Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

And all of those 32 hypotheses (if they really exist) ether: claim that the universe came from nothing or that it has always existed, (or are open for both possibilities)

My point is that for the there are only 2 possibilities

1 it has always existed

2 it came from nothing

For goodness’s sake, drag yourself into a 20th century view of time.

(Space-)time is (according to our best relevant theory, general relativity) a four-dimensional manifold and a part of the universe. In that sense, it must have 'always' existed in the sense that it has existed at every point in time, even if the space-time terminates in past time-like directions through it. Looking for the reason for its existence at the earliest point in time (if there is one) is a bit like looking for the reason the earth exists at the North Pole.

If this view is correct (there are other hypotheses, but none are well tested theories, like general relativity), there is no 'coming from' involved. Things can only come from something else within time, which means the question of what the whole universe (space-time manifold) 'came from' is nonsensical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you know what, when, where and how particular fish morphed eventually to become apes, huh?

No fish "morphed" into apes.

Evolution is a gradual process.
There is about 350-400 million years worth of gradual evolution between sea-life and primates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sounds like an excuse for changing the topic.

support your assertion.............why isent my claim of me being a man or yourtrue claim of being a woman "evidence"

Because claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

The issue here with you claiming to be a man is that it is so trivial and unimportant that nobody is going to care enough to demand evidence and instead just accept your claim at face value.

But it's still just a bare claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whait………….we do have good evidence that yoursture is a woman, her claim in her profile page would be that evidence………agree?

No

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so at least sometimes claims are evidence…………….as you just explained……..we agree…………the next time an atheist asserts that “clams are not evidence” (never ever) I will tag you so that you can correct him

Not at all what he said

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what? Do you believe all humans are apes?

Off course.

Just like they are all mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

 

[leroy]

i have already mentioned that you should check her profile, as I had also checked your profile (which stated the date of registration, religion and gender). I told you in the earlier post to look at her profile. You’re not reading my post.

but I had known @YoursTrue before that, under her avatar’s name on the left of each posts. RF used to listed members’ gender in the posts of threads.

Therefore her claim of she being a woman is evidence that she is a woman....agree?

 

[leroy]

No.

Also, the "universe" is not "all physical reality". It's rather the space-time continuum.
When talking about "all that actually exists", physics refers to that as "cosmos" if I remember correctly.


There is no reason at all to assume that "nature" is restricted to just the space-time bubble we happen to occupy.

You can use any words that you whant.....

All I am saying is that IF "the natural world " (call it cosmos, universe, multiverse, physical reality or use any other word) had a cause ..... this cause by definition has to be supernatural

This is true by definition. This is not intended to be controversial....

If you cant understand this simple and uncontrovertial fact (which is logically necessary and true by definition) then I am not interested in having a conversation with you.

 

[leroy]

False.


It's rather simple really........
"The universe has always existed".

With our current understanding of the nature of the universe, that is actually a factual and true statement.
"Always" is a period of time. ALL of time, to be exact.

The universe started at T = 0. It's the space-time continuum. Time is literally a dimension of the universe, inherent to it.
At any point in time the universe existed.

Go back in time. Pick any point in time. Did the universe exist then? The answer is "yes", isn't it?

The start of the universe IS the start of time (as we know both the universe AND time).
So how then is it incorrect to say that the universe has always existed?

Was there a time when the universe didn't exist? If you think there was, then when was this?

I say that there was no such time.
Any point in time you can point to, the universe existed.

It is dishonest to make an argument based on semantic garbage........ with" always existed "in this context it is meant that it has existed for an infinite amput of time. ....... and you know it....

 

[YellowFeather]

It is hard to understand how God did create the world when there was nothing to start with. It took God thousands of years to create the earth. He started with just one little spectrum floating in space. He took it and started working it to where it became larger and was able to then create things inside. Everything God created took time. God is a Spirit and is invisible. so was the world at one time. With Gods knowledge we can now see what God created. Even though we cannot see God we see his work.

 

[YellowFeather]

Athiest believe in there on miracles. They do not believe in God's miracles, God only give miracles to the one that truly believes in him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can use any words that you whant.....

All I am saying is that IF "the natural world " (call it cosmos, universe, multiverse, physical reality or use any other word) had a cause ..... this cause by definition has to be supernatural

Why?

This is true by definition. This is not intended to be controversial....

I can surely accept that you don't intend it to be controversial. I'm not even saying it isn't. That's kind of subjective anyway.

Perhaps some clarification on your end could help here:
1. what do you mean by "cause"
and
2. what do you mean by "supernatural"


For example, if what you are talking about is "all of reality", and if the god you believe exists actually exists, wouldn't that god then be a part of "all of reality"?
If god is real, then god is a part of reality, right?

You seem to be saying that god isn't part of reality, but yet somehow real anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is dishonest to make an argument based on semantic garbage........

It's not "semantic garbage".
It's what time is according what we know it to be.
It's an intrinsic part of the universe.
It exists as part of the universe.
When the universe began, time began. The universe IS time (and space).
"time beginning" and "the universe beginning" are virtually synonymous. They are the same thing, as we understand it today. The universe = space-time
This means that the universe has always (=for all of time) existed.

with" always existed "in this context it is meant that it has existed for an infinite amput of time. ....... and you know it....

But there is no infinite amount of time for that to be an option. The universe (and thus time) is finite into the past.

This is the point. You are pretending as if time is some infinite sequence of moments in both present and future. It is not.
It is finite into the past. Time is an intrinsic part of the universe. It is not some thing external to it. Space and time are both aspects of the universe.
They don't exist independently of one another.

Your statement pretends they do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is hard to understand how God did create the world when there was nothing to start with. It took God thousands of years to create the earth.

It took reality billions of years.

He started with just one little spectrum floating in space.
He took it and started working it to where it became larger and was able to then create things inside. Everything God created took time.

What "space"? Which "time"? There was no space-time continuum, if god had to create it.

God is a Spirit and is invisible.

Which looks very much like something that doesn't exist.

so was the world at one time. With Gods knowledge we can now see what God created. Even though we cannot see God we see his work.

I see the blind forces of the universe working upon matter and energy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Athiest believe in there on miracles.

What would those be?

 

[gnostic]

It is hard to understand how God did create the world when there was nothing to start with. It took God thousands of years to create the earth. He started with just one little spectrum floating in space. He took it and started working it to where it became larger and was able to then create things inside. Everything God created took time. God is a Spirit and is invisible. so was the world at one time. With Gods knowledge we can now see what God created. Even though we cannot see God we see his work.

The "God did it" as it is above quote, is nothing more than superstitions.

Nothing what the Bible say, are generally wrong, about the Earth, the order of creation of life in Genesis 1 is contradicted by the order of creation 2.

Plus the order of plants, marine animals, birds and land animals don't match with the evidence in the fossil record and with geological evidence.

Genesis Creation as you have given, it is taken on faith.

 

[leroy]

For goodness’s sake, drag yourself into a 20th century view of time.

(Space-)time is (according to our best relevant theory, general relativity) a four-dimensional manifold and a part of the universe. In that sense, it must have 'always' existed in the sense that it has existed at every point in time, even if the space-time terminates in past time-like directions through it. Looking for the reason for its existence at the earliest point in time (if there is one) is a bit like looking for the reason the earth exists at the North Pole.

If this view is correct (there are other hypotheses, but none are well tested theories, like general relativity), there is no 'coming from' involved. Things can only come from something else within time, which means the question of what the whole universe (space-time manifold) 'came from' is nonsensical.

how does that refute the comment that you are repllying to

my coment:
My point is that for the naturalist there are only 2 possibilities

1 it (the universe) has always existed

2 it came from nothing


In this context “universe” means all physical reality (all the natural world) ………….feel free to use any other word instead of “universe”

 

[leroy]

Why?

Ok last try……… if you don’t understand this I will no longer have a conversation with you on this topic.

For example

If the first computer had a cause, then by definition that cause had to be a “non-computer” otherwise it wouldn’t be the first computer………….

If the first computer was caused by another computer, then it can´t be the first computer

up to this point do you agree?.............do you see anything controversial?



Before answering with your nonsense and with your semantic games, please make an honest effort and try to understand …….this is your last chance



..

By that logic if the universe (the natural world) had a cause, then by definition the cause has to be non-natural (supernatural) otherwise it would be the cause of the natural world.

If “nature” had a cause this cause cannot be “nature” otherwise it wouldn’t be the cause of “nature”………….this is true by definition, it doesn’t matter how you define nature, this is true regardless of any definition that you use

 

[leroy]

It's not "semantic garbage".
It's what time is according what we know it to be.
It's an intrinsic part of the universe.
It exists as part of the universe.
When the universe began, time began. The universe IS time (and space).
"time beginning" and "the universe beginning" are virtually synonymous. They are the same thing, as we understand it today. The universe = space-time
This means that the universe has always (=for all of time) existed.

I am not claiming that you are wrong…………I am accusing you for using creative semantics to refute the argument, instead of actually responding to the point made in the argument.

Besides the truth of your claim doesn’t affects any of my claims………..so you are just throwing a dishonest red herring

But there is no infinite amount of time for that to be an option. The universe (and thus time) is finite into the past.

I agree………….I simply established that there is another possibility (time is infinite)

So

1 was time caused by nothing

Or

2 did time had a cause



Which of the 2 options do you think is more likely to be ture?

 

[gnostic]

how does that refute the comment that you are repllying to

my coment:
My point is that for the naturalist there are only 2 possibilities

1 it (the universe) has always existed

2 it came from nothing


In this context “universe” means all physical reality (all the natural world) ………….feel free to use any other word instead of “universe”

“ONLY” 2 possibilities?

You are talking about “possibilities“, so anything is possible, but Natural Sciences deal with what evidence are available and currently observable…meaning what are observable, as indications of what is “probable” or “likely“, or the opposites, thus ”improbable” or “unlikely”.

Sciences like physics, or astrophysics, focused on the evidence that can be observed, as the evidence tallies up or accumulate, and these provide data from samples, and they used vocabulary from the Statistics & Probabilities, hence the uses of terms, like probable vs improbable, likely vs unlikely…

WHAT THEY DON’T USE, ARE ”possible”, “possibility”. You may use these terms for philosophies, religions, mysticism, spirituality, supernatural, paranormal, magic, and so on, but with natural sciences, scientists preferred not to use them.

So whatever you could possibly imagine or dream of, could be possible…and there are myriads of possibilities, in which can make up something, no matter how crazy or unrealistic these imaginary they are.