Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Michael1981]

I see. So you ask for why 'something from nothing' doesn't violate the conservation of energy. When I show why it does not, you accuse me of, what? Not believing in your mythology?

This is the last I'm going to write on this "something from nothing" matter.

I understand that it doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy in the technical sense. The truth remains, however, that energy, new energy if nothing else, can't be created. So how do you explain the existence of the energy that has already been created?

And even this "negative energy" is something, because it is quantifiable; the fact that it all adds up to zero is of no consequence at all, and calling that nothing is just silly.

 

[Sapiens]

No, eyes to see and ears to hear are a broken spirit and a contrite heart.

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." (Psalm 51:16-17)

You are playing a Christian version of I Ching mad libs rather than accepting the patently obvious. Take what is clear as day rather than try to redefine 2 Peter 3:16 via Psalm 51:16-17, which are connected in no way save being contained between the same covers as a result of political agreements forged in the fourth century. Talk about random processes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the last I'm going to write on this "something from nothing" matter.

I understand that it doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy in the technical sense. The truth remains, however, that energy, new energy if nothing else, can't be created. So how do you explain the existence of the energy that has already been created?

And even this "negative energy" is something, because it is quantifiable; the fact that it all adds up to zero is of no consequence at all, and calling that nothing is just silly.

I know that it is a hard concept to wrap one's head around, but the total of all energy i the universe is zero. What you see as energy locally is balanced by negative energy. The net energy of the universe has been measured and as accurately as we can measure such things the number comes out to be zero. Your inability to understand does not refute the concept.

 

[Polymath257]

This is the last I'm going to write on this "something from nothing" matter.

I understand that it doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy in the technical sense. The truth remains, however, that energy, new energy if nothing else, can't be created. So how do you explain the existence of the energy that has already been created?

And even this "negative energy" is something, because it is quantifiable; the fact that it all adds up to zero is of no consequence at all, and calling that nothing is just silly.

Well, the supposed barrier to 'new' energy is that it violates the conservation of energy. In fact, because of the negative energy from the gravitational field, the *total* energy adds up to zero. And that is all that is required to NOT violate conservation of energy.

So, in a sense, NO new energy was created: the positive and the negative cancel out to give zero energy total. And since 'nothing' has zero energy, there is no violation of energy conservation.

And yes, it is quite possible for mass and energy to be 'created from nothing'. It happens literally all the time. But it happens at a small scale. The question for the formation of the universe is NOT one of energy conservation, but one of how small fluctuations produce larger ones. So, the initial fluctuation, on the order of electron-positron pair production (which has been observed) is something to be *expected*. In an 'empty' vacuum, such fluctuations will spontaneously grow to give what we see (still with zero total energy).

The fact that it adds up to zero is the whole game, by the way. The energy of 'nothing' is zero and later, the energy of the universe is zero. No problem is produced with conservation laws.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible will mean nothing to anyone who attempts to read it without eyes to see or ears to hear

This is where Christians attempt to exclude the opinions of unbelievers through disqualification. I am the judge of what I understand and do not. The Bible is no harder to understand than the Iliad or A Midsummer Night's Dream

What you describe as wisdom and intelligence I would describe more as common sense.

Neither wisdom nor intelligence are common sense. Most people struggle with both.

In any case, what I meant by wisdom in that passage is that there are theories like evolution or the Big Bang Theory, which sound wise/intelligent, but are ultimately foolish,

The theories seem correct. Wise and foolish don't apply.

God has given over those who believe in such things to trusting in themselves and their intellectual powers. I believe in many cases it's a direct punishment for pride.

Your view of reality is alien too me. If this is punishment, give me more.

Someone can be so sure of something and not realize at all that God has blinded them to the truth.

Yeah, I've been tempted to tell you the same thing, but without the god.

The Bible isn't about providing people with happiness, it's about salvation from sin

But people don't need salvation from sin. It's happiness we seek.

Of course, the end result of all of this is happiness, though I'm not sure I like that word because it goes far beyond that. It's spiritual contentment, that peace that passes all understanding. Not that I'm there yet.

I am, and I told you how and why.

How long have you been working on finding that peace and contentment? Maybe Christianity isn't the path to them.

Energy and passion don't cut it:

So it is my fault after all.

You can't claim to have the truth because you don't have the Truth, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Actually, I don't use the word truth as much as I used to. What I have is empirical adequacy - a set of ideas that work.

Mankind has proven time and time again that it is totally corrupt, totally monstrous, and absolutely incapable of doing anything good.

Sorry that you were taught to see humanity that way. You were deprived of knowing your place in the order of things, which is a noble one.

I'm actually quite proud of the human race.

I'm not at all content.

Sorry to hear that.

How do you know you ever sought Him with all your heart? From what you wrote above, it doesn't sound like you ever did.

My fault again? It didn't take long, did it?

No, eyes to see and ears to hear are a broken spirit and a contrite heart.

That sounds like a dog that has been beaten. I'm more into self-confidence and self-respect.

 

[ArtieE]

This is the last I'm going to write on this "something from nothing" matter.

I understand that it doesn't violate the law of the conservation of energy in the technical sense. The truth remains, however, that energy, new energy if nothing else, can't be created. So how do you explain the existence of the energy that has already been created?

No energy has been created.

And even this "negative energy" is something, because it is quantifiable; the fact that it all adds up to zero is of no consequence at all, and calling that nothing is just silly.

0=0. 1-1=0. 10-10=0. You can call a 10 something and another -10 another something but it still adds up to nothing. It's just nothing expressed as 10-10.

 

[tayla]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God.

Yes, you cannot prove God. Only physical material things can be proved via the scientific method.

 

[tayla]

People only know what they've been told and shown in a book.

I don't believe in God because of a book. The evidence is "I think, therefore I am" -- my subjective experience of consciousness. It's not part of the physical material universe and, therefore, there is something more.

 

[tayla]

if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations.

Some think the Bible should be interpreted allegorically, that it was written with this in mind. The early church fathers had this view.

But I think you are on to something. Christianity is based on some sort of "dictation theory" or "channeling" from God to the writer. If you think there are errors in the text or that it is fiction in places, then the whole system quickly unravels. I know this because I observed it happen.

That said, the assumption of materialism that most scientific atheists use is merely an assumption. The subjective experience of consciousness is not part of the material physical universe, rather, it is somewhere else.

 

[tayla]

I think apatheism is far superior to either theism or atheism.

I get great comfort from my internal psychological relationship with a theistic God.

 

[tayla]

I still believe science has a much stronger argument than religion.

Science only operates in the domain of the physical material universe and generates provable knowledge. Religion operates in the spiritual realm; nothing about this realm can be proven. There is no "spiritual" method corresponding to the scientific method.

 

[tayla]

You don't believe in God because you can't believe in God until God gifts you with the faith to do so. Frustrating I'm sure, but everything according to God's perfect plan.

You can no more choose to believe in God than you can choose to change your mind and believe as I do if only for a moment so that I can share with you what Faith feels like. Nicodemus couldn't change his mind either or understand what Jesus was telling him about being born again for that matter.

I don't know why some people believe ABC and others believe XYZ. I don't think God is controlling them though; that would violate their free will.

 

[tayla]

The proof of God is you and me. We seem like separate entities, but wait, we are aware of each other. We converse. Impossible. A thing can only be aware of itself. Aha, an all encompassing entity, a field? Perhaps. There you have it. Has to be God.

Yes, this is the way to "prove" God. Not convincing for a materialist, to be sure, but the best that can be done with the spiritual realm. Not everyone will be convinced.

 

[tayla]

A stronger argument for what? What is being argued about? Why argue about whatever it is at all?

I wonder if they are using the term "argument" in the philosophical sense of the word; providing reasoned evidence. I agree that God can't be discerned via logic and reason, at least not fully. There is an intuition necessary too.

Those who assume materialism, I think, can only approach the topic via philosophical argument; they have blocked out other possibilities and options.

 

[tayla]

Christians are blind to my gods, I'm blind to their god, and atheists are blind to everything.

Yes, I think that we are each wandering on our journey in the spiritual realm in the context of the stories and beliefs we've adopted. Like ships in the night, we pass by each other unaware of the others' presence.

Scientific materialist atheists are fully aware of the material physical universe; in fact, the scientific method guarantees to generate knowledge and truth about it. And, in my opinion, it is not possible to prove anything about the structure and function of the spiritual realm. So we are each one of us living within it within our stories.

For example, I believe the teachings of Christianity as a story within the spiritual realm, yet I am fully aware that it is not supported historically, scientifically, or by archeology.

 

[tayla]

The two need not conflict with each other.

Yes, science and religion operate within different realms.

 

[tayla]

What I'm saying is the only reason there is a God argument is because people believe there is one. However, there is no evidence of a God at all, and that cannot be disputed.

There is no material physical evidence that can prove God using the scientific method. That does not mean there is no evidence. Materialist scientific atheists don't accept the evidence.

 

[tayla]

One could have faith they can walk off a tall building and not fall to the ground, but empirical evidence shows that not to be true.

This would not be faith. Faith doesn't reject that which is provably true.

 

[tayla]

I am a Hindu because it provides me with ample resources to fructify this effort, to become a better and a wiser person. I am perfectly content if other people find Christianity or Atheism better suited to their needs in life, but I will push back if the claim is made that their preferred worldview is somehow inherently superior to mine.

Yes, this is the correct attitude toward religion. We should not be trying to convert each another all the time. Sharing, but not converting.

 

[tayla]

What's different about the Christian/Muslim gods that are different?

Monotheism is what is different.