cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[TagliatelliMonster]

That 's why BB theory is a cop out!

No.

Rather, it just shows that you don't really understand what you are talking about.
The BB is no "cop out". It's a perfectly reasonable model for the expansion of the known universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying dark energy is not omnipresent according to science?

I said quite a few things. You seem to have not read what I actually said. Or you are deliberately ignoring it.

I'm betting on the latter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that is the point, one can recognize design in a thing even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the designer.

Do you grant this point?

Not as written. You missed crucial information.
Like "signs of manufacturing", which we recognize through our own experience with manufacturing.

That, and our knowledge of natural processes, is how we distinguish between artificially manufactured things and natural occurrences.

So, to repeat: we can recognize design in certain things because:
1. we have a rather good idea of what nature can and can not do (yet there are still unknowns)
2. we understand the process of manufacturing and are able to use that experience and knowledge to recognize signs of manufacturing in certain objects.


It's, for example, how we can distinguish an artificially carved rock from a naturally eroded rock.
Because we understand and know how the results of erosion look like
And we understand and know how the results of carving look like.

So even if we deal with a seemingly randomly shaped rock with no particular function... then still we would be able to tell if it got its shape from carving or not. And we'ld recgonize it simply because it would have traces of carving.

Each manufacturing technique leaves its marks. Then there's also the used materials and the way they are put together (glue, bolts, nails, screws, etc).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything always existed or it mgicalky appeared, maybe from leprechauns.

Did you just compare your god to magical leprechauns?


Anyhow, false dichotomies aren't going to help your case.

 

[Brian2]

I suggest you look up the definitions of religion and atheiem

We aren't talking about whether God exists or not and whether that is belief or unbelief, we are talking about corollaries of those things.

 

[Brian2]

Well, there is an aspect not of atheists, but a certain version of the world that hasn't to do with science, because you can do science without it.
The short version is the real world. The real word is independent of minds/brains. The problems are:
-You can't observe the world having the property of being real
-That is not really a problem because reason in men causes the world to be real, if we define it as real. That is the definition of the world as real causes the world to be real.
-That is not really a problem, because between different understandings of how the world is, if we define it as real, the other understandings are not relevant, because we decide for the world and all humans, what is relevant. That is because we hold authority over what the world is, what real is and what is relevant, because our method is the correct one.

That is how the real objective world objectivists do it, if you follow their words as how they function in the everyday world.
And yes, we have them here and it has nothing to do with atheism.

I suppose it is scientism.

 

[ChristineM]

We aren't talking about whether God exists or not and whether that is belief or unbelief, we are talking about corollaries of those things.

The definitions are precise, jumping sideways does not change them

 

[Brian2]

Correct, but their faith is that they can explain everything as relevant to being a human in the world using objective reason, logic and evidence.
The auxiliary ad-hoc is that they are the standard for morality for all humans, because how they do morality can't be done differently, because they say so.

Yes that morality thing can turn into bigotry against those who do morality a different way. But it is not seen as bigotry, the others are seen as the bigots because they disagree with their morality.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you have a problem with this? It is possibility although the first law of thermodynamics does not apply because that only deals with a closed systrm.

I don't know if it is possible or not. I do believe in a creator God however and so, as I said, I justify that belief.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know if it is possible or not. I do believe in a creator God however and so, as I said, I justify that belief.

That is your prerogative.

I know of 32 different ways this universe could have formed each is justified either by mathematics or extrapolation of observed evidence. I have never seen any evidence to say "god" so i have believe in gods

 

[Brian2]

Nice story. It seems to be simply special pleading to avoid the natural conclusion.

Not really, it is just showing that the first cause and effect could happen at the same time if necessary, if the circumstances of going from a no time environment to a time environment demanded it.

Yes, there is good reason to think that causality makes no sense 'outside of the universe' (which is a nonsense phrase): all natural laws deal with events within the universe. Causality is dependent on those natural laws.

Causality in the universe is dependent on the natural laws of the universe. That does not mean that causality does not exist outside the universe, it just means that another set of laws might apply there.

 

[Brian2]

Really? How would you decide which is which?

That has nothing to do with whether it is possible.
If a A exists before a certain point and A and B exist after that point in time then A is the cause.

 

[Brian2]

There is nothing outside of this geometry. If there was something outside, then the geometry just needs to be extended.



Sure, that is essentially the multiverse model. But why introduce something outside?

It's all speculation so why not introduce something outside?
A God might be outside and all the way through a a time space model.

It exists. The term 'now' represents a point in the geometry.

What is to say that an empty time space model does not exist and we just fill it with events as we move through it?

 

[Brian2]

There's two problem with saying the universe has simply been here forever
1 - it isnt true
2 - it still doesn't explain how it came to be.

They are good problems for those with that idea to figure out.
It is almost like mathematics and science is willing to accept ridiculous things to try to explain mysteries which exist with old intuitive ways of looking at things.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, you have it wrong. Once again, you are using time and time is part of the universe of spacetime..

Time is part of the model but that does not mean that time has to have been connected to space always or that time and space had to always exist.

Huh?.

Does that "Huh?" mean that myself typing this is actually happening while you are reading it, but in a different part of time/space?

You said that matter is dead and needs something living as a cause for motion. That is simply not the case. Matter interacts with other thereby producing movement. No living thing need be around (and since living things are limited to planets, they are not around for most motion in the universe)..

I said ""We know cause effect exist with physical things, they are dead after all and need a cause to stir them up."" and that means that dead chemicals need something to cause them to move and do anything (even if that is other matter) I was explaining why God is different to the material in or that came from the BB. God is self motivating.
"We Never Know" had said
>>>No different than..
-god always existed without cause
-the big bang had to have a cause<<<

Theology assumes spirits exist in spite of the lack of evidence of such. Science doesn't make that assumption without evidence. That seems reasonable.

Yes science is an innocent bystander. It is people who conclude that spirits do not exist just because science has not found them who are the problem and who jump to a religious type faith when they conclude that.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Did you consider that an adequate reply? I wrote:

[1] What part of the Bible do you think you couldn't have written?

[2] How often do we read the apologist say that the Bible foretold this or that perfectly predictable phenomenon such as that the adherents of a religion would be disliked for their beliefs, or that there would be earthquakes and wars and world unrest? No disrespect intended, but if you read that in a Chinese fortune cookie or a horoscope, would you think that a human being couldn't have written it, or that the fortune must have come from God?

Why do you think I wrote those words to you? For you to blow them off? I hope that you weren't expecting an answer to your question after disregarding both of mine.

Since you wouldn't answer either of those questions, I'll answer for you. [1] There is no part of the Bible that you couldn't have written, and [2] no, one can't distinguish biblical prophecies from horoscopes or Chinese cookie fortunes.

The fundamental position held by humanists is that prophecy does not happen.

As l see it, every word recorded by the prophets is inspired scripture. I could not have written any of it because one prophet's writing has to fit with all the other prophet's writings. There is no comparison here to horoscopes or Chinese cookies because God is not that small. We are talking here about the existence of a God who created the heaven and earth. It's a God who chooses to reveal to mankind, over time, His will and purpose until a new heaven and earth is brought into being.

Meanwhile the humanist is engaged in trying to make sense of an existence that he believes began with an accident. So, having failed to find God in the physical universe, the humanist has given up hope of knowing the truth. Relative truth and relative values now rest with the individual humanist, making selfishness, rather than service, the driving force or impulse.

You claim that the Bible is not a revelation from God, and that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah of prophecy. Yet, there are numerous prophecies pointing to the figure of the Messiah. Here are just the ones that talk about the Suffering Servant:

Prophecies of the Suffering Servant

1. Genesis 3:15 > Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:8. The seed of the woman.

2. Genesis 12:3 > Matthew 1:1; Acts 3:25; 18:18; 22:18; Galatians 3:16. The seed of Abraham.

3. Genesis 17:19; 21:12 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Hebrews 11:17-19. The seed of Isaac.

4. Genesis 28:14; Numbers 24:17,19 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Revelation 22:16. The star out of Jacob who will have dominion.

5. Genesis 49:10 > Matthew 1:2-3; Luke 3:33; Hebrews 7:14. A descendant of Judah.

6. 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 9:6 (7); Jeremiah 23:5 > Matthew 1:1,6; Acts 11:23; Romans 1:4. A descendant of David and heir to his throne.

7. Micah 5:1 (2) > John 11, 14; 8:58; Ephesians 1:3-14; Colossians1:15-19; Revelation 5:11. The Messiah’s eternal existence.

8. Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4 > Matthew 3:17; Luke 1:32. The Messiah is the Son of God.

9. Isaiah 9:5-6 (6-7); Jeremiah 23:5-6 > Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:9-11. The Messiah bears God’s own name.

10. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1, 16,19; Luke 3:1,23. Coming 483 years after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem.

11. Micah 5:1(2) > Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7. Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, Judea.

13. Psalm 72:10-11 > Matthew 2:1-11. Adored by great persons.

14. Isaiah 40: 3-5; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 3:1-3; Luke 1:17; 3:2-6. Announced by prophet.

15. Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; Psalm 45:8 (7) > Matthew 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 10:38. Anointed with the Spirit of God.

16. Deuteronomy 18:15,18 > Acts 3:20-22. A prophet like Moses.

17. Isaiah 61:1-2 > Luke 4:18-19. Proclaims liberty and the acceptable year of the Lord.

18. Isaiah 35:5-6; 42:18 > Matthew 11:5 and throughout the Gospels. Ministry of healing.

19. Isaiah 8:23 – 9:1 (9:1-2) > Matthew 4:12-16. A ministry in Galilee.

20. Isaiah 40:11; 42:3 > Matthew 12:15,20; Hebrews 4:15. Be tender and compassionate.

21. Isaiah 42:2 > Matthew 12:15-16,19. Be meek and unostentatious.

22. Isaiah 53:9 > 1 Peter 2:22. Be sinless and without guile.

23. Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 69:10 > Romans 15:13. Bear the reproaches due to others.

24. Psalm 110:4 > Hebrews 5:5-6. Be a priest.

25. Zechariah 9:9 > Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11. Enter Jerusalem on the foal of an ***.

26. Haggai 2:7-9; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 21:12-24; Luke 2:27-38, 45-50: John 2:13-22. Enter the Temple with authority.

27. Isaiah 49:7; Psalm 69:5 (4) > John 7:48; 15:24-25. Be hated without cause.

28. Isaiah 53:2; 63:3; Psalm 69:9 (8) > Mark 6:3: Luke 9:58; John1:11, 7:3-5. Rejected by his own people.

29. Psalm 118:22 > Matthew 21:42; John 7:48. Rejected by the Jewish leadership.

30. Psalm 2:1-2 > Acts 4:27. Plotted against by both Jews and Gentiles.

31. Psalm 41:9; 55:13-15 (12-14) >Matthew 26:21-25, 47-50; John 13:18-21; Acts 1:16-18. Betrayed by a friend.

32. Zechariah 11:12 > Matthew 26:15. Sold for 30 pieces of silver.

33. Zechariah 11:13 > Matthew 27:7. Have his price given for a potter’s field.

34. Zechariah 13:7 > Matthew 26:31,56. Forsaken by his disciples.

35. Micah 4:14 (5:1) > Matthew 27:30. Struck on the cheek.

36. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:30. Spat on.

37. Psalm 22:8-9 (7-8) > Matthew 27:31, 39-44, 67-68. Mocked.

38. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:26,30. Beaten.

39. Psalm 22:17; Zechariah 12:10 (16) > Matthew 27:35; Luke 24:39; John 19:18, 34-37; 20:35; Revelation 1:7. Crucifixion.

40. Psalm 22:16 (15) > John 19:28. Thirsty during crucifixion.

41. Psalm 69:22 (21) > Matthew 27:34. Given vinegar to quench thirst.

42. Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:21 (20) >John 19:33-36. Executed without a bone broken.

43. Isaiah 53:12 > Matthew 27:38. Considered a transgressor.

44. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1; Luke 3:1,23. ‘Cut off, but not for himself’.

45. Isaiah 53:5-7, 12 > Mark 10:45; John 1:29; 3:16; Acts 8:30-35. Atone for the sins of mankind.

46. Isaiah 53:9 > Matthew 27:57-60. Buried with the rich when dead.

47. Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10 > Matthew 28:1-20; Acts 2:23-36; 13:33-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Raised from the dead.

48. Psalm 16:11; 68:19 (18); 110:1 > Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; 7:55; Hebrews 1:3. Ascend to the right hand of God.

49. Zechariah 6:13 > Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25-8:2. Exercise his priestly office in heaven.

50. Isaiah 28:16; Psalm 118:22-23 > Matthew 21:42; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:5-7. The cornerstone of God’s spiritual temple.

51. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1 > Acts 10:45. Sought after by Gentiles as well as Jews.

52. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1-4; 49:1-2 > Matthew 12:21; Romans 15:10. Accepted by the Gentiles.

Now, I'm perfectly aware that Torah Jews like to look at each prophecy separately, and then apply the prophecy to a figure in the Torah. But it's the cumulative impact of these prophecies that leave one without doubt that no other man (apart from Jesus) could have fulfilled them all. Even during his ministry, well before his crucifixion, Jesus made his disciples aware that he would die and be resurrected. This is why he referred to the 'sign of Jonah'.

Now it's up to you to explain how it is that Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies. Even on the cross, whilst dying, Jesus referred the crowd to Psalm 22. Have you ever read this Psalm?

 

[Brian2]

No. That is a misstatement. I think the best explanation is that the universe of spacetime simply exists and is uncaused.

That sounds like a crazy thing however when I stand back and look at what you are saying.
I suppose you must have evidence for saying that, yes?

 

[Brian2]

We don't know 1. It may be that the Big Bang is simply a phase change from an earlier stage of the universe.

If it always existed, then it was not caused, so the question of 2 is moot.

There can be no way to explain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To have a cause, something must exist.

A something that exists could be the fist cause, a God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is this your way of saying that one must believe it first before one can receive the justification to believe it?

If yes, sounds like self-delusion.

No, you may believe what you like, if you want reality, you must realize it!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

Rather, it just shows that you don't really understand what you are talking about.
The BB is no "cop out". It's a perfectly reasonable model for the expansion of the known universe.

It may seem to be a reasonable belief to some, particularly if passing an exam depends on that belief.