Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[SkepticThinker]

No, the strange part is how YOU keep putting God in the gap:

If the universe was not created supernaturally, are you saying it is eternal? If it's eternal, that likewise violates the Law of Conservation.

Again, that is you.


I'm the one saying I don't know how the universe came to be.
You claim the universe was created supernaturally. You claim that the Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation. You claim there is an eternal god.
You have backed up none of your claims. You've merely asserted them.

So is the universe supernaturally eternal or supernaturally created?

Who says these are the only options?

None of your sidestepping addresses my point that positing "god" (as you do) solves the problem you think exists here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are dancing, but I see the steps:

How the Big Bang Theory Works

I don't think that you understood your own link.

How does that help your claims?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, that is you.


I'm the one saying I don't know how the universe came to be.
You claim the universe was created supernaturally. You claim that the Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation. You claim there is an eternal god.
You have backed up none of your claims. You've merely asserted them.




Who says these are the only options?

None of your sidestepping addresses my point that positing "god" (as you do) solves the problem you think exists here.

Oh I see:

"I'm the one saying I don't know how the universe came to be."

If you don't know how the universe came to be, than you also accept that no known natural law exists to explain how natural law is violated by its existence CURRENTLY, let alone the non-seeable past you are currently goal post shifting toward. The Law of Conservation says that no matter can be created--so it can't be here now apart from the super- or supra-natural, PRAISE JESUS CHRIST.

I don't need to claim the universe was created supernaturally, I cannot see creation in the past. I can see the Law now and the CURRENT contradiction in terms. PRAISE GOD.

I see you saying "There's actually something I admit to NOT knowing, and NOT knowing, I see your theory regarding the past MUST be wrong." No, that doesn't sound like a typically arrogant atheist statement AT ALL. PRAISE THE LORD!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think that you understood your own link.

How does that help your claims?

It helps me to know that if I put any secular source that says "Creation violated Natural Law" that rather than respond with truth, you lie, Praise Jesus!

You cannot help lying IMHO, Praise God. Your nature is opposed to Christianity and your "kind words" make me want to deconvert, not.

May Jesus be praised today and forever!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It helps me to know that if I put any secular source that says "Creation violated Natural Law" that rather than respond with truth, you lie, Praise Jesus!

You cannot help lying IMHO, Praise God. Your nature is opposed to Christianity and your "kind words" make me want to deconvert, not.

May Jesus be praised today and forever!

You link did not support your claim. In fact it refuted it. You need to quit reading out of context.

Please note, you could not even copy and paste because then you would have to shown that you were either dishonest or had no clue. I am beginning to fear that it was the first.

 

[night912]

You are dancing, but I see the steps:

How the Big Bang Theory Works

Nope. It's you who danced yourself into a corner.

Here's the criticism of the BB that you thought was going to help you. But because you lack reading comprehension skills, you actually posted something that refutes your own argument. If you are not going to accept any scientific information that we present to you, then perhaps you will accept one that you provided.


Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:

• It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

You took some time trying to avoid giving an explanation why the BB violated the Law of Conservation. And that you did finally provide a scientific explanation, it refutes your own argument. It's understandable that a high school student could've done that, but I didn't
expect a college graduate to do that.

And I'm going prove to those theists who constantly claim that atheists don't/won't accept science when it's provided by theists, that they are wrong in making such a ridiculous assumption. I do agree with the scientific explanation from the link that you provided.

See how atheists can be open minded and accept evidence from theists.

 

[night912]

If you don't know how the universe came to be, than you also accept that no known natural law exists to explain how natural law is violated by its existence CURRENTLY, let alone the non-seeable past you are currently goal post shifting toward.

Correct, because no known law is needed to explain how the law was violated, when there was no violation of the law. And you scoring the winning goal for the other team does not mean that the goalpost was moved. It simply means that you thought that you were aiming for your opponent's goal but in reality, it wasn't. Why do you think that none of us tried to block or defend against your shot (the link that you posted with the scientific explanation that refuted your argument). We welcomed that shot of yours.

The Law of Conservation says that no matter can be created--so it can't be here now apart from the super- or supra-natural, PRAISE JESUS CHRIST.

I don't need to claim the universe was created supernaturally, I cannot see creation in the past. I can see the Law now and the CURRENT contradiction in terms. PRAISE GOD.

So what you're basically saying is, right now, you are currently seeing matter being created. That's amazing. I never seen it happened before, so please you share it with us.

I see you saying "There's actually something I admit to NOT knowing, and NOT knowing, I see your theory regarding the past MUST be wrong." No, that doesn't sound like a typically arrogant atheist statement AT ALL. PRAISE THE LORD!

Well, I see you saying, "The universe was supernaturally created, but I don't need to claim that it's supernaturally created because I cannot see into the past in order to explain that it was created, therefore, the universe was supernaturally created by God."

Now that sounds very much like an arrogant and ignorant theist. PRAISE THE LORD OF THE GAPS!

 

[night912]

It helps me to know that if I put any secular source that says "Creation violated Natural Law" that rather than respond with truth, you lie, Praise Jesus!

You cannot help lying IMHO, Praise God. Your nature is opposed to Christianity and your "kind words" make me want to deconvert, not.

May Jesus be praised today and forever!

What's the difference between someone who is lying and someone who is ignorant?

Answer:
The liar is acting immorally, by knowingly making false statements and insists that it's true.

The ignorant is acting amorally, by unknowingly making false statements, insisting that it true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What's the difference between someone who is lying and someone who is ignorant?

Answer:
The liar is acting immorally, by knowingly making false statements and insists that it's true.

The ignorant is acting amorally, by unknowingly making false statements, insisting that it true.

Which are you? I find myself wondering.

 

[night912]

Which are you? I find myself wondering.

Neither, because I honestly understood what was on the site that you linked, nor did I lie about the site refuting your argument that the Law of Conservation was violated.


So honestly, how was my answer? Was it the answer that you were looking for? Did you like it? Did I succeed in satisfying your curiosity?

I would like some honest feedback.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Neither, because I honestly understood what was on the site that you linked, nor did I lie about the site refuting your argument that the Law of Conservation was violated.


So honestly, how was my answer? Was it the answer that you were looking for? Did you like it? Did I succeed in satisfying your curiosity?

I would like some honest feedback.

Honestly, I think you like arguing but not learning or admitting fault. Especially when you deny that countless modern physicists admit the singularity's expansion violated natural law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly, I think you like arguing but not learning or admitting fault. Especially when you deny that countless modern physicists admit the singularity's expansion violated natural law.

Wow! You really don't get it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh I see:

"I'm the one saying I don't know how the universe came to be."

If you don't know how the universe came to be, than you also accept that no known natural law exists to explain how natural law is violated by its existence CURRENTLY, let alone the non-seeable past you are currently goal post shifting toward. The Law of Conservation says that no matter can be created--so it can't be here now apart from the super- or supra-natural, PRAISE JESUS CHRIST.

I don't need to claim the universe was created supernaturally, I cannot see creation in the past. I can see the Law now and the CURRENT contradiction in terms. PRAISE GOD.

I see you saying "There's actually something I admit to NOT knowing, and NOT knowing, I see your theory regarding the past MUST be wrong." No, that doesn't sound like a typically arrogant atheist statement AT ALL. PRAISE THE LORD!

Several posters have pointed out to you that scientists don't agree with you about the Big Bang being a supernatural event. That's why I say you're wrong.

And let's be clear here: You're the one making the claim that the universe came into being in a supernatural way. And not only that, but also that the specific God you believe in was the creator of the universe. No mention of how this God came to be either.

You think a person (an atheist person, apparently) saying, "I don't know" to a question that doesn't have an answer is an arrogant approach? I find that utterly bizarre and the exact opposite of arrogant. The arrogant one would be the one claim that they know what they can't know.

 

[night912]

Honestly, I think you like arguing but not learning or admitting fault. Especially when you deny that countless modern physicists admit the singularity's expansion violated natural law.

What am I at fault here? I simply shown that you posted a link that refuted your argument. Until you demonstrated that the Law of Conservation was violated, there's no reason for me to accept your claim. Same as with flat earthers. Until they demonstrate that the earth is flat, I have no reason to accept that the earth is flat. Got it now?


So if you can demonstrate what you claimed, let's see it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What am I at fault here? I simply shown that you posted a link that refuted your argument. Until you demonstrated that the Law of Conservation was violated, there's no reason for me to accept your claim. Same as with flat earthers. Until they demonstrate that the earth is flat, I have no reason to accept that the earth is flat. Got it now?


So if you can demonstrate what you claimed, let's see it.

Help me understand, using the present rather than physicists' speculations on origins--although many agree with my viewpoint.

You want me to "demonstrate" or "prove" how it is that you and I and mass/energy exist currently, despite the natural law that says our existence is IMPOSSIBLE because matter and energy cannot be made?

 

[night912]

Help me understand, using the present rather than physicists' speculations on origins--although many agree with my viewpoint.

You want me to "demonstrate" or "prove" how it is that you and I and mass/energy exist currently, despite the natural law that says our existence is IMPOSSIBLE because matter and energy cannot be made?

Yes, I want you to demonstrate it. But before you even attempt at doing that, there's a more important issue that needs to be address here. First, state the Law of Conservation of energy/mass. Then give a brief and clear explanation in regards to how you understand that law. Please make sure that you use the correct words and their usage. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

You said, ".....the natural law that says our existence is IMPOSSIBLE because matter and energy cannot be made..."

Key word here is, "made" which is not what the law states. There's a key difference between a thing that was "created" and a thing that was "made." You might argue that it's simply just semantics without realizing that using one word over the other, changes the meaning of the statement.

The reason why I need you to do that is because your application of that law clearly shows your lack of understanding.

 

[night912]

Help me understand, using the present rather than physicists' speculations on origins--although many agree with my viewpoint.

You want me to "demonstrate" or "prove" how it is that you and I and mass/energy exist currently, despite the natural law that says our existence is IMPOSSIBLE because matter and energy cannot be made?

The Law of Conservation states that mass/energy can change form. With that being said, hydrogen and oxygen atoms exist, so two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom results in a water molecule. One moment, the water molecule did not exist, and in the next moment, a water molecule exist. That doesn't violate the law of Conservation.

So far, all your examples has the same structure as mine. And again, according to the Law of Conservation, it does not violate the law. You claiming that the law was violated, shows that you do not understand the Law of Conservation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, I want you to demonstrate it. But before you even attempt at doing that, there's a more important issue that needs to be address here. First, state the Law of Conservation of energy/mass. Then give a brief and clear explanation in regards to how you understand that law. Please make sure that you use the correct words and their usage. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

You said, ".....the natural law that says our existence is IMPOSSIBLE because matter and energy cannot be made..."

Key word here is, "made" which is not what the law states. There's a key difference between a thing that was "created" and a thing that was "made." You might argue that it's simply just semantics without realizing that using one word over the other, changes the meaning of the statement.

The reason why I need you to do that is because your application of that law clearly shows your lack of understanding.

"Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they may change one to the other."

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Law of Conservation states that mass/energy can change form. With that being said, hydrogen and oxygen atoms exist, so two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom results in a water molecule. One moment, the water molecule did not exist, and in the next moment, a water molecule exist. That doesn't violate the law of Conservation.

So far, all your examples has the same structure as mine. And again, according to the Law of Conservation, it does not violate the law. You claiming that the law was violated, shows that you do not understand the Law of Conservation.

"With that being said, hydrogen and oxygen atoms exist . . . " DESPITE THE LAW. THAT is the point!

 

[night912]

"Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they may change one to the other."

I didn't say to just state the law, I said explain what you think the law means.