Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...
What are you talking about? The OP is free to read for yourself.
Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
0 + 0 =
Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
Excellent, thank you. I have also read about quantum mechanical experiments that show the future affects the past. Mind blowing stuff.It is? I am curious to hear this one.For example, time is circular.
You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too.
I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.
If I remember correctly, it goes like this.
You determine your future as per your expectations in your past. But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future.
For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox. Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.
I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this. Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable.
Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation. So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.
In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time. But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.
Aquinas still understood that logic was a tool, but premises are more subjective than numbers in mathematics. 1+2=3 is objectively true, always. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not. Sonwhile Aquinas did love his arguments, even he acknowledged they were not "proof", even though he viewed them as emergent from the creation as he did mathematics. I would say he was right on both counts, right up to when he then insisted design.
Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?I've already said I don't know.Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical. Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what ontological nothingness means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?It's your OP, I'm asking you.Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?I didn't run away from anything in the first place. Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?
As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation: I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity—i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating. That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place. In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.
Moving on. . . .
An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!
Or, stated another way:
Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!
I ask you once again:
Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?
It's a yes/no question.
Further, Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for creation out of nothing) is a theological term of art that means creation out of no priorly existing substance, not creation out of an ontological nothingness.
Edit post #73: the above should read creation out of no priorly existing material substance. . . .
No sooner did darkness fall on the primordial Sabbath and it became permissible to work but God came into existence to perform His almighty labors.Bible Gateway passage: Génesis 1:1-3 - Reina-Valera Antigua
EN el principio crió Dios los cielos y la tierra. Y la tierra estaba desordenada y vacía, y las tinieblas estaban sobre la haz del abismo, y el Espíritu de Dios se movía sobre la haz de las aguas. Y dijo Dios: Sea la luz: y fué la luz.www.biblegateway.com
The evening went by and it was morning and the whole day was spent but God continued working six days straight, until the the morning dew began to fall on the Sabbath, when God perfected His work and rested.
...
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.....[/B]
True I guess, but it does render this topic academic.Well, that goes to an entirely different discussion, doesn't it?Let's assume everything you wrote is 100% true, is there any demonstrable connection between this creator and the God of the Bible?
It is your contention that there are some creator gods but you fail to indicate which of the various claims to gods you refer to.In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.
If by gods you mean God the Creator, see OP. Thanks. As for your notion that God should be able to do the impossible, that's crazy talk.
Its a tactic of the ID creationists such as the OP to put their religious propaganda in Science and Technology forums in the hope of giving their propaganda credibility as something other than faith based apologetics.No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...
What are you talking about? The OP is free to read for yourself.
The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.
Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.
That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.
I refer you to:
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski
Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee
Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.
Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”
Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.
The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.
Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
-------------------------------------------
Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin. It is your downfall. I am nothing. It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn. You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer
That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.
I refer you to:
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski
Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee
Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.
Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”
Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.
The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.
Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
-------------------------------------------
Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin. It is your downfall. I am nothing. It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn. You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer
americanloons.blogspot.com
Sure, but that is philosophy. It is not a testable, scientific idea. And don't trick yourself into thinking you have found some sort of objective, forcing argument for a god. Really you have subjectively chosen a long form way of authoritatively saying, "There is a god." You agree to subjective premises from the start which are, themselves, carefully chosen specifically for the success of the argument.. So the first mover argument is no more compelling than saying, "I think strawberries taste good." Well...good for you. Let's not try to turn "strawberries taste good" into a philosophical treatise in order to try to sneak it by as some sort of forcing argument or objective truth.I do have to stand with him about the question of design too, because it is valid to ask about the first mover.
What caused gods to begin to exist?1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh? Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term sufficient cause and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness. Magic!
Then you can't answer his simple question.
I say he did. Same for the other gods.God did not begin to exist
I guarantee you the answer to the things you believe we know Is we don’t know.Baby talk. Something exists rather than nothing, dummy. The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science tell us that something has always existed.Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.
If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.
The first premise: That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
Are you really that stupid or are you prevaricating?
Why not? You claim god can do the absurd and impossible.To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.
What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?
