be impossible to perceive "God".
> This is the dilemma for humans. Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay.




Just to be clear, are you implying that the ramifications of the first principles of logic tell us nothing at all about God's existence and nature?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation.  The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings.  The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans.  LOL!
> 
> They are not competitors.  They're not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.



Actually, there are indeed, no first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics which support magic and supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. My apprehension in addressing your appeals to magic and supernaturalism is that you have a rather stunted ability to separate reason and rationality from your worldview of fear, paranoia and superstition. Although your "faith" in magic and supernaturalism is certainly not a child's tale, since it is held by many adults, has been fabricated by adults, and is utilized by adults to justify adult behavior of the most serious consequence.

I also only label it as "magical" when you actually do appeal to magic as the answer to otherwise reasonable questions.

So... rather than considering your faith a magical child's tale, I consider it a very adult rank. The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.




Ringtone said:


> False!  Christianity asserts no such stupid thing.  Accordingly, God is both apprehendable _and_ knowable.  He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds.  How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?



Well now, that is interesting. You are claiming that the gods not being comprehendible by finite minds would imply that *in*finite minds can comprehend the gods. As we are told that the only the gods possess the _infinite _attribute, we are left to presume then that only the *in*finite minds of the gods can comprehend the infinite minds of the gods_. _ As is the case with most religionists, you have taken that typical slippery slope and assigned a list of attributes to your gods and then stumble over your own attempts to make such a ridiculous argument.

What’s mysterious is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Theists are the ones assigning human attributes to these god(s). It's a limit on his _nature_. Think about it. He exists as a god of love and mercy because you shove him into a human timeline and a human paradigm. You’re making him angry and emotive. Who's basing their conception of god on his/her own philosophical presuppositions? The_ non-theist_? Are you sure?








Ringtone said:


> Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God.  The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes.  We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.
> 
> Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant.  God is not an actual infinite.  Actual infinities cannot and do not exist.  In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence.  We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity.  God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself.  He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways.  He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.


It's curious that you claim humans do not assign attributes to your Gods. Who has? Where do the attributes come from? If the gods have assigned attributes to themselves, can you identify how that happened?  As it is quite clear from any objective reading of the Bibles, , they are at many times conflicting, self-refuting, internally inconsistent and contradictory. Those are hardly attributes associated with omni-everything gods.. If one takes the time to understand their Bible'ology, one will quickly realize that the gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. 

Yes, the all-knowing, all-seeing gods span time, space, and dimensions.... because you say so, Super. 

So, let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist. 

Super.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?
> ...


Well, yeah. 

They're the gods, so yeah, they can be singular, plural, triune, whatever you want them to be... because you say so.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


Absolutely.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.





alang1216 said:


> So this "God" is the same being that did what?  Create Adam and Eve?  Make it rain for 40 days?  Talk to Moses?  Etc., etc.  Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?



I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself.  But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already.  What supposed contradictions are you talking about?  So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Well, yeah.
> 
> They're the gods, so yeah, they can be singular, plural, triune, whatever you want them to be... because you say so.




No, Hollie, the divinity of Christianity is not both singular and plural in being simultaneously.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .
> ...


Absolutely. 

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?





__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

*Creationist*
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “_evolution just got harder to defend_” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual _problem _for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “_increasingly_” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “_Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails_,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yeah.
> ...



Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I wouldn't be the one to tell you there is.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I know. I was just agreeing with the title.  The long winded explanation in the OP was of no interest to me.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.



Why is God's existence obvious?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.
> ...


Let's keep is simple:

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.



No, Hollie, _A_ = _B_ is a contradiction, an obvious violation of the law of identity.  

Hollie teaching English:


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.
> ...


That's your typical sidestep, waffle, skedaddle. 

Your silly cut and paste youtube videos don't hide your inability to respond with a coherent argument.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Simple.  Hermeneutics 101.  All serious readers of the Bible have regarded this issue.  Only the sloppiest hermeneutical treatment of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning.  We know that from Luke's account.  He specifies three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with them.  None of the other accounts say that _only_ one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that_ only_ two women were there.  Mark does not say that _only_ three women were there.  They simply focus on the women they name.  John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone.  Mary Magdalene ran back from the tomb and told Peter and John that "[t]hey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and _we_ do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2).

Next.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie teaching English:
> ...



The day you make a coherent argument will be the day when hell freezes over.  You and Surda are kindred spirits in that regard.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


LOL! 

Your responses are youtube videos. LOL!


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Contradions are not an issue if you're willing to essentially rewrite the text.  Below are additional contradictions but I'm sure you can rewrite those too so don't bother.  You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods.  To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected.  She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection.  The additions to the story are essentially theology.  I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me.  Occam's' Razor.

The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. But John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.
Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.
Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Which is it?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




You are under no obligation to think at all.  So far, you're doing a great job at that.  Ignorance must really be bliss---  I have no "versions" of "gods."  There is only one true original cause.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


How convenient. I'm ignorant because I don't believe in your undemonstrated version of god. I suppose that makes you ignorant for not believing in all the other gods that have come along before your god.

How ignorant that makes you.

Your "... because I say so" claim to the "one true original cause", clashes with gods that have apparently existed before your god. To the back of the line you go.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


 
Occam's Razor, my ass.  Erhman's hermeneutics incessantly confound the simple.

I didn't rewrite anything.  What are you talking about?  You read things into the biblical text that aren't there, more at, the one who apparently does the thinking for you reads things into the biblical text that aren't there.  My refutation of your first "contradiction" stands and stays despite your refusal to read and think about the actual texts side-by-side for yourself.

There are no contradictions as Erhman alleges in the _whole_ text as it stands today in the first place!  I've read Erhman.  I have always followed his reasoning, such as it is, just fine.  His guff is not the stuff of rocket science.  Indeed, his hermeneutics are childish.  From his fallacious premise, he goes on to hypothesize that these nonexistent contradictions derive from later additions to the text.  

Where do any of the accounts, including John's, say there were only so many?  John's makes it clear that there were more than one!  He only mentions one of them by name.  Even Luke's doesn't tell us the precise number.  

Your contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

Erhman is clearly wrong in this instance.  What else is he wrong about?

You think I can't refute his guff point by point?  LOL!  Demagogues like Erhman pray on the ignorance of folks like you.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.
> ...


Look around you.  BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Look you stupid bitch, you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, you can't even fucking read and now put words in my mouth for things I never said then condemn me for it with 6th grade antics.  Do yourself a favor and STFU.  Pick some topic you can actually talk about with some authority.  You've said nothing here but to ask OTHER people questions then ridicule their answers while providing none of your own.  Just because you're a jacked off idiot does not obligate me to keep responding to your ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Really, snowflake. You might want to settle down.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 15, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Your claim that inclusion of the god principle as an adjunct to the sciences must be part of supernaturalism, thus magical and discounted is fallacious.  There does not have to be anything supernatural or magic about the existence of God.  What is "magic" is the atheistic suggestion that it makes more sense that our complex phenomenal universe and its many laws came all out of NOTHING rather than some original cause.
> 
> The failing of atheism is that because they cannot explain the place of God in the order of things, they prefer to rest their own belief system in nothingness thus absolving themselves of the problem.


No No.
That's YOUR God of the Gaps classic/backwards stupidity
*There is no 'God' in evidence.
PERIOD.
There is a universe, and because YOU cannot explain it, YOU POOFED 'god' into existence.
Classic GoG idiocy.*

If and when 'god' shows up... :^)
say, ie, the Stars arrange themselves relative to earth's viewpoint spelling 'Allah' in Arabic, I for one will be thrilled and admit I was wrong.
Lot's of questions answered, incl Which/Witch GOD!

Evangelicals (like YOU, Ringbone, and JamesBlond) (other religions too), will commit Mass suicide... your belief system shattered: Sharia at hand.
LOFL.

`
`


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Look around you.  BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.



I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant.  That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Look around you.  BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.
> ...


I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title.  If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals.  That has to or had to be a conscious choice.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications.  But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded.  That's ridiculous.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 16, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?

A man is brought back from the dead and walks among the living.  A great miracle happens witnessed by hundreds, a miracle that has never happened in the history of the world, a miracle that is meant to change the world for everyone forever.  Yet no one except his loyal followers are witness.
A few devoted followers of a man believe he is God's chosen messenger sent to save the nation of Israel and deliver the final judgement.  The man dies and fulfills none of his prophecies.  Were those followers mislead what has happened?  Then, one of his followers has a mystical experience, a dream, a vision, and sees the holy man.  Word spreads and maybe others have similar visions and word continues to spread.  Over the following decades the oral story get overlain with the theology of the tellers.  When the story is finally written down decades later the writers have access to different traditions (e.g., "Q") so they don't match exactly but it is the theology that is important not the details.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jan 16, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


I always find it interesting that on the "Science and Technology" board, there's always some clown that can't resist stuffing in the most unscientific of all premises.....deities, a topic that should belongs squarely in the Religion and Philosophy section.  The same people have been brainwashed since infancy by their parents/family that deities exist and why do they do this....it's the fill in the blanks concept.  If we don't have an answer to something, we must drop in a deity.....simplicity, childish.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 16, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .
> ...


Did you somehow miss that some clown jammed a specific deity into the thread?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> *YOU POOFED*



You poofed alright.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?



Sorry, *alang*, but I'm not going to let you blow past the imperatives of my previous observation.

Circularly presupposing that both the context and the language of the four accounts assert that *only* one, two, three or more women, respectively, went to the tomb in your question—i.e., *unwittingly* begging the answer in your question—you write:

Let's keep it simple:​​How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?​
Yes, *alang*, let's keep things simple, one "contradiction" at a time.  We're not done with this one.  Apparently I didn't make things clear enough for you, as you're still trying to salvage a manifestly stupid contention.  The reality of Erhman's careless rendering has yet to sink in for you.  This is precisely why I asked you to list and discuss the alleged contradictions one at a time.

Again:



Ringtone said:


> There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning.  We know that from Luke's account.  He mentions three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with the others.  *None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's.*  Matthew does not say that_ *only*_ two women went to the tomb.  Mark does not say that *only* three women went to the tomb.  They simply focus on the women they mention by name.  John identifies only one of the women, Mary Magdalene, by name, *but he was clearly aware* that she was not alone as he writes that she ran back from the tomb to tell him and Peter:  "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and *we* do not know where they have laid Him" (John 20:2).



Indeed, the context of Matthew and Mark’s accounts indicates that they too were aware of the fact that other women, in addition to those they mention by name, went to the tomb that morning.  Hence, it's readily self-evident that only the sloppiest of hermeneutical treatments of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.  Erhman’s contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who actually went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

You further confound the matter as you attempt to refute the incontrovertible—namely, the simple, straightforward reading of the accounts—and unwitting conflate the premises of two, distinct lines of Erhmanian argumentation.



alang1216 said:


> You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.



_Sigh_

As you fail to grasp the essence of my falsification of Erhman’s hermeneutics thus far, you leave me no alternative but to expound on the matter further.  What more astute students at my feet would grasp at a glance eludes you.  But not to worry.  I'm a good teacher, so you're in luck.

Aside from the fact that in the first place, as I have shown, there is no contradiction between the narratives regarding the number of women who went to the tomb:  Erhman manifestly predicates this “contradiction” on his comparative misreading of _all_ the accounts (or _stories_ as you put it) regarding the _empty tomb_, not the resurrection, by the way.  In other words, he does _not_ predicate this particular allegation as you imply on any theoretical grounds of textual criticism in terms of theology or in terms of any gratuitous, contradictory narratives.  Rather, he predicates it on the very same narratives with which I deconstrued his fallacious narrative . . . you know, his nonexistent narrative in which *only* one, two, three or more woman, respectively, went to the tomb that morning!

Recall, I’ve read Erhman too.

His theoretical contention regarding Mary Magdalene’s “vision” of the resurrected Christ goes to an entirely different line of argumentation, which does _not_ entail contradictions per additional narratives at all.  His contention here is that narratives were added later as a means of persuasion and, thus, were not part of the original texts.  And in spite of what you claim, *alang*, the premise of Ehrman’s line of argumentation in this case is in fact that of naturalism, specifically, in his own words, the improbability of miracles:  "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred."

Nonsense! All miracles of this nature are not merely improbable, but normally impossible!  They do not normally occur at all, and no rational person believes they routinely occur.  That’s the whole point.  The only way the resurrection could have possibly occurred . . . God _does_ exist and Jesus _is_ who he claimed to be. Historians most certainly can and have said that Christ must have risen from the dead given the improbability that the voluminous evidence for his resurrection is false. Occam's' Razor. 

But, of course, you don’t believe it occurred because, ultimately, you don't believe Jesus is the Christ either.

Once again, the original texts tell us that Mary Magdalene was only the first of many to witness the resurrected Christ.  Sixteen of these additional witnesses, including Paul, are named, and at least 492 additional witnesses are unnamed.  Ehrman’s rejection of the accounts regarding the other eyewitness is strictly predicated on his disbelief, the essence of which is purely theoretical, namely, the textual criticism of historical naturalism.

In any event, my immediate refutation pertains to Ehrman’s childishly fallacious hermeneutics regarding the number of women who went to the empty tomb that morning, not to the number of persons who saw the resurrected Christ.  My refutation stands and stays.  Ehrman’s allegation of a contradiction between the narratives in this wise is falsified.

Next.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 16, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?
> ...


Rather comical. Appeals to hearsay accounts of super-magical events.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?
> ...


First off, thanks for the reply.  I'm not used to reading reason and actual knowledge on USMB.  Lot's of emotion though.

Secondly, I'm not a theist so a miracle is the last thing I would expect.  I've lived my whole life and have never encountered anything supernatural so I look to natural explanations.

This may be a case of the 1/2 full glass of water.  I look at the various accounts and see contradictions, you look at the same accounts and see different what the author could have said.  For example, Matthew does not say that_ *only*_ two women went to the tomb.  He also didn't say that ET took the body from the tomb.  You're correct but you have added to the text because your theology requires it.  It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.  

I look at the text and see what it says, you look at the text and see what it doesn't say.  If Matthew knew that more than two women were involved why didn't he add that?  If he knew but didn't put it into the text, he was changing the account of the central pillar of Christianity.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> First off, thanks for the reply.  I'm not used to reading reason and actual knowledge on USMB.  Lot's of emotion though.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not a theist so a miracle is the last thing I would expect.  I've lived my whole life and have never encountered anything supernatural so I look to natural explanations.



Actually, you have, just not in the sense that you mean.  It is  manifest from the ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics, ontology and cosmological physics that the Universe (or physical world) began to exist in the finite past.  The only rational explanation for its existence per the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation is God.  Though it's not the most important miracle relative to man's redemption, the existence of the Universe itself is the greatest miracle, i.e., the greatest display of God's existence.



alang1216 said:


> This may be a case of the 1/2 full glass of water.  I look at the various accounts and see contradictions, you look at the same accounts and see different, what the author could have said.  For example, Matthew does not say that_ *only*_ two women went to the tomb.  He also didn't say that ET took the body from the tomb.  You're correct, but you have added to the text because your theology requires it.



False.  I cannot and do not add anything to the accounts.  I simply see what is in the accounts.  I'm not the one reading things into them that aren't there, i.e., that _*only*_ one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb.  That is not what the accounts tell us, not even close.  John's and Luke's accounts absolutely correspond in terms of those mentioned by name and the plurality of the women who went to the tomb.  Matthew and Mark's accounts merely concentrate on the women mentioned by name as these are the women who, alternately, related the matter to them personally.  That's all.  They too were aware that there were others.  Still concentrating on the number of women who went to the tomb according to the four accounts, there simply is no contradiction, and the matter is strictly narrative, not theological. 



alang1216 said:


> It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.



What is this about centuries?  All of the Gospels were written in the first century.



alang1216 said:


> I look at the text and see what it says, you look at the text and see what it doesn't say.  If Matthew knew that more than two women were involved why didn't he add that?  If he knew but didn't put it into the text, he was changing the account of the central pillar of Christianity.



Once again, I read what is written.  Period.  Matthew absolutely did know that there were more than two women.  The fact that he concentrates on the women he names doesn't impinge on the matter one way or the other.  What you seem to be implying doesn't follow.

By the way, you list the same alleged contradiction regarding the number of women who first went to the empty tomb three times if I recall correctly.  Which do you wish to examine next?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> I always find it interesting that on the "Science and Technology" board, there's always some clown that can't resist stuffing in the most unscientific of all premises.....deities, a topic that should belongs squarely in the Religion and Philosophy section.  The same people have been brainwashed since infancy by their parents/family that deities exist and why do they do this....it's the fill in the blanks concept.  If we don't have an answer to something, we must drop in a deity.....simplicity, childish.



The thrust of the OP goes to the logical and scientific imperatives which tell us that the Universe began to exist in the finite past and to the pseudoscientific gibberish of brainwashed secularists, the mindless slogan speak of those who unwittingly claim to be the God who supposedly doesn't exist.  These are the folks who routinely fail to distinguish the difference between philosophy and science.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Look around you.  BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.
> ...


The ramifications of the first principles of logic, reason and rationality tell us that vacuous claims under the burqa of “... because I say so”, appeal only to the ramifications of the first principles of nonsense claims without support.

The most basic precept of the ramifications of the first principle of a positive claim is that that the asserter of a positive claim is required to support such assertion.

The first principle of the ramification of accepting unsupported claims is that any claim, no matter how outlandish, can be given credibility when no credibility is warranted.


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated.  Einstein always said....


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> It is  manifest from the ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics, ontology and cosmological physics that the Universe (or physical world) began to exist in the finite past.  The only rational explanation for its existence per the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation is God.  Though it's not the most important miracle relative to man's redemption, the existence of the Universe itself is the greatest miracle, i.e., the greatest display of God's existence.


So the universe can't be eternal so must have a cause but God can be eternal so doesn't have a cause.  You are defining your reality without evidence.  Where was God before the universe?  All of what you believe about God comes from the OT & NT so, theologically speaking, directly from God himself.  Even if God is the Creator why is he a trustworthy source?  Because he says so?  Maybe he is mistaken and a Creator made him?



Ringtone said:


> *I cannot and do not add anything to the accounts.*  I simply see what is in the accounts.  I'm not the one reading things into them that aren't there, i.e., that _*only*_ one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb.  That is not what the accounts tell us, not even close.  John's and Luke's accounts absolutely correspond in terms of those mentioned by name and the plurality of the women who went to the tomb.  *Matthew and Mark's accounts merely concentrate on the women mentioned by name as these are the women who, alternately, related the matter to them personally*.  That's all.  They too were aware that there were others.  Still concentrating on the number of women who went to the tomb according to the four accounts, there simply is no contradiction, and the matter is strictly narrative, not theological.


So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.



Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.
> ...


We can only assume they were written then since our oldest Biblical text fragments date to the 2nd century.  These fragments we have don't match exactly with other fragments leading scholars, not just Ehrman, to believe the texts have been changed over time.  It is likely that Mark 16:9-20, coincidently covering the resurrection, is such an addition.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation.  The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings.  The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans.  LOL!
> ...



I'm sorry, Hollie, but you continue to prattle nonsense from a perspective, such as it is, regarding observations you don't understand at all.  You're a fool, Hollie.  I've tried, Hollie.  You can't say I didn't, but I cannot speak to you anymore.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


The ramifications of the first principle of claims to supernaturalism is that there is no reason to accept such unsupported claims.

The first principle of the ramifications of unsupported claims is that the asserter of such unsupported claims will shuffle off after failing to make a defendable case for supernaturalism.

I can say with confidence you didn’t try to support your claims to gods and supernaturalism because you offered no material, testable or rational evidence.

So no. You didn’t.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Nonsense!  The OP in a nutshell is this:

The Universe began to exist.  That which begins to exist must have a cause.  The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​​Explaining to the average adult, let alone to the average child, what fractals are in the first place and then explaining how they evince God's existence is an immensely more complex endeavor.  As for the average child, it's inevitably futile, and to sensible adults it's, indubitably, a long-winded way around—over the mountains and into the woods—to the obvious as compared to the above, which, as I have shown, can be summarized in three sentences.

I know what fractals are and grasp their theological implications.  Now explain these things to the others.  Be sure to grammatically render the paragraphs of your delineation carefully so as not to overcomplicate what is in fact a relatively complex matter for many.

LOL!


----------



## Asclepias (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Apologies are in order. I don't know whos post I read but it wasnt the OP you wrote.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's partisan religious position, and in the armory of Christian apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.



No, *alang*, I don't inject anything into the accounts as such.  As others, I reasonably surmise from all the accounts collectively that Matthew and Mark derived their narratives of the events, those that occured _before_ the resurrected Christ showed himself to anyone, from the women they mention by name.  These five women in total, two and three respectively, are obviously their direct sources.  The other women were no doubt meatined to Matthew and Mark by the five, but the other women were not among the five with whom they spoke directly and, in any event, are not pertinent to the perspective of their narratives.  The focus of Matthew and Mark's accounts is the empty tomb.  This is precisely why it's important to carefully mark the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (God and his angels), the witnesses of the empty tomb (the women, John and Peter), and the order in which the resurrected Christ revealed himself to his followers.



alang1216 said:


> So the universe can't be eternal so must have a cause but God can be eternal so doesn't have a cause.



You're not thinking clearly, *alang*.  Presumably. you agree with me that something does in fact exist, namely, in this case, the Universe and its contents.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics physics . . . tell us that the Universe _began_ to exist in the finite past.  The notion that it caused itself to exist (contradiction) before it existed (redundantly contradictory) is absurd.  Something or another is eternal.  Entities of contingently mutable and dividable substance cannot be past eternal; i.e., an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present.  The only sufficient cause for the Universe's existence would be that of an immaterial substance.  

As I summarized in the above:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​


alang1216 said:


> You are defining your reality without evidence.



False.  See above.



alang1216 said:


> All of what you believe about God comes from the OT & NT so, theologically speaking, directly from God himself.



False.  I don't need to appeal to any text whatsoever to know that the Universe began to exist and to know that the only sufficient cause of its existence is an eternally self-subsistent being.  See above.



alang1216 said:


> Even if God is the Creator why is he a trustworthy source?[/quote
> 
> God and the Creator are the same being, *alang*.  LOL!  God = Creator.  Creator = God.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



No need for apologies.  I took no offense.  I suspected that some kind of misunderstanding was causing us to talk past one another.  No big deal.


----------



## Quasar44 (Jan 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .


No !!!


----------



## Quasar44 (Jan 17, 2021)

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 17, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science


Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science
> ...


How is anything explained in immaterial terms?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


*Abiogenesis* is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. And so, it is in fact tied to evolution as a place one must begin the transformation process. So, if indeed there was absolute proof that man arose from the dust say 6-10 thousand years ago. There would be plenty of time for change within kinds; however, not enough time for new kinds to develop.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Well, GOD reveals HIMSELF to be SPIRIT. A spirit is not explainable in terms of minerals, elements, etc...


----------



## Quasar44 (Jan 17, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


He did not do a damn thing for the Jews !!


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science



What in the world does that statement even mean?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 17, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science
> ...



Not sure what the highlighted sentence means.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.
> ...


We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.  The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.  The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels.  As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> As I summarized in the above:
> 
> The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​


*Our *universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause.  I agree.  What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB.  There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god.  There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god.  Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy.  The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble.  No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Abiogenesis is in fact _not_ tied to evolution.  A working definition of evolution would be the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Biological evolution acts on existing biological life. No methods in science can confirm the supernatural / metaphysical notion of supernatural gods being the foundation of the natural world which is the world studied by science. No definitions of scientific theories like biological evolution include supernatural riders like the one you present.

Indeed, there is no proof that supernatural gods made man out of dust 6,000 years ago. On the contrary, there actually is overwhelmingly evidence that humans are far older than 6,000 years, that the planet is billions of years old and that the universe is older still.

Change within ''kinds'' is a creationist dilemma. You need evidence of supernatural gods, you need evidence of Arks, global floods and evidence to support a young earth, all created by supernatural gods in order to support your claims.

Let's start "in the beginning'' of the creationist claims. Offer some testable support for your version if gods.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Do the gods express themselves in terms of ''feelings''? Is that what you mean by ''spirit''?

Why do gods represent themselves as entirely different ''spirits'' depending upon the geographic location of the spirit worshippers?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> God and the Creator are the same being, *alang*.  LOL!  God = Creator.  Creator = God.


Does God = Yahweh?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > God and the Creator are the same being, *alang*.  LOL!  God = Creator.  Creator = God.
> ...


Good question. Further, does God, Jesus and a third party, the “Holy Spirit” in combination=God?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.
> ...



I’ll summarize the summarization:

“The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God... [_ed_. because I say so”]


----------



## james bond (Jan 18, 2021)

Science takes us only so far.  We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Science takes us only so far.  We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.


You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation.  You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Science takes us only so far.  We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.


Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.


----------



## james bond (Jan 18, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Science takes us only so far.  We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.
> ...



First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means.  You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions.  Nothing coming into existence over time.  We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth.  It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late.  OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory.  The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.


----------



## james bond (Jan 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Science takes us only so far.  We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.
> ...



Actually, history shows us that it was atheism and communism which has killed the most people in history.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No. Religion wins in the human destruction contest.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


First, I disagree.

Second:






 Science says this is where stars are born.  And around those stars, planets are forming.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 18, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.



Like I previously surmised from your attitude, *alang*, you really don't want to know the truth.  

The resurrection accounts are _not_ theological in nature at all.  That's not even Ehrman's line of argumentation in this instance, as that would be glaringly nonsensical.  You're either making things up in that wise . . . or, in all likelihood, conflating things in your mind again.  The accounts of Christ's resurrection are strictly narrative, and it has been known since the Third Century that Mark 16: 9-20 is _not_ autographically sound.  Indeed, we (scholars and serious students of textual criticism and the forensics thereof) know that the Apostolic Fathers, _before_ the Church Fathers, knew that it was not autographically sound, and, via the textual forensics of the manuscripts of _their_ works, we can confidently trace that understanding of things back to the time of the autographs, i.e., all the way back to the First Century!

I was saving that surprise for you when we got to the "contradiction" cynically alleged by Erhman regarding the number of angels encountered by the women at the tomb.  Erhman, unlike the biasly predisposed and naive audience that lines his pockets, knows that the _Markos pericope anastasis _is _not_ autographical and, thus, _not_ a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of narrational contradiction, let alone a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of textual unreliability.  Scholars, including Erhman, know that this passage was never a part of the original text in the first place!  Indeed, we know that the _Markos pericope anastasis_ was not even a part of the earliest manuscripts.  It crept in via the hand of an overeager scribe of the early Third Century.  LOL!  

But, of course, you already knew that the _Markos pericope anastasis _was not part of the original text from Erhman.  So I have some questions for you.  Regarding its actual origin, why didn't you investigate the chronological order of things for yourself?  Why didn't Erhman's obvious dissembling awaken you?  Are you really this  gullible and thoughtless, *alang*?  Sorry, but your lack of curiosity for one who claims to care about the truth is appalling.   

By the way, Erhman has been roundly scorned by secular and believing textual critics alike for his manipulatively cynical abuse of laymen.  In his popular works, he routinely attacks the reliability of the textual body, to sensational and profitable effect, based on what scholars and serious students of the Bible know to be nothing more than insignificant variants, namely, obvious and easily corrected transcription errors_—_misspellings, word omissions, word substitutions, garbled syntax and the like.  LOL!  Erhman is a shameless huckster.  A smile and a shoeshine.  These comprise 99% of the total variants, approximately 396,000 of the 400,000 total, and the instances and nature of the comparatively minuscule remainder are known for what they are as well!  

Most of these consist of variants with essentially equal evidence for and against their autographical authenticity; hence, we currently cannot be absolutely certain of their authenticity.  Due to their historical, transcriptional and ideological origins, we know that the rest are additions to the textually autographical body of forensics.  These are either theologically gratuitous, dialogically gratuitous or narratively gratuitous additions that crept into what is in fact a minority of the codices, and most of these were known to be errant additions to both the Apostolic and Church Fathers of centuries ago.

An example of the latter is the _Markos pericope anastasis _discussed in the above_.  _Other examples include the_ pericope krisis _of the Beatitudes (Matthew 7:1)_, _the_ pericope adulterae _(John 7:53 - 8:11), and the _pericope Trias_ (I John 5:7), all of which derive from the _Textus Receptus, _the codex on which the King James translation is based.

Most translations of the 20th Century do not include the passages from the errant additions or, because of their historic literary value, anontatively bracket them with caveats regarding their highly improbable authenticity.  Study editions of the KJV, my favorite for its overall translational quality and elegance, retain them with the caveats.  

The_ Markos pericope anastasis _and the_ pericope krisis _of the Beatitudes, for example, are not precluded from the textually autographical body of forensics merely because they are potentially contradictory relative to their contexts, but because they do not occur in the earliest surviving manuscripts at all.  Their chronological origin is that of a comparatively miniscule line of the codices from the Third and Fourth Century.  While the_ pericope adulterae _and the _pericope Trias_ do not imply any contextual contradictions at all, they are precluded because they are of the very same specious origin.  

(By the way, an interesting and persuasive line of evidence suggests that the _pericope adulterae, _while definitely not part of the original text, is an historically authentic oral tradition.)    

In any event, we know where the bodies lay, as it were, and with absolute confidence, via the exquisitely attentive forensics of textual criticism, we may confidently assert the autographical reliability of at least 99% of the textual body of manuscripts. 

Back to your post. . . .



alang1216 said:


> We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.



No, actually, I was in the process of systematically debunking the supposed "contradictions" alleged by Erhman.  I've utterly demolished two of them so far:  (1) regarding the number of women who went to the tomb that morning and (2) regarding the number of angels seen by the women at the tomb that morning.  You debunked the second one yourself and spoiled my surprise; albeit, you did so unwittingly because you have never bothered to think things through for yourself..  _Sigh_  So I had to help you see the obvious _again_.  Indeed, Erhman's allegation of contradiction regarding the number of angels is not merely a comparative misreading of the accounts in the _Textus Receptus_, but an outright lie perpetrated on the ignorant.  Once again, Erhman knows very well that the _Markos pericope anastasis_ was never a part of the original texts in the first place!

I've written a couple of articles about Bart Erhman's grossly misleading characterization of the textual variants among the biblical manuscripts and their impact on the autographical reliability of the forensically reconstructed textual body.  I made a similar distinction as that of Wallace, which Craig touches on, namely, the distinction between "the scholarly Bart Erhman", who knows better, and "the popular Bart Erhman" who lies all the way to the bank.  It's actually a running joke among honest textual critics within the community.  

I wrote: "Textual critics of the biblical manuscripts will appreciate the observation that while the_ pericope krisis _is the Osteenian variant of the textual body, Bart Erhman is the Osteenian of textual criticism."  (By the way, just in case you missed it, that's Osteenian as in that charlatan Joel Osteen.)




alang1216 said:


> The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels.  As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.



False.  The Romans made exceptions for the Jews, especially, and for all occupied nations in general during relatively peaceful times for political and legal reasons:  Apologetics: Is It Possible that Jesus' Body Was Left on the Cross? - Timothy Paul Jones

Your indemonstrable supposition of disbelief and childish cynicism is dwarfed by the mountain of historical, textual and rational evidence.  You just don't believe that Jesus is the Christ.  The rest is just the noises you make when you hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence as follows:



 

I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions."  You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever.  You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.  

That's two down in flames.

Next?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 18, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> First, I disagree.
> 
> Second:
> 
> ...




You better carefully reread that article, alang.  We have yet to observe a star being born, and this paper is not about stars forming at all.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First, I disagree.
> ...


Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks instead of "..._ the gawds did it_". folks?

Thanks.

Astronomers Observe the Birth of a Massive Star in the Milky Way (scitechdaily.com)


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 18, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> *Our *universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause.  I agree.  What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB.  There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god.  There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god.  Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy.  The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble.  No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.



False!  I do not preclude the existence of vacuum energy prior to the Big Bang (or the birth of our universe) at all, no more than I assume that _our_ universe is the one and only to have ever existed.  And there is no history of science "filling the gaps without a god" relative to origin, not even close, which is the sense in which you're mindlessly invoking that fallacy, albeit, in this case, unwittingly.  While James unwittingly appeals to that fallacy at times, he is correct when he observes that Hollie et. al., which now includes you, don't grasp what the _God in the gaps fallacy_ is!  As far as I know so far, *dback and I* are the only members on this board that really understand the matter of cosmic origin relative to current astrophysics, and a multiverse would in no way, shape or form impinge on the fact that _the physical world, _regardless of its history and structure, necessarily began to exist in the finite past.  But you don't know why that's true, *alang*, because you don't know the pertinent science or grasp the logical and mathematical ramifications of the matter.

But here's a little nudge for you, *alang*:  we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature, once again, regardless of the extent or structure of its being..  LOL!  That's akin to the stupid notion that there is a Creator of the Creator.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > *Our *universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause.  I agree.  What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB.  There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god.  There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god.  Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy.  The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble.  No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.
> ...


Actually, the _God in the gaps fallacy _is a logical fallacy easily understandable and one tread over frequently by the hyper-religious.

Your claim that: “we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature”, is a stereotypical claim by religioners suggesting that there is a _supernatural_ cause for the existence of nature. As usual, we are left with the hyper-religious making unsubstantiated, unsupported and unverifiable claims.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks. . . .



LOL!  Hollie, you're not a science minded folk, but a slogan-spouting dunce, who in this case does not recognize that the article is written by a less than fully competent journalist of science, not by the scientists who made the discovery.  You don't recognize the sensationalism of the title precisely because you really don't know the science.

Look up protostar, Know-nothing.

I know how stars form.  I've written a number of treatments on the matter.

Might I suggest you leave matters to folks who can read and think clearly from the scientific actualities of the matter.

I don't give a hoot for the language the author is using in the title of this article to describe what we are actually observing in this case.  I know you don't, but I believe that such matters should be stated and thought about clearly.

We have yet to observe the birth of a star as such.  Such a thing is currently impossible to observe in real time.  What we are observing in this case is the growth of a star that in astronomical terms was recently born, and the article that *alang* cited is not about forming stars, but about how "[t]he stellar wind from a _newborn star_ in the Orion Nebula is preventing more new stars from forming nearby."

Back to this recent discovery:

The researchers say their observations – published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics – reveal how matter is being dragged into the center of the huge gaseous cloud by the gravitational pull of the forming star – or stars – along a number of dense threads or filaments. . . .​​“The remarkable observations from ALMA allowed us to get the first really in-depth look at what was going on within this cloud,” said lead author Dr Nicolas Peretto, from Cardiff University. “We wanted to see how monster stars form and grow, and we certainly achieved our aim. One of the sources we have found is an absolute giant — the largest protostellar core ever spotted in the Milky Way!​
It's already been born, Hollie.  What we are actually observing now is it's growth from a protostar to an increasingly mature star, as it gathers mass from its parent molecular cloud.  This star is still in its protostellar phase, the earliest phase of development.  That's all.

I know I said that I was done talking to you, but I couldn't allow your ignorance to confuse the others.  Precision in language is important to precision in thought, Hollie, otherwise the actualities of things can fly right over one's head.

Now drop and give me 50!  And don't you ever again think you can teach me anything about . . . well, anything.  LOL!

By the way, you drooling 'tard, do you not grasp the fact that you're literally saying that science might find a natural cause for the existence of nature _before_ nature and, therefore, before any natural cause for anything at all existed.  LOL!  You simply cannot make such stupidity up.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks. . . .
> ...



I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.

Besides your usual blathering, you offered nothing to substantiate your ignorant and false claims so why not limit your participation to cutting and pasting silly fundie Christian YouTube videos?

BTW, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that your hilarious claim: “we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature”, is still absent any corroboration that there is a _supernatural_ cause for the existence of nature.

Your claims to magic and supernaturalism are mere noise and the cut and paste nonsense from any one of the extremist ID’iot creation ministries.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.



You're still confounding the matter in your head and, perhaps, confusing others.  I never said stars cannot be seen forming_—_more at growing in terms of gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds.  On the contrary, *I emphatically said that's precisely what we're observing, i.e., the formation (or development) of a star that is currently in the protostellar phase.*

What part of my assertion that stars can be observed forming = the assertion that they cannot be observed forming?

You drooling 'tard.

*What we cannot observe in real time is the birth of a star.*  The title of the article is misleading.  It's the stuff of sensationalism.  _That_ is the takeaway from my initial post on the matter.  Nothing else, nothing  other.  But you utterly misapprehended the essence of my observation from the jump, precisely because you don't know much about the particulars of the actual science.

Now, of course, Hollie, you're either a lunatic, a narcissist or a sociopath, so while an apology from you or, at the very least an acknowledgement of your error, is in order, I don't expect that one will be forthcoming, any more than I expect you to be embarrassed by your staggering stupidity in this instance.  You need professional help for sure, and I mean that in all sincerity with the hope that you will seek the help you need.  But I cannot talk to you anymore.  I tried one more time, Hollie, for the sake of others.  You can't say I didn't.  But *orangecat* et. al. are on their own now.  They'll just have to sort things out for themselves as best they can without my wisdom when you confound things with your baby talk.

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.
> ...


I have to admit it is entertaining to watch you low wattage types assemble a post full of juvenile insults. That really is the best you can muster. 

I was hoping you would apologize for the misinformation and sidesteps you attempted as you tried to walk back your nonsense claims, but alas, the hyper-religious are lacking such integrity. 

I'll take this latest misapprehension of yours as just another drop then, drop another ten and then turn and run as you hope to sidestep your falsehoods and errors.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First, I disagree.
> ...


Gee, whiz. 

It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.









						Scientists witness an explosive birth of a star 1,500 light years away
					

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos.




					indianexpress.com
				













						Astronomers witness a star being born
					

Astronomers have glimpsed what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust.



					www.sciencedaily.com
				





Golly. Maybe you can steal something from William Lane Craig refuting the above with some snappy Bible verses,


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Gee, whiz.  It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(Be sure to expand the above quotation, readers, as a write a real zinger near the end of this post . . . just for giggles.)

_Sigh_

Well, it looks like I have to talk to you once again after all, as I gave you too much credit when I assumed that, at the very least, you grasped the actualities of observing objects of astronomical distances, particularly stellar objects, *in real time*.  Why I should have assumed that about you, Hollie, suggests that, perhaps, _I_ too need to have my head examined.  Clearly, by now I should know better than to grant you of having any common sense at all.  My bad.

From the first article you cite now, which has absolutely nothing to do with the observation I made earlier regarding the observation of stars in the protostellar phase of formation:

Astronomers have *captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth*, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos. *Around 500 years ago*, a pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.​​Eventually, two of these stars either grazed each other or collided, triggering a powerful eruption that launched other nearby protostars and hundreds of giant streamers of dust and gas into interstellar space at speeds greater than 150 kilometres per second. This cataclysmic interaction released as much energy as our Sun emits over the course of 10 million years. *Today*, the remains of this spectacular explosion are visible from Earth.​
And, of course, "the remains" are the molecular constituents that gravitationally gathered to birth the new star.  The image of that birth is many light years old.   The image is not a depiction of its birth *in real time*; rather, this image is a depiction of what the birth of the star looked like many light years ago.  The second article you cite discusses the birth of this new star in greater detail.

It can be credibly said that we can observe protostars forming because by the time the images reach us, these young stars are _*still*_ in the protostellar phase of their development, *still* gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds *in real time*.  But these images are not depictions of the current state of the stars being observed *in real time *either!

*Real time*, Hollie, *real time*!  What part of *real time*, which is the predicate of the observations I make in my posts, don't you understand?  What part of *these stellar object's astronomical distances* don't you understand?  More to the point, what part of the impossibility of observing any stellar object at all *in real time* don't you understand?

The only astronomical objects that we could ever possibly observe *in real time* would be planets, moons, asteroids and the like; that is to say, the persons _on them_ would observe them *in real time*. We are never going to observe stellar objects *in real time* as any given technology of observation would be incinerated before the astronomical distances could be traversed, and landing *a means of real-time* observation on them is redundantly absurd.

Gee, whiz.

It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Golly. Maybe, Hollie, you can steal something from H. G. Wells refuting the above *in real time* with some snappy passages of science fiction.

LOL!

Now drop and give me 50 more *in real time*!

Your arms must be a convulsion of stabbing pangs by now.

(By the way, on top of the fact that the astronomical distances and the nature of stellar objects relative to their observation flew right over your head, even after I repeatedly alluded to their observation in terms of *real time*, you're still dissembling *in real time*.  You previously claimed that I said that we can't observe stars forming, when in fact I said no such silly thing.  Indeed, I asserted the very opposite, albeit, *not in terms of real time*.)


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, whiz.  It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.
> ...


You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.

Yet, how strange that scientists disagree. What is interesting is that the timeframes and distances involved in the observations made, present a real kerfuffle for you Henry Morris groupies. The notion of a 6,000 year old planet tends to conflict with objects hundreds of thousands of light years away. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma with the religioners claiming timeframes that conflict with modern methods of measuring distance across space.

What would William Lane Craig do?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.
> ...


Let's move on to the birth narratives then.  Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> the stupid notion that there is a Creator of the Creator.


Why stupid?  Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator?  Since everything that exists must have a first cause...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 19, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Let's move on to the birth narratives then.  Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?



The short answer:   God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters.  IMO those are the chief reasons.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 19, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Why stupid?  Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator?  Since everything that exists must have a first cause...



Not everything that exists has a cause.  How could that be?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.
> 
> Yet, how strange that scientists disagree. What is interesting is that the timeframes and distances involved in the observations made, present a real kerfuffle for you Henry Morris groupies. The notion of a 6,000 year old planet tends to conflict with objects hundreds of thousands of light years away. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma with the religioners claiming timeframes that conflict with modern methods of measuring distance across space.
> 
> What would William Lane Craig do?



Hollie, you poor dear,

One last post on this matter, as your dissembling has now been narrowed down to a mere expression in a post that, unlike the other posts, does not emphatically include the predicate *in real time* from which I was obviously speaking.  It cannot be otherwise.  But, then, that post was not addressed you, but to *alang* who does grasp the actualities of astronomical distances relative to the observations of stellar objects.  I know this from his posts of months ago.  I was just reminding him to recall what he already knows.  It is axiomatically understood by me, *alang* and others that the observation of stellar objects can *never* be *in real time.*  They can only be made from distances of light years.  Scientists do not disagree with me, Hollie, you drooling 'tard.  It is understood by us that when we talk about observing stellar objects, we do not mean *in real time*.

Check mate.  Your dissembling has nowhere else to go.  You lose, narcissist.

As for Craig and I, we do not ascribe to the indemonstrable presupposition of Ussherian hermeneutics.  The Bible does not put an age on the Universe, let alone on the Earth.  But, then, I've told you this before, narcissist.

End of discussion.


----------



## james bond (Jan 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes, I said that.  The religion of state atheism won the human destruction contest.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.
> ...



You poor, dear. You’re still hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “_We have yet to observe a star being born_”.  The material for formation of star systems is not a speculation, and does require various gods to make that happen. We can see the clouds of dust and gas in the galaxy from which stars are formed; and the evidence exists that stars and planetary systems are forming right now.  Stars and solar systems are formed as a result of the life cycle of other stars. Dust and gases are what establish the cycle. Hydrogen and Helium are the basic materials from which galaxies are made, and heavy elements are subsequently formed in supernova, and blasted out into space. Those explosions do not mark the origin of the solar system, they mark end of a star, and the spewing of heavy elements into the clouds of the galaxy. 

I can understand that you tend to get befuddled amidst your pontificating but I'm attempting to hold you to a consistent argument. Scientists have, as per the data supplied to you, observed the "birth" or formation of stars. The formation of stars takes on the order of millions of years and the distances involved means that timespans are even greater. That presents something of a dilemma to the notion of a 6,000 year old planet. Oh, my. How do we resolve that? Odd that the Bible puts a specific timeline to the Genesis fable. Did the gods just forget to date the age of the planet? Odd because Ussher has a very specific time and date for the flood. Working back from there, a rather accurate timeline can account for the 6,000 year old earth. 

Odd how neither you, nor your self-assigned contemporary, Craig, can do much more than make excuses for what the Bible doesn't address. 

But, then, you know this.


----------



## Briss (Jan 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's move on to the birth narratives then.  Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?
> ...


Something sinless about being born of a virgin?  Or is there something sinful about being born of a used woman?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You're wrong because religion wins the human destruction contest.


----------



## james bond (Jan 19, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I disagree with what you disagree.

Next, do you have a link for your art work where atheist scientists claim "this is where stars are born?"  Where is it to our solar system?  Why would a star for first and then a planet form around a star?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The Bible provides a detailed explanation. If you want to understand gravity, the heavy elements, Angels playing harps, it's all in the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Jan 19, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...



This is the problem with non-creation science people and their adherents.  They do not understand that:

1.   Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning. 

God always existed.  He did not begin to exist.  God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...
> ...


So... the gods are exempted from the very rules you have established, because you say so. 

I see now how effective "... because you say so" becomes to an argument.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 19, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> without any intelligent design?


Who designed the intelligent designers?



andaronjim said:


> we would all look like a Picasso painting.



Some of us do


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> God always existed.  He did not begin to exist.  God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
> 
> See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?



Actually, knowing what we now know about science, you logic isn't even logic. It belongs in the realms of fairy tales.


----------



## james bond (Jan 19, 2021)

Dr Grump said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > God always existed.  He did not begin to exist.  God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
> ...



Correction.  Knowing what we always have known about evolutionary science, we know that belongs in the realms of _fairy tales_.

Not one thing of evolutionary science is observable, testable, nor falsifiable.  Who can test millions or billions of years?  We're still in thousands of years as we can find evidence for that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Not one thing of evolutionary science is observable, testable, nor falsifiable.



Actually plenty has been. However, when it comes to religion......ibid


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Why stupid?  Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator?  Since everything that exists must have a first cause...
> ...


Not sure what you're arguing.  If everything that exists has a cause, what is the cause of God?  If not everything requires a cause, why does the existence of the universe point to a creator?  Seems logical to me, am I missing something?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's move on to the birth narratives then.  Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?
> ...


Gospel writers only knew the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word _‘alm_ā_h _as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin—and so simply made it up.  (Christians have been defending this since the time of Justin Martyr so don't feel the need to repeat their arguments, just admit it is valid to question.)

Good theology but this makes for bad history.  The fulfilling of prophecy has made for some wild stories and contradictions (e.g., was there a Roman census that never got documented by the Romans themselves)


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The 'art' is Hubble photos.  You can find your own link but trust me, the majority of scientists believe stars are still being formed.  You are welcome to disagree with them but that is what is taught.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...
> ...


I love that you don't see the obvious contradiction.  You logic is monumentally flawed since you seek to define reality to suit your theology.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Remarkable how Cult indoctrination can align people with the most extreme conspiracy theories.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Not sure what you're arguing.  If everything that exists has a cause, what is the cause of God?  If not everything requires a cause, why does the existence of the universe point to a creator?  Seems logical to me, am I missing something?



Indeed, you are missing something.  But that's my fault.  I expressed the matter poorly in the previous post.  Brain fart.  I was thinking _How could it be otherwise_?, but wrote _How could that be_?  Strike that. 

Hence_, _not everything that exists has a cause of its existence.  How could it be otherwise?  After all, things do exist.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what you're arguing.  If everything that exists has a cause, what is the cause of God?  If not everything requires a cause, why does the existence of the universe point to a creator?  Seems logical to me, am I missing something?
> ...


Thanks for the clarification.   So if _not_ everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator.  There may be a creator but the universe is not proof.  Do I have that logic right?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I love that you don't see the obvious contradiction.  You logic is monumentally flawed since you seek to define reality to suit your theology.



There's no ontological contradiction in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart.  What are you talking about?  How could _everything_ that exists today started to exist in the finite past?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.





Briss said:


> Something sinless about being born of a virgin?  Or is there something sinful about being born of a used woman?



In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority.  Hence, _the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob_ or, more to the point, _Abraham the son of  Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . . _

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph.  His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father.  Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established.  Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I love that you don't see the obvious contradiction.  You logic is monumentally flawed since you seek to define reality to suit your theology.
> ...


Who is it that you believe might be fooled by “no ontological contradiction”? Such a statement is really meaningless in a reasoned, rational, science based argument because an ontological / philosophical argument has no requirement to be true or factual. Such views are not relevant to science and science has nothing to say about them.

The science argument is different altogether and relevant to the human enterprise of learning about the natural world and to understand its mechanisms. Science relies upon evidence as information about the world. That evidence must logically be *epistemologically* naturalistic as epistemology is the relevant description for the study of how we understand  the world. Supernatural evidence doesn’t exist for examination of the supernatural. I don’t know of any mechanism to study supernaturalism.

Therefore, so far as science is considered, there are two modes of knowledge: one is a seeming contradiction; ignorance, (not knowing the facts),and the other is reasonable or successful explanations of natural processes derived on the basis of evidence. Evidentiary explanations are superior to philosophical / metaphysical musings because the latter, ultimately, have no requirement to be true.

Epistemologically natural explanations are the only reliable explanations we have that allow us to understand the world in which we live. The supernatural / philosophical / metaphysical conjectures are used to reinforce a worldview, not to examine sometimes cold, harsh realities.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I love that you don't see the obvious contradiction.  You logic is monumentally flawed since you seek to define reality to suit your theology.
> ...


Why does james bond say that God has always existed?  Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove God exists?  Theology not science.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for the clarification.   So if _not_ everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator.  There may be a creator but the universe is not proof.  Do I have that logic right?



Sorry, I had to take care of other matters at home.

No. Think again about what you're suggesting.  Something does exist, rather than nothing; you're unwittingly implying the former is possible, namely, that nothing exists.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.
> ...


If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 20, 2021)

Briss said:


> If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.



Magic is YOUR belief.  You believe, and have faith in your belief that the universe made itself out of nothing.  Magic.  "If someone made God, He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, *A Matter of Gravity*

Now you join your fellow Leftists on my Ignore List.  "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart.  What are you talking about?  How could _everything_ that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?





alang1216 said:


> Why does james bond say that God has always existed?  Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove [sic] God exists?  Theology not science.



False.  The necessity of *eternalism* and *sufficient causation* are incontrovertibly a matter of logic _and_ science.  It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological.  Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness.  Why can't you grasp that?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the clarification.   So if _not_ everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator.  There may be a creator but the universe is not proof.  Do I have that logic right?
> ...


I think we agree that something, namely the universe, exists.  What you have failed to convince me of is that this implies a creator.  You have also failed to convince me that this creator can't have had a creator.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart.  What are you talking about?  How could _everything_ that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?
> ...


Supernaturalism is not a supportable claim for causation.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart.  What are you talking about?  How could _everything_ that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?
> ...


You say something has always existed and I don't disagree.  Where you lose me is saying that what always existed is a 'being'.  Why can't it be that the universe has always existed and periodically sends out an offshoot that we see as our universe beginning with a Big Bang.  We don't know what came before the BB but it seems presumptuous to fill that gap in our knowledge with a human invention.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.
> ...


Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD!  And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination.  So, it would appear that magic is _your_ belief, and not mine.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.





Briss said:


> Something sinless about being born of a virgin?  Or is there something sinful about being born of a used woman?





Ringtone said:


> In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority.  Hence, _the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob_ or, more to the point, _Abraham the son of  Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . . _
> 
> Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph.  His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father.  Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established.  Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.





Briss said:


> If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.



Oh, God would have, eh?  

So you admit that God exists.  Good.  Now, in this instance, are you claiming to be God, claiming to know God's mind, or claiming to know better than God?

_crickets chirping_

Moving on. . . .  

First, miraculous  ≠ magical.  Contextually, the _miraculous _goes to events of  divine intervention, you know, to God's power and authority over nature given that God by definition is nature's Creator. 

Second, had God done things the way you think he should have done them . . . how would God's power and authority over nature be demonstrated to all in this instance?  And the fulfillment of prophecy?  The establishment of Jesus’ divine origin?  The confirmation of Christ’s sinless humanity?

_crickets chirping_


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.
> ...


Assuming all that is true, doesn't that mean that Jesus is not related to David and that prophecy was wrong?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Briss said:


> Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD!  And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination.  So, it would appear that magic is _your_ belief, and not mine.



False on all counts, and the only thing that's in evidence here is your lack of thought.  Neither you nor I require any information beyond the ramifications of logic, mathematics and science to know that God necessarily exists and necessarily has the attributes I enumerated in the above.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD!  And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination.  So, it would appear that magic is _your_ belief, and not mine.
> ...


Refreshing to see you admit that your claims to gods are mere "...because I say so", nonsense.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



No.  Both Joseph and _Mary_ are among the fruits of David's loins.  That is, they are of the Davidic  lineage.  Hence, they are distant cousins.  I assumed you knew that.  Well, now you do.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> False.  The necessity of *eternalism* and *sufficient causation* are incontrovertibly a matter of logic _and_ science.  It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological.  Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness.  Why can't you grasp that?





alang1216 said:


> You say something has always existed and I don't disagree.  Where you lose me is saying that what always existed is a 'being'.  Why can't it be that the universe has always existed and periodically sends out an offshoot that we see as our universe beginning with a Big Bang.  We don't know what came before the BB but it seems presumptuous to fill that gap in our knowledge with a human invention.



For the moment, forget about _God—_i.e., _the ultimate apprehension of the pertinent ramifications.  _Remove him from the equation of things, as it were, from your mind.

1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

Beyond vacuum energy, one cannot _scientifically_ ascertain what preceded the BB with any specificity relative to the origin of our universe.  That has absolutely no bearing on *the ultimate ramifications of logic, mathematics and science* that the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.  Neither our universe in its current form nor the physical world at large can be past eternal.  An actual infinite is an absurdity.  In this case, an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present.  Humans did not invent *the ultimate ramifications of logic, mathematics and science* any more than humans invented *the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation* on which they're predicated.  Humans axiomatically and a prior intuit these things.  _This_ is what you keep failing to grasp.

Hence . . .

2.  The physical world is an entity that began to exist and has a cause of its existence.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD!  And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination.  So, it would appear that magic is _your_ belief, and not mine.
> ...


So, the god exists because it is necessary that it does.  I see. 

And you, because of your abundance of thought and applied logic to the _concept_, are now qualified to describe the personality of the god that you've personified . . . all the way down to the reason for its chosen method of human fertilization.

That is the very definition of overthinking something you've read.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.
> ...





Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone:  The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.
> ...


For the sake of discussion, I'm referring to the being you believe in as "the god."  That is a courtesy.  If you'll take note, I did not call it your alleged god, or your invisible friend, or your security . . .

From now on, I will refer to it as your alleged god so that you don't count me among the flock.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> . . .



By the way, in a post addressed to Hollie, in which I mention you, I write:  "As for Craig and I, we do not *ascribe to* the indemonstrable presupposition of Ussherian hermeneutics."  Obviously, what I meant to write was _subscribe to.  _Another brain fart.  Something was nagging at me about that post, but by the time I realized what it was, the time has expired to edit it.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > . . .
> ...


I was certain my response would leave you with no ability to present a refutation.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Briss said:


> So, the god exists because it is necessary that it does. I see.
> 
> And you, because of your abundance of thought and applied logic to the _concept_, are now qualified to describe the personality of the god that you've personified . . . all the way down to the reason for its chosen method of human fertilization.
> 
> That is the very definition of overthinking something you've read.





Briss said:


> For the sake of discussion, I'm referring to the being you believe in as "the god."  That is a courtesy.  If you'll take note, I did not call it your alleged god, or your invisible friend, or your security . . .
> 
> From now on, I will refer to it as your alleged god so that you don't count me among the flock.



Actually, you foolish person, you unwittingly presupposed the existence of the God the Bible and what he would necessarily do and why.  You're the only one who assigned extra-biblical personality traits and motives to him.  I merely answered your questions about the God of the Bible _from_ the text of the Bible.  You also conflated the fundamental attributes that may be known about God from the ramifications of logic, mathematics and science, and those that may only be known by means of revelation, assuming, of course, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is in fact God's inspired revelation to man.  But because you're too busy making an ass of yourself as you mock what you don't understand, you can't even keep the categorical distinction between the two contexts straight in your head.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > So, the god exists because it is necessary that it does. I see.
> ...


No, I'm pretty sure you are the one who was explaining what was in your alleged god's mind when it decided to have a kid.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that makes _you_ the foolish one?

And while I've got you on the horn, what is it that this being wants from us?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Gospel writers only knew the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word _‘alm_ā_h _as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin—and so simply made it up.  (Christians have been defending this since the time of Justin Martyr so don't feel the need to repeat their arguments, just admit it is valid to question.)
> 
> Good theology but this makes for bad history.  The fulfilling of prophecy has made for some wild stories and contradictions (e.g., was there a Roman census that never got documented by the Romans themselves)



I just saw this.  I missed it earlier.  You're mistaken, *alang*.  But these two issues you raise, especially the one regarding Matthew's supposed linguistic ignorance, are very complex.  Let us concentrate on the ontological issue for now and come back to these later.  In the meantime, understand this:  the line of linguistic scholarship that holds to the view popularized in recent years, typified by Wikipedia's claim that "scholars agree that it [_‘alm_ā_h_] has nothing to do with virginity" is alternately false or misleading.  Yes, there are scholars who agree on that alright, but theirs is the _minority_ view, which is predicated on historical naturalism and disregards the entirety of the historical, linguistic and theological context of the term as it exclusively pertains to Rebecca and the mother of Immanuel.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 20, 2021)

Briss said:


> No, I'm pretty sure you are the one who was explaining what was in your alleged god's mind when it decided to have a kid.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that makes _you_ the foolish one?
> 
> And while I've got you on the horn, what is it that this being wants from us?



Okay, I'll correct you. You're wrong.

First, for the sake of clarity, we were *not* discussing the reason God the Father sent the co-eternal God the Son into the world.  We were discussing the reasons he sent the Savior into the world the way he did.

Once again, I merely answered your questions about the God of the Bible _from_ the text of the Bible.  In various places of the Bible, especially in the gospels and epistles, the three reasons I listed are emphatically asserted.  What I said is that in my opinion, a scholarly informed opinion, by the way, that these three, among others, are the leading (or primary) reasons.  That's all.

God wants to have a loving relationship with us, which entails our loving trust and obedience.


----------



## Briss (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > So, the god exists because it is necessary that it does. I see.
> ...


If thinking that I've assigned extra-biblical personality traits and motives to the god is another one of your beliefs, why don't you give me an example of where I did that, and we'll see whether or not my description of the god is extra-biblical or not.

Oh, and you also claim that the god wants to have a loving relationship with us, which entails our loving trust and obedience.   What you're saying is that the god will love me if I trust and obey it.  It is said that you can't bargain with god, but apparently the god can, and does, bargain with its creation.

But anyway, let's get to it.  What is it you believe you are trusting the god with in order to receive its love?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Briss said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm pretty sure you are the one who was explaining what was in your alleged god's mind when it decided to have a kid.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that makes _you_ the foolish one?
> ...


We’re now on to God Sr. and God Jr. ?

Why pretend Christianity is monotheistic when your version is polytheistic?

When God Jr. gets older and has conflicts with God Sr. only policy matters, does God Jr. get sent to his room for a time out?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 21, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > False.  The necessity of *eternalism* and *sufficient causation* are incontrovertibly a matter of logic _and_ science.  It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological.  Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness.  Why can't you grasp that?
> ...


Again you claim as fact things you do not know:

the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past (yet you also so "one cannot _scientifically_ ascertain what preceded the BB")
Neither our universe in its current form nor the physical world at large can be past eternal.
An actual infinite is an absurdity (is God infinite?)


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 21, 2021)

It is incredibly ironic that atheists are so obsessed with God Whom they PRETEND "doesn't exist" that they spew their hatred in clubs, websites, books, and all over the world.  There is no other parallel to atheist obsession with what they CLAIM "doesn't exist."

No books are written hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.  The internet will not display crass hatred of either the Bunny or Claus.  Do a search of Bunny  Atheists and Claus Atheists.  Non-existent.
It's obsessive God-haters who hate what they preach isn't here.  No doubt they too don't know which restroom to use.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 21, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> It is incredibly ironic that atheists are so obsessed with God Whom they PRETEND "doesn't exist" that they spew their hatred in clubs, websites, books, and all over the world.  There is no other parallel to atheist obsession with what they CLAIM "doesn't exist."
> 
> No books are written hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.  The internet will not display crass hatred of either the Bunny or Claus.  Do a search of Bunny  Atheists and Claus Atheists.  Non-existent.
> It's obsessive God-haters who hate what they preach isn't here.  No doubt they too don't know which restroom to use.


I think what’s ironic is the hyper-religious entering a public discussion board, hurling their gods at people and not expecting others to challenge their specious, “... because I say so” claims to a specific collection of gods.

The really, really angry thumpers are the ones who spread their hate with a passion that seems reserved for the angriest of the religious loons.


----------



## james bond (Jan 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Gospel writers only knew the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word _‘alm_ā_h _as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin—and so simply made it up.  (Christians have been defending this since the time of Justin Martyr so don't feel the need to repeat their arguments, just admit it is valid to question.)
> 
> Good theology but this makes for bad history.  The fulfilling of prophecy has made for some wild stories and contradictions (e.g., was there a Roman census that never got documented by the Romans themselves)



Lol, you and your Bible translator are standing on shaky ground looking into the fiery pit of the Lake of Fire.  Matthew describes in detail that it was a virgin birth and that Joseph did not have to divorce Mary.


----------



## Briss (Jan 21, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> It is incredibly ironic that atheists are so obsessed with God Whom they PRETEND "doesn't exist" that they spew their hatred in clubs, websites, books, and all over the world.  There is no other parallel to atheist obsession with what they CLAIM "doesn't exist."
> 
> No books are written hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.  The internet will not display crass hatred of either the Bunny or Claus.  Do a search of Bunny  Atheists and Claus Atheists.  Non-existent.
> It's obsessive God-haters who hate what they preach isn't here.  No doubt they too don't know which restroom to use.


I wasn't aware that atheists have houses of worship strung out throughout the human environment.  

I wouldn't worry about it, though; they'll never catch up with the religious types in that area.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 21, 2021)

Please reread this exchange very carefully and think, then read my response:


Ringtone said:


> The necessity of *eternalism* and *sufficient causation* are incontrovertibly a matter of logic _and_ science.  It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological.  Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness.  Why can't you grasp that?





alang1216 said:


> You say something has always existed and I don't disagree.  Where you lose me is saying that what always existed is a 'being'.  Why can't it be that the universe has always existed and periodically sends out an offshoot that we see as our universe beginning with a Big Bang.  We don't know what came before the BB but it seems presumptuous to fill that gap in our knowledge with a human invention.





Ringtone said:


> For the moment, forget about _God—_i.e., _the ultimate apprehension of the pertinent ramifications.  _Remove him from the equation of things, as it were, from in your mind.
> 
> 1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
> 
> ...





alang1216 said:


> Again you claim as fact things you do not know:
> 
> the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past (yet you also so "one cannot _scientifically_ ascertain what preceded the BB")
> Neither our universe in its current form nor the physical world at large can be past eternal.
> An actual infinite is an absurdity (is God infinite?)


Again, forget about God for the moment and focus on the first two in the above.

Do not conflate the logical and mathematical apprehension that_ the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past _and the scientific apprehension that_ one cannot *scientifically *ascertain what preceded the BB . . . i.e., beyond the apparent preexistence of vacuum energy._

They are categorically distinct apprehensions.

Recall, science's purview, as it were, is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world.  Hence, no one can _scientifically_ assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed.  But whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:*  the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot _*scientifically*_ preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy.  The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics.  This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics {i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​
This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well.  The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​
I would encourage you to read my article in which I discuss all of the potential cosmological models, so that you may have a more comprehensive understanding as to why this is so.  Create a Youtube account and sign in before you click on this link:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion .  You don't have to post anything, and you can always delete the account after reading the article and asking any questions you might have


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 21, 2021)

Dr Grump said:


> What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.



What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

_crickets chirping_

By the way, what, precisely, is this _science thingy_ that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 21, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.
> _crickets chirping_
> By the way, what, precisely, is this _science thingy_ that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?
> You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?


Of course, some omnipotent being, who 'has just always been' who just went abracadabra, is so much more believable...

I won't get into the fact for some reason, this god has a massive ego, and wants to be worshipped unconditionally (because??). Or that the human body, for example, is far from perfect, and in some ways is inefficient. So much for intelligence design.

Experimentation is on my side as are the histories of lore.
Sweden, circa 900AD. "Thor, the God of thunder is creating that racket".
The real world 2021: Thunder is caused by the rapid expansion of the air surrounding the path of lightning.

See how that works?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 21, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.
> ...


Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have. 

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 22, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Please reread this exchange very carefully and think, then read my response:
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> ...


None of this is settled science:

Carroll wrote in post-debate comments that Craig "used the celebrated (by theologians) Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which says that a universe with an average expansion rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past." More:


> The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down.


In the debate, Carroll cutely projected photos on a screen behind him showing Dr. Guth holding up a series of signs: "I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning." "I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning." "It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows."​
Thanks for the invite, I'll try and take a look when I get a chance.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> None of this is settled science:
> 
> 
> Carroll wrote in post-debate comments that Craig "used the celebrated (by theologians) Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which says that a universe with an average expansion rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past." More:
> ...



False. Carroll's assertion relative to classical mechanics is misleading. That issue goes to the _t = 0_ of minimum entropy to maximum entropy, which is inescapable. Quantum mechanics, in this instance, strictly goes to the potentialities and origin of vacuum energy. These are the things that are unsettled and, ultimately, beyond the purview of science!

You need to carefully reread the article you cited. The author is pointing out the fact that Carroll misrepresents Craig’ observations and those of BGV.

By the way, I touch on that debate in my article. You get to the discussion page of my channel using this link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion .

See *"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"* for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 22, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Speak for yourself.  I know God exists.


Of course you do, dear.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 22, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> See *"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"* for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.


You made my head hurt.  I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points.  Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic.  Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 22, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > See *"Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument"* for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.
> ...



Sorry about that.  I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies.  The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science.  *Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence. *

So what is the nature of this cause?  It cannot be of a material substance!  It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance.  Absorb that.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.
> ...


.


Ringtone said:


> I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions." You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever. You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.


.
you have yet to account for the roman soldiers present at the tomb -
.




.
being stepped on by the resurrected religious itinerant ... funny they laid there and did nothing about it. or mentioned it to the msm.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 22, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 23, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic.  Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator.  I really have no evidence either way.  Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist.  I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past.  No supernatural intercessions required.  If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 23, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do _not_ see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past.  No one does!  By _solid evidence_, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence.  _All_ of the evidence_—_logical, mathematical _and_ empirical_—_point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, _which includes vacuum energy_.  Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy!  The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality.  In other words, the unsettled science _only_ pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure.  Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.  The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this.  Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be _scientifically_ ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse).  Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited.  Despicable!  Craig understands the possibility of that just fine.  Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all.  No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which *immediately *preceded the physical world at large?  Hint:  it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 23, 2021)

*1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

2.  The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.*

*And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.*


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
> 
> 2.  The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.*
> 
> *And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.*


*Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of the ID’iot creationer “... because I say so” argument, which absolutely tells us nothing, it seems the ID’iot creationers are little more than melodramatic drama queens. *


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 23, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
> 
> 2.  The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.*
> 
> *And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.*


.


Ringtone said:


> Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.


.
yes, the moment of singularity is the cyclical transformation from energy to matter in the present tense and the event will reproduce itself into energy again at a finite time in the future.
.
.


Ringtone said:


> - the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation ...


.
if so, and not an oxymoron, explains, incontrovertibly the basic principle of the cyclical bb.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

*1 *Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

*2 *“Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

*3 *Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

*4 *Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

*5 *Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

*6 *On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

*7 *while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

*8 *Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

*9 *when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

*10 *when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

*11 *and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

*12 *In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

*13 *that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

*14 *The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

*15 *Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

*16 *Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

*17 *Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

*18 *Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

*19 *Where is the way to the home of light?  Do you know where darkness resides,

*20 *so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

*21 *Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

*22 *Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

*23 *which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

*24 *In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

*25 *Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

*26 *to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

*27 *to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

*28 *Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

*29 *From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

*30 *when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

*31 *Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

*32 *Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

*33 *Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

*34 *Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

*35 *Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

*36 *Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

*37 *Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

*38 *when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

*39 *Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

*40 *when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

*41 *Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


What makes you think any of the gods authored the Bible? I agree that there are authors unknown who wrote portions but there’s no indication that the gods wrote anything.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


What makes a belief in GOD religious? Religion is man's vain attempts to appease GOD. Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. If someone has a personal relationship with someone else, there are connections that transcends disbelief that that individual doesn't exist. GOD is a spirit and therefore isn't material. Can you show me the wind, or only point to what the wind does?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a perfect book.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


It’s naive to claim that Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. The archaic rituals, beliefs, instilled fears and coercion go much deeper than a relationship.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


You have provided no indication that the gods wrote any books. Is there any part of the Bible that magically appeared without human authorship?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What I know is that no Creationist, no matter how intelligent, nor what University he or she may have attended, nor what grades and or awards garnered ----- an evolutionist will deem him or her unfit to even teach science, let alone head a science department. Which would seem entirely unjust, given the reality that no one can change the past no matter how it originated. Believing that man evolved from a worm, by way of an ape proves NOTHING --- if there is no experiment to replicate the process.  HOWEVER, if the Creationist Christian would not stoop to steal the institution's property nor waste the institution's money playing games on the internet, nor drink while on the job, he might well develop something which would benefit society today and tomorrow.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


It isn't naive at all. All the ritualism does nothing to gain salvation or a seat next to GOD. Atheist, agnostics, and pagans instill fear that the best this world has to offer is all there is ----- ever. So, what do we have to look forward to? Old age? An end to this pandemic? How about a year without an earthquake, or a tornado/hurricane, or a lightning strike, or a hail storm, or an epic blizzard, or a flood, or a volcanic eruption, or an asteroid headed our way?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


I’m afraid that Christianity, under the burqa of labels including, creation science, scientific creationism, biblical creationism, etc., have had their day in the courts and have been deemed to violate the constitution.

When creationists insist that man evolved from an ape, that should be your first clue why fundamentalist Christians have no place teaching in a science curriculum.

What would a Christian creationist develop? None of the Christian creationist ministries do research. They all have a “ statement of faith” that requires any teaching to conform to biblical principles.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


I’m afraid that the floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., that you describe are a part of nature and a reality that we all must face, religious or not. I would pose the question to you, though, why did the gods design the planet in such a way as to make those natural disasters a reality?

I’m not clear on why you believe that “atheist, agnostics, and pagans instill fear that the best this world has to offer is all there is”? Is there a reason why you believe you deserve more than your corporeal life? You appear to be equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. The happenstance of your geographic place of birth, thus dictating the gods you were given, may provide a seeming “safe place” for your insecurities about the fragility of life. It may assuage your fear of dying. It’s true that most people are not content with being corporeal. A universe that doesn’t provide accommodation for our fears and frailties offers little comfort and security for those who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gods, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gods. They simply accept what they were given and proceed with the rituals, customs and beliefs associated with those gods.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


"You're still not grasping the reality of things."

I'm sure that is true and I appreciate your trying to explain but at least I'm in good company.

Stephen Hawking: Before the Big Bang, he said, events are unmeasurable, and thus undefined. Hawking called this the no-boundary proposal: Time and space, he said, are finite, but they don’t have any boundaries or starting or ending points, the same way that the planet Earth is finite but has no edge.

If the pre-BB universe (or whatever) was undefined by Hawking don't expect me to understand it.  I don't really care if there was a creator or not, I don't see that has having any effect on me one way or the other.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 24, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


.


LittleNipper said:


> The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a *perfect* book.


.
triumph is purity and the single commandment from antiquity - there is nothing that exists that is perfect.

the only item claimed to be etched by the desert religion's god - are the tablets containing the "10 commandments".

where are those nipper - to compare with your 4th century christian bible - for authenticity. as for those in that book they can only be forgeries whether in fact or not as the originals as with all written passages of that book are without their original copies.

as to why they spent an entire century writing your book is proof alone of its invalidity and copious existence.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jan 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


None of this means that Creationists or Creationism are wrong. It simply means that Christians have to apply faith and not rest on their laurels. Of course Creationists do research. For instance, how would they know for a fact that rock spewed out of a volcano say 50 years ago is just as likely to be analyzed and tested to by someone unacquainted with where the said rock was found to say it was 100's of thousands of years old ----- when in fact it is only 50. Misleading you say? Well, how is anyone absolutely sure of when something happened, if in fact they were not there. If someone cannot verify and establish a known fact without complete revelation, how can one then establish an unknown "fact" with any assurance...  Creationists, certainly do not believe that man evolved from anything. He has always been humanoid and nothing else. It is evolutionists who insist man evolved from some lower life form --- call it what you will (it's just somatics ). I will tell you that I believed man and animals once had the capacity to live hundreds of years. How that may have affected their physiology is not known to me; however, I see no reason why it would not. The reason is that oxygen levels were higher, the temperature was more consistently warmer, and ultraviolet rays were likely weaker ---- then came THE FLOOD. And we have fossils to prove it. They were all formed in varying degrees of mud and water. And no matter want secular scientists are willing to divulge, there does appear to be a FLOOD layer that pretty much surrounds the entire earth. And frankly, the statement of faith is mainly to keep atheists from taking over as they have other institutions and then deny Creationists any access unless they capitulate to macro specie evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 25, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


When Christians and creationists insist on a young earth; literal accounts of events in the Bible, they are wrong. There is no question about that.

If, as you claim, creationists do research, identify the research labs and peer reviewed documents they have published. I think you need to be honest with yourself and others and understand that “research” being performed under a “statement of faith”, is simply a dishonest tactic that presumes and predefines conclusions.

Your comment about mis-dating rocks from volcanoes included no examples and nothing to indicate why a 50 year old sample would be mis-dated to hundreds of thousands of years old.

I think you may need to more deeply to consider your comment: “is anyone absolutely sure of when something happened, if in fact they were not there. If someone cannot verify and establish a known fact without complete revelation, how can one then establish an unknown "fact" with any assurance.”

While it may be your intention to apply the above exclusively to science, I see no reason to give religionists an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science, only. Why does religionism get a pass?

My response to the above is that religionists have unquestioningly accepted the faulty claims of creationists without adequate investigation. The complete lack of any verifiable data that typically accompanies claims by creationers allows believers to accept those ludicrous ideas without even questioning them. Also, faith in a literal intrepretation of the Bible is so strong that you perceive real science as an attack on your belief. Religionists are looking for "scientific" reassurance that their beliefs are still valid. Your beliefs (especially of the eternal afterlife) are so important to you, and you are so terrified of losing them, that you are willing to accept the nonsense that creationists spout without checking that any of it is factual.

To suggest that humans could live for 900 years because the climate was different is not a convincing argument. Religionists claiming that ultraviolet rays were somehow screened out before the flood, allowing the fantastically long life-spans is not supported by any studies. Can you link to a creationer website that can provide some detail? I would suggest that incestuous / familial relations after the alleged flood would tend to shorten lifespans. Interestingly, the reported lifespans shorten from 900 years to 100 years in the several generations after the flood. Could the writers of the Bible have known about the affects of ultraviolet radiation and inbreeding would shorten lifespans and damage the species?

There is no evidence outside of accounts in the Bible that suggest people once lived as long as 900 years. There are no historical (or hysterical) records from the period in Egypt, the Maya civilization, China, or elsewhere that tell us of people having multiple century lifespans. I would suggest that some errors in transcription may have happened (though I don't know for sure), and the terms for "year" and "month" may have been garbled. Perhaps it’s more likely that 900 years was actually confused with 900 months, which would suggest a 75-year lifetime. That is still an exceptionally long lifetime by the standards of the period. The average lifespan of people during the time of Jesus is more like 50 years vs. today being 75 years. Oddly, evilutionist atheist modern medical science is credited with increasing lifespans.

What flood layer pretty much surrounds the entire earth?

There is an identifiable layer of material from the Chicxulub meteor impact of 65 million years ago but that presents a timeframe problem for religionists.


----------

