Zone1 No Wonder Why I Had Doubts In God's Existence Before

[Blues Man]

You are skipping steps. You have to address the basis for that statement. Namely:

1. We live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.
2. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence.
3. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.
4. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
5. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
6. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect.

And you haven't done that yet.

What you call laws are nothing but relationships between the matter and energy that exists and we can observe

You say these laws existed before the universe existed but that is nothing but speculation. We say it's a "law" that matter cannot be created or destroyed but you say that "law" existed before there was any matter in the universe therefore matter had to be created before that" law" could exist.

What you call information is nothing but light radiation and matter it is we humans who give it the name information and attach meaning to it like you are attaching some "spirit" to it.

We are intelligent beings ( which is debatable IMO) that exist in the universe that could just as easily be a confluence of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events and not "willed" into existence by the universe.

You are basing all this on the paltry 5% of the universe we "intelligent" humans can understand

 

[Blues Man]

Not exactly. It's more like the nature of the constant presence of mind created an alternate reality and naturally imbued it with its attributes.

As for purpose, purpose is an artifact of what something is and its natural expression of thus. Just look at nature to see it. It's all around you.

So it's a computer program written by an alien

That is just as plausible as your explanation

 

[Blues Man]

Yes we do. I've already explained this to you several times now so please pay close attention to this.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I'm not going to read any posts where you use overly large fonts

 

[Blues Man]

I never said laws were a spirit or called laws by spirit. I said the natural laws are incorporeal like a spirit. And like a spirit, anything incorporeal can exist outside of space and time eternally because it is not bound by physical laws.

As for whether a law is descriptive or prescriptive, it is both. Laws both prescribe and describe the state of reality. The important thing to know about laws is that they are a sign of intelligence. Laws both describe and prescribe how order comes from chaos.

We call them laws because we think these "laws" cannot be broken but we don't know that all we know is that we can't seem to break them. And as I said we ain't as smart as we think we are.

 

[ding]

What you call laws are nothing but relationships between the matter and energy that exists and we can observe

You say these laws existed before the universe existed but that is nothing but speculation. We say it's a "law" that matter cannot be created or destroyed but you say that "law" existed before there was any matter in the universe therefore matter had to be created before that" law" could exist.

What you call information is nothing but light radiation and matter it is we humans who give it the name information and attach meaning to it like you are attaching some "spirit" to it.

We are intelligent beings ( which is debatable IMO) that exist in the universe that could just as easily be a confluence of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events and not "willed" into existence by the universe.

You are basing all this on the paltry 5% of the universe we "intelligent" humans can understand

Whether you call them laws or relationships it's still the same; they describe and prescribe behaviors which are logical and convey information. All of which are all signs of intelligence.

Whether you call them laws or relationships they still existed before space and time because space and time followed those laws or relationships. Which is exactly what Dr. Vilinken said in the video you probably didn't watch.

Nothing happens that is random. They happen because of cause and effect. In fact, evolution occurs for logical reasons. Evolution does not occur randomly.

I am basing my beliefs on what we know. Not what we don't know which is apparently what your belief that nothing is knowable is based upon.

 

[ding]

So it's a computer program written by an alien

That is just as plausible as your explanation

And like I said before... that analogy is based upon an intelligent creator who intentionally created the universe. Which is exactly what the creation of the universe and the evolution of space and time shows.

 

[ding]

I'm not going to read any posts where you use overly large fonts

I believe it is more like you aren't going to read anything which challenges your worldview.

 

[ding]

We call them laws because we think these "laws" cannot be broken but we don't know that all we know is that we can't seem to break them. And as I said we ain't as smart as we think we are.

You certainly aren't because you are rejecting the science of the big bang for no other reason than it supports the existence of a creator.

 

[Mashmont]

Opiate of the masses. There is a separation of church and state written into the US Constitution because there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Americans should be free from atheism, Constitutionally. This is a weakness in the document and it needs to be amended. Atheism is the most destructive force that exists.

 

[Mashmont]

So far as I know, only Christianity and Islam actively recruit adherents, often violently

Islam, maybe. Not Christianity. Please stop the lying.

 

[Blues Man]

Whether you call them laws or relationships it's still the same; they describe and prescribe behaviors which are logical and convey information. All of which are all signs of intelligence.

Whether you call them laws or relationships they still existed before space and time because space and time followed those laws or relationships. Which is exactly what Dr. Vilinken said in the video you probably didn't watch.

Nothing happens that is random. They happen because of cause and effect. In fact, evolution occurs for logical reasons. Evolution does not occur randomly.

I am basing my beliefs on what we know. Not what we don't know which is apparently what your belief that nothing is knowable is based upon.

No they didn't because relationships between things that exist do not exist before those things themselves exist.

And you are saying that some "spirit" is the primary cause of everything and that is nothing but your theory

And what we know is 5% of the matter and energy in the universe so until you know the other 95% there is no way you can make these definitive statements that some "spirit" created everything.

 

[Blues Man]

Islam, maybe. Not Christianity. Please stop the lying.

You are denying history.

How many people were "brought to Jesus" at the tip of the sword?

 

[alang1216]

Islam, maybe. Not Christianity. Please stop the lying.

Sorry you don't like your own history but facts are facts. Once Christians controlled the Roman Empire they made the practice of paganism a capital crime. One of many examples.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So yeah, there's plenty of indirect evidence that can be studied. Unless of course one is an intellectually dead atheist who has absolutely no evidence or logic for his intellectually dead end beliefs.

No there isn't it. Nor will you be naming any or describing how to study any.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The presence of matter/energy literally creates space and time. So whatever exists outside of space and time cannot be matter or energy.

Nobody has to recognize these shamanistic declarations.

 

[ding]

No they didn't because relationships between things that exist do not exist before those things themselves exist.

And you are saying that some "spirit" is the primary cause of everything and that is nothing but your theory

And what we know is 5% of the matter and energy in the universe so until you know the other 95% there is no way you can make these definitive statements that some "spirit" created everything.

 

[ding]

No there isn't it. Nor will you be naming any or describing how to study any.

Tons of evidence. It's all around you.

 

[ding]

Nobody has to recognize these shamanistic declarations.

It's just science.

 

[badger2]

A pejorative statement...not by you, you are just quoting. The man who first said it, had a purpose. The purpose of pejorative statement is always for a transfer of power--and therefore money.

It might also be said that there is no freedom of government without freedom from government. Those who have power and money are not apt to let go of it. What atheists often overlook is that without God, government is the highest power, and the problem with power is that those who have it want more...and it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

While some may not want God for themselves, they might consider that when the majority of citizens insist there is a power higher than government, that belief benefits atheists as well because it holds that absolute power/absolute corruption at bay--at least for a time.

It's absurd to suggest that a non-existent entity is holding anything at bay. Where is the evidence outside your head? Carrying imaginations to their extreme is the pathology.

 

[Meriweather]

It's absurd to suggest that a non-existent entity is holding anything at bay. Where is the evidence outside your head? Carrying imaginations to their extreme is the pathology.

God may be non-existent to you, but He hasn't been to all. The question before us is whether we want government to be the highest power and supreme decision maker.