Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

But there isn't any matter left. Nor is there any mass. You can't have an "accident" of a thing when that thing isn't there to begin with.

Proton is a stable, positively charged particle with a mass 1,836 times that of an electron. Are you trying to tell me now that matter and energy get destroyed and not transformed into a defferent kind of matter? That's new.

 

[PolyHedral]

Proton is a stable, positively charged particle with a mass 1,836 times that of an electron. Are you trying to tell me now that matter and energy get destroyed and not transformed into a defferent kind of matter? That's new.

No, I'm saying that matter and mass can be destroyed. Mass-energy, however, is conserved.

You still haven't said how energy can be an accident of matter if there isn't any matter nearby.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Behold another one who answers questions with questions. It only means you don't have an answer to my question about the origin of the universe.

Why should I have to?

I'm under no more impetus to answer your question than you are to answer mine. I don't see how my not having an answer for the origin of the Universe renders my position on the existence or nonexistence of God any more or less stable. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is preferable to error"?

Then, you didn't read my thread about "Fighting Two Fronts." You would not assume that I am a Christian. Even converted to Christianity, you would still stay within one of the fronts I fight against.

Verywell then, I change my bet to "become a theist" rather than convert to Christianity.

Regarding where God comes from (not came from), God is not an accident of time, as there is no time in eternity. God Is and has always existed.

Then my answer to your question is that the Universe always existed, in some form or other.

Existence is of His essence. Unless you are referring to the anthropomorphic god of religions. Then, you must ask a Christian before you "instantly convert to Christianity." As far as I am concern, their god must have come from some Olympic Pantheon of Greek gods which they borrowed a Jew to incarnate him with.

But really, where does God, the Creator of the universe come from? Einstein was once asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that all his life was to catch God at His work of creation.

Einstein was not a theist. He publicly stated his frustration with people who claimed he was:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

When Einstein talks about God, he does so purely as a deistic metaphor for the Universe as a whole.

Then, he went out to deliver a lecture about the expansion of the universe. As you know, Science has proved that the universe does expand, although Scientists still don't know how. If Einstein was right, it could very well be that's God at His work of creation. Then, he died and left to us to continue with the researching. I am researching. But I already can tell you that there is no where nor when about the true God. He is not restricted to space or time. In the meantime, commit to memory that the universe is a show of His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)

Prove it.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why should I have to?

No, sorry! You don't have to do anything. You didn't have even to pick up my post for a reply.

I'm under no more impetus to answer your question than you are to answer mine. I don't see how my not having an answer for the origin of the Universe renders my position on the existence or nonexistence of God any more or less stable. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is preferable to error"?

So, why didn't you simply say you don't know? What is it with Atheists that they get upset with any question about the origin of the universe? Frustration of uncertainty?

Then my answer to your question is that the Universe always existed, in some form or other.

Illogical. The universe is made out of matter; and matter is subject to genesis and destruction. Eternity belongs with God only, Who is an Incorporeal Spiritual Being, apart from the universe.(John 4:24)

Einstein was not a theist. He publicly stated his frustration with people who claimed he was: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

He was not an Atheist either, nor a pagan Deist to look at the universe as if it were a god. A Jew, religious or not would not go that far. And what's the big deal about not believing in a personal God? I don't believe that God is personal either, although we can strike an one-way personal relationship with Him. I think you are confusing the true God with the anthropomorphic gods of religion.

When Einstein talks about God, he does so purely as a deistic metaphor for the Universe as a whole.

Well, metaphorically, it is possible to talk about God even as an Egyption cat or the sun of Akhenaten.

Prove it.

Prove what, that the universe declares the handiwork of God? Since I don't believe that the universe had no beginning, and you don't know whose handiwork is it, I choose to go with the Psalmist that it comes from God. (Psalms 19:1)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, why didn't you simply say you don't know? What is it with Atheists that they get upset with any question about the origin of the universe? Frustration of uncertainty?

I'm upset?

I'm just pointing out your fallacy - just because I, or any other atheist for that matter, wouldn't claim to know the origin of the Universe doesn't have any impact whatsoever on our opinion.

Illogical. The universe is made out of matter; and matter is subject to genesis and destruction.

Except for the fact that at the time of the singularity or before the singularity (if there was such a time), we have no idea what the laws of the Universe were and, as such, the matter or energy that composed the Universe could well have existed for an infinite amount of time - or the closest approximation to an infinite amount of the closest approximation to what might be considered time. It's a huge unknown. Your assertion that the Universe is subject to "genesis" is no more or less logical or true than my assertion that the Universe always existed in some form.

Eternity belongs with God only, Who is an Incorporeal Spiritual Being.
(John 4:24)

Bringing a Bible into a debate on the origin of the Universe is like bringing an imaginary baseball bat to a baseball game. Sure, it might convince you that you're playing, but I doubt you'll be hitting any balls.

He was not an Atheist either, nor a pagan Deist to look at the universe as if it were a god. A Jew, religious or not would not go that far. And what's the big deal about not believing in a personal God? I don't believe that God is personal either, although we can strike an one-way personal relationship with God.

I never claimed he was an atheist - in fact I mentioned that he was deistic. It was you who created the false implication that he believed in a God. This is not true, and he has only ever spoken about God in a metaphorical sense.

Well, metaphorically, it is possible to talk about God even as an Egyption cat or the sun of Akhenaten.

Of course you can, but that doesn't make someone a theist - nor does it mean they're not an atheist.

Prove what, that the universe declares the handiwork of God? Since I don't believe that the universe had no beginning, and you don't know whose handiwork is it, I choose to go with the Psalmist that it comes from God. (Psalms 19:1)

Swing and a miss.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, I'm saying that matter and mass can be destroyed. Mass-energy, however, is conserved.

You still haven't said how energy can be an accident of matter if there isn't any matter nearby.

First of all, you are going to have a hard time to explain to other Atheists that from now on, mater can be destroyed. Second, mass is defined by the concentration of matter and not as energy. Therefore, by being similar to matter and not to energy it rather prduces energy and not mass. Now, regarding energy being an accident of matter, you are right; where there is no matter, energy cannot be produced. I have no problem with it. Thank you.

 

[PolyHedral]

Second, mass is defined by the concentration of matter and not as energy. Therefore, by being similar to matter and not to energy it rather prduces energy and not mass.

...Anyone else understand that?

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm upset?

I'm just pointing out your fallacy - just because I, or any other atheist for that matter, wouldn't claim to know the origin of the Universe doesn't have any impact whatsoever on our opinion.

So, what is Atheism all about, only to discard the possibility of God's existence?

Your assertion that the Universe is subject to "genesis" is no more or less logical or true than my assertion that the Universe always existed in some form.

Do you believe we are part of the universe? I believe you do. We are made out of matter and we undergo birth and death. Have I missed the ball? I didn't think so. The same applies to the other parts of the universe. Is Logic back in my court now?

Bringing a Bible into a debate on the origin of the Universe is like bringing an imaginary baseball bat to a baseball game. Sure, it might convince you that you're playing, but I doubt you'll be hitting any balls.

Have you forgotten that this is a "Religious Education Forum?" So, I am perfectly okay bringing the Bible into this debate.

I never claimed he was an atheist - in fact I mentioned that he was deistic. It was you who created the false implication that he believed in a God. This is not true, and he has only ever spoken about God in a metaphorical sense.

I am sure he did not believe in the anthropomorphic god of religions, as I don't either. He would feel rather annoyed, and with reason, with the insult that he was that kind of Theist. Like him, I also speak of God metaphorically and not personally.

Swing and a miss.

Well, I had several premises in that last paragraph. You didn't specify which one to prove. So, I took the last one. It means, you have got to know how to throw the ball.

 

[Ben Masada]

...Anyone else understand that?

Why don't you consult a good dictionary?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, what is Atheism all about, only to discard the possibility of God's existence?

No, not even that.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a God. That's all. An atheist can easily acknowledge the possibility of God's existence, but still not believe that there actually is a God or Gods.

Do you believe we are part of the universe? I believe you do. We are made out of matter and we undergo birth and death. Have I missed the ball? I didn't think so. The same applies to the other parts of the universe. Is Logic back in my court now?

Nope. Once again, you're saying "this is how certain aspects of our Universe function, therefore this is absolutely how our entire Universe has always functioned even before the laws that govern it existed".

That's kind of like saying "this room is painted blue, therefore the room next door, which I have never seen and probably never will see, must be painted the exact same colour".

The truth is, neither your nor I nor anyone else knows what, if any, physical laws existed before the Universe - as we currently understand it - first sprang from the singularity. It is pointless to assert, with any certainty, practically anything about the "origin" of the Universe, since we have absolutely no idea what actually happened or what was capable of happening.

Have you forgot ten that this is a "Religious Education Forum?" So, I am perfectly okay bringing the Bible into this debate.

Have you forgotten that this thread is addressed to atheists, and I am an atheist? Quoting the Bible is absolutely useless in such a debate. You might as well quote the Brother's Grimm.

I am sure he did not believe in the anthropomorphic god of religions, as I don't either. He would feel rather annoyed, and with reason, with the insult that he was that kind of Theist. Like him, I also speak of God metaphorically and not personally.

If God is just a metaphor to you, then why this talk about God creating the Universe?

Well, I had several premises in that last paragraph. You didn't specify which one to prove. So, I took the last one. It means, you have got to know how to throw the ball.

No, it means you have to stop throwing around beliefs as if they're facts. What you believe is of absolutely no consequence to what is true, and you believing it - regardless of basis - does not suddenly make it so. You stating that God is infinite or immortal doesn't make it so. Stating that the Universe had a "genesis" doesn't make it so. Stating that you believe something in the absence of any other explanation does not make it so (and is also a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance).

 

[Ben Masada]

No, not even that.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a God. That's all. An atheist can easily acknowledge the possibility of God's existence, but still not believe that there actually is a God or Gods.

Contradictory premises you state above. Acknowedgement of God's existence contradicts the disbelief that God exists.

Nope. Once again, you're saying "this is how certain aspects of our Universe function, therefore this is absolutely how our entire Universe has always functioned even before the laws that govern it existed".

Always implies eternity. Illogical statement. As human matter cannot live always, the same applies to the parts of the universe.

That's kind of like saying "this room is painted blue, therefore the room next door, which I have never seen and probably never will see, must be painted the exact same colour".

That's hypothetical conclusion. This does not illustrate my logical simile above.

The truth is, neither your nor I nor anyone else knows what, if any, physical laws existed before the Universe - as we currently understand it - first sprang from the singularity. It is pointless to assert, with any certainty, practically anything about the "origin" of the Universe, since we have absolutely no idea what actually happened or what was capable of happening.

Physical laws cannot exist in the absence of matter. Since you have no idea what actually happened or was capable to happen, you either lack the spirit of research or are too proud to give the Creator the benefit of the doubt.

Have you forgotten that this thread is addressed to atheists, and I am an atheist? Quoting the Bible is absolutely useless in such a debate. You might as well quote the Brother's Grimm.

It is equally fallatious for Atheists to quote Hawkin or any other Atheist to substantiate an atheistic assertion

If God is just a metaphor to you, then why this talk about God creating the Universe?

Metaphor is not to mean what does not exist, but rather the use of symbols to depict the reality of what does exist. Most the time the truth is not in the letter but in the spirit of the letter or metaphor. That's in this sense that myself and Einstein could be considered Theists without the embarrassment of being considered a Theist of anthropomorphic gods.

No, it means you have to stop throwing around beliefs as if they're facts. What you believe is of absolutely no consequence to what is true, and you believing it - regardless of basis - does not suddenly make it so. You stating that God is infinite or immortal doesn't make it so. Stating that the Universe had a "genesis" doesn't make it so. Stating that you believe something in the absence of any other explanation does not make it so (and is also a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance).

The same thing happens to Atheists. Their believe that the universe is eternal, does not make it so. Discarding the existence of a Creator for the universe, it does not mean that the Creator does not exist. And so forth. So, we are all back to square one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Contradictory premises you state above. Acknowedgement of God's existence contradicts the disbelief that God exists.

Accepting the possibility of the existence of something is not the same as acknowledging it's existence. Many atheists, such as myself, would define their positions as "it is possible for there to be a God, but I do not believe that there is".

Always implies eternity. Illogical statement. As human matter cannot live always, the same applies to the parts of the universe.

So, you think that the laws that govern the matter that make up human bodies are the exact same laws by which the Universe, as a whole, operates, even at a point in time (if it can be accurately called "time") when such laws - or any of the current laws that govern the Universe, for that matter - did not exist?

You're just groping in the dark.

That's hypothetical conclusion. This does not illustrate my logical simile above.

Yes it does. You're saying "this is how the world (or my limited experience of the world) works, therefore that is the way it always has worked any everything conforms to it".

Physics shows that this simply isn't the case. During or "before" the singularity, all physical laws that govern this Universe break down and we have absolutely no idea what - if anything - existed before then. Right now, any guess is as good as any other. Saying that there was nothing is just as fallacious as claiming that the energy or matter that composes the current Universes existed infinitely beyond that.

Physical laws cannot exist in the absence of matter. Since you have no idea what actually happened or was capable to happen, you either lack the spirit of research or are too proud to give the Creator the benefit of the doubt.

Why should I give it the benefit of the doubt? There's absolutely zero reason, on any level, to conclude that there is a creator of any kind. Also, once again, you're asserting there was an "absence of matter".

This is an extremely arrogant way of forming an argument from ignorance. Not knowing something is not sufficient reason to assert an untested, unevidenced conclusion in the place of an actual answer. Your logic is no different to that of superstitious children from thousands of years ago, who saw lightning bolts fall from the sky and concluded Zeus was throwing them. "We don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "We don't know yet, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to X" is not an acceptable answer, and never has been. History teaches us that such answers are consistently wrong.

It is equally fallatious for Atheists to quote Hawkin or any other Atheist to substantiate an atheistic assertion.

Not when they're forming logical or coherent arguments. Atheists don't quote them because they are some kind of "doctrine" that forms the basis of their beliefs - they quote them because such people form coherent, logical arguments that they agree with through reasoning. On the other hand, you believe claims in the Bible purely at face value, and when you present them you expect other people to take the Bible at face value as well. It doesn't work like that.

You're more than welcome to quote apologists and other people who try and form rational arguments for the existence of a God, but the Bible's power only exists if you inherently believe it at face value. Since very few, if any, atheists would be willing to take the claims of the Bible at face value, it is useless in almost any kind of discussion.

Metaphor is not to mean what does not exist, but rather the use of symbols to depict the reality of what does exist. Most the time the truth is not in the letter but in the spirit of the letter or metaphor. That's in this sense that myself and Einstein could be considered Theists without the embarrassment of being considered a Theist of anthropomorphic gods.

If you use God as a metaphor, then I would contest that there is no difference between you and an atheist. In any case, this is an appeal to authority and irrelevant.

The same thing happens to Atheists. Their believe that the universe is eternal, does not make it so.

Nobody did - we're just using it as a counter-claim to what you say. The Universe is just as likely to be eternal as it is to be finite, because we simply have no means of finding out the truth yet.

Discarding the existence of a Creator for the universe, it does not mean that the Creator does not exist.

The point is that you're the one making the claim that a God exists - I didn't make any definite claim that God does not exist. You're the one who claimed the Universe was finite - I only raised a counter-claim to illustrate your point was fallacious.

And so forth. So, we are all back to square one.

You may be going around in circles, but only because you seem to have lost track of the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ben Masada]

Accepting the possibility of the existence of something is not the same as acknowledging it's existence. Many atheists, such as myself, would define their positions as "it is possible for there to be a God, but I do not believe that there is".

But why fight against that possibility?

So, you think that the laws that govern the matter that make up human bodies are the exact same laws by which the Universe, as a whole, operates, even at a point in time (if it can be accurately called "time") when such laws - or any of the current laws that govern the Universe, for that matter - did not exist?

We are part of the universe, aren't we?

You're just groping in the dark.

And you are too swollen with pride to admit that God does exist.

Yes it does. You're saying "this is how the world (or my limited experience of the world) works, therefore that is the way it always has worked any everything conforms to it".

Good! And you don't forget that your experience of the world is limited.

Saying that there was nothing is just as fallacious as claiming that the energy or matter that composes the current Universes existed infinitely beyond that.

If to affirm that once there was nothing is fallatious, it means you are contradicting your limited knowledge of the universe. Where is your uncertainty that it could be possible that there is a Creator or Primal Mover Who could have started the universe from nothing? Now, all of a sudden you know for certain?

Why should I give it the benefit of the doubt? There's absolutely zero reason, on any level, to conclude that there is a creator of any kind. Also, once again, you're asserting there was an "absence of matter".

Now, can you see what I mean by atheistic arrogance and fallacy? In a paragraph you say that it is possible that there is God and in the next that there is absolutery zero for a Creator of any kind. What about if I am asserting there matter could have been absent once? Are you now certain about the universe? Is that beyond your law of possibilities?

"We don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "We don't know yet, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to X" is not an acceptable answer, and never has been. History teaches us that such answers are consistently wrong.

So, you do know already that there is zero reason for the existence of God. When are you going to make up your mind? You relay a message of frustration and confusion. If you don't know about something, do not contradict yourself by affirming as "absolutely" certain what you have claimed that you don't know.

Not when they're forming logical or coherent arguments. Atheists don't quote them because they are some kind of "doctrine" that forms the basis of their beliefs - they quote them because such people form coherent, logical arguments that they agree with through reasoning.

According to you perhaps. Where is the coherent Logic of theories that are born and never mature into facts? Is that what you call rational?

On the other hand, you believe claims in the Bible purely at face value, and when you present them you expect other people to take the Bible at face value as well. It doesn't work like that.

If you quote someone just because he has a scientific title is as fallatious as you think about my quotations of the Bible. At least, what I quote has been there unrefuted for thousands of years. Atheistic theories about the origin of the universe are refuted and killed almost daily.

You're more than welcome to quote apologists and other people who try and form rational arguments for the existence of a God, but the Bible's power only exists if you inherently believe it at face value. Since very few, if any, atheists would be willing to take the claims of the Bible at face value, it is useless in almost any kind of discussion.

And what is the use of empty theories based on uncertainties? Would you consider by default and their trial-and-error attempts, an evidence for the Creator? Of course not! How could you? Your false pride would not allow you that commonsense.

If you use God as a metaphor, then I would contest that there is no difference between you and an atheist. In any case, this is an appeal to authority and irrelevant./quote]

I do interpret the Bible metaphorically. How could that be an appeal to authority? That's exactly what Atheists in general do: Appeal to authority who are as uncertain as they are themselves.

Nobody did - we're just using it as a counter-claim to what you say. The Universe is just as likely to be eternal as it is to be finite, because we simply have no means of finding out the truth yet.

How can you say, "Nobody did?" You are not the only Atheist I am debating with. Most of them do it. They claim that the universe has always existed. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. Eternal therefore. Eternity belongs with God only Who exists outside the universe; hence, the Creator of it.

The point is that you're the one making the claim that a God exists - I didn't make any definite claim that God does not exist. You're the one who claimed the Universe was finite - I only raised a counter-claim to illustrate your point was fallacious.

Debates with Atheists are fruitless and frustrating. They are fun of debating about nothing or what they do not know. They love to chase Theists in their religious forum to discard what they believe in without any option to replace it with.

You may be going around in circles, but only because you seem to have lost track of the point I was trying to make.

Oh! You do have a point to make. What is it, that you are not sure about anything? Tell me something new. That, I know already.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just from the peanut gallery, Ben, I think you need to re-examine what's meant by "possibility" and "having a reason" to believe something.

For instance, it's possible that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the vicinity of Sol.

But I have no reason to assert that it does or to believe that it does.

See how indeed, one can acknowledge a possibility while still remaining skeptical?

Methinks when Immortal says "It's possible God exists" he is acknowledging that such is broadly logically possible -- it may be the case since it doesn't entail a contradiction if it were the case.

However that doesn't mean we should just go ahead and believe it without evidence. If there is no evidence, no justification -- then there is no reason to believe it is actually true. (Even if we lack belief it's actually true, it can still be possibly true).

You ask, "But why fight against the possibility?" I find this question to be absurd. It's possible that you can walk through doors via quantum tunneling, but it wouldn't really be reasonable for you to assume that you can walk through doors and so attempt to do so. You'll end up with a sore nose very quickly.

Just because something is possibly true doesn't mean that we should believe that it is in fact true. That's absurd. Refer again to the extraterrestrial intelligence analogy. Just because it's possible that extraterrestrial intelligence exists somewhere in the galaxy doesn't mean we should automatically believe that to be true. To be rational, we must remain skeptical until there is evidence. We can acknowledge the possibility without affirming the actuality until we have justification to do so. Make more sense?

Maybe this fundamental misunderstanding is why you are confused and assuming Immortal is arguing in circles (he isn't). On one hand you note that he asserts the existence of God is possible, but then you complain when he says he has no reason to believe a god exists. You claim he contradicts himself -- but this is not a contradiction. You aren't understanding the nuance of what he said. He's not going in circles, and his points are valid.

 

[Ben Masada]

Just from the peanut gallery, Ben, I think you need to re-examine what's meant by "possibility" and "having a reason" to believe something.

For instance, it's possible that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the vicinity of Sol.

But I have no reason to assert that it does or to believe that it does.

See how indeed, one can acknowledge a possibility while still remaining skeptical?

Methinks when Immortal says "It's possible God exists" he is acknowledging that such is broadly logically possible -- it may be the case since it doesn't entail a contradiction if it were the case.

However that doesn't mean we should just go ahead and believe it without evidence. If there is no evidence, no justification -- then there is no reason to believe it is actually true. (Even if we lack belief it's actually true, it can still be possibly true).

You ask, "But why fight against the possibility?" I find this question to be absurd. It's possible that you can walk through doors via quantum tunneling, but it wouldn't really be reasonable for you to assume that you can walk through doors and so attempt to do so. You'll end up with a sore nose very quickly.

Just because something is possibly true doesn't mean that we should believe that it is in fact true. That's absurd. Refer again to the extraterrestrial intelligence analogy. Just because it's possible that extraterrestrial intelligence exists somewhere in the galaxy doesn't mean we should automatically believe that to be true. To be rational, we must remain skeptical until there is evidence. We can acknowledge the possibility without affirming the actuality until we have justification to do so. Make more sense?

Maybe this fundamental misunderstanding is why you are confused and assuming Immortal is arguing in circles (he isn't). On one hand you note that he asserts the existence of God is possible, but then you complain when he says he has no reason to believe a god exists. You claim he contradicts himself -- but this is not a contradiction. You aren't understanding the nuance of what he said. He's not going in circles, and his points are valid.

But of course MM, how could I expect you to disagree with your coleague? Everything is possible in the realm of Atheism. Do you know what? It happens that with God, everything is also possible. I mean, the God, Who, according to Atheism, at least yours, is possible to exist. Can you agree that it is possible He might have at least started the universe ex nihilo? Please, don't say that's impossible because it would be an atheistic contradiction. I mean, your kind of Atheism. Is it possible that the Bible could be telling the truth albeit metaphorically? If so, could it be possible that the universe declares the handiwork of God? (Psallm 19:1) Most Atheists, except for you of course, declare with a false certainty that God does not exist. Now, I am going along with you and admit that's possible. Can you, in exchange, agree with me that it is possible that, according to Psalm 14:1, those who declare boldly that God does not exist are fools? Again, I am excluding you who have declared that everything is possible. Do you confirm your assertion or are ready to back them up?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But why fight against that possibility?

In what way? As far as I'm aware, very few atheists "fight against the possibility" of a God, they just aren't personally convinced by any of the claims of God's existence.

We are part of the universe, aren't we?

So, you think that because we are a part of the Universe, the Universe as a whole functions and has always functioned - even beyond the formation of the laws which currently govern it - and conforms to the same principles as our bodies do? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And you are too swollen with pride to admit that God does exist.

And you're too deluded to admit that God does not exist. See how that works?

Good! And you don't forget that your experience of the world is limited.

I know - the difference is that I'm not the one asserting extremely broad guesses about how the Universe started.

If to affirm that once there was nothing is fallatious, it means you are contradicting your limited knowledge of the universe. Where is your uncertainty that it could be possible that there is a Creator or Primal Mover Who could have started the universe from nothing? Now, all of a sudden you know for certain?

How do you not get this yet?

We do not yet know whether there ever was "nothing". The Universe, as we know it, did NOT start out as "nothing", it started out as a singularity. "Before" the singularity (if such a period in time could have existed) we have NO IDEA how the Universe functioned or what laws existed that governed the mass that made the Universe, so we have absolutely no way of knowing whether there was or was not anything before our Universe started.

I did not once assert that I knew any of this "for certain". No, quite the opposite, my position is and always has been "we don't know yet". You don't appear to be reading anything I say with any recognition of my point. I will not continue to debate with you if you insist on both completely misreading and misrepresenting my point of view so utterly.

Now, can you see what I mean by atheistic arrogance and fallacy? In a paragraph you say that it is possible that there is God and in the next that there is absolutery zero for a Creator of any kind. What about if I am asserting there matter could have been absent once? Are you now certain about the universe? Is that beyond your law of possibilities?

Once again, you are getting confused. I did not say that is no possibility of a creator - I say there is zero reason to conclude that there is a creator, just as there is zero reason to conclude that next year will be the best year of my life, but it's still perfectly possible.

Also, once again, you claim that I asserted "certainty" on any level. I did not.

So, you do know already that there is zero reason for the existence of God.

No, there is zero reason for me to conclude the existence of God.

When are you going to make up your mind? You relay a message of frustration and confusion. If you don't know about something, do not contradict yourself by affirming as "absolutely" certain what you have claimed that you don't know.

Please, read through everything I say more carefully next time.

According to you perhaps. Where is the coherent Logic of theories that are born and never mature into facts? Is that what you call rational?

Because that's how theories works. Theories are explanatory frameworks to explain facts, and while there are some aspects within a theory which are facts there must always be a theory to explain those facts because our understanding of how such phenomena occur is never complete, but is consistently being developed and updated with the increase in information and the availability of those facts. In science, theories remain theories.

If you quote someone just because he has a scientific title is as fallatious as you think about my quotations of the Bible. At least, what I quote has been there unrefuted for thousands of years. Atheistic theories about the origin of the universe are refuted and killed almost daily.

This is both missing the point of what I said and a tired argument. Please explain to me exactly how science could possibly "refute" the creation claims of the Bible. We've already proven that the earth is far older than the Bible claims it to be, we've already proven the flood never happened, we've already proven that the garden of Eden and the rest of the creation myth never happened, and Christians the world over just not choose to believe those parts of the Bible were just metaphors, and you expect scientists to reach back to the origin of the Universe and somehow prove that an untestable, magical being did not create it? If I wanted to, I could write on a piece of paper right now that the Universe was farted into existence by a giant, magical pink hippo, and I'd be willing to bet that a couple thousand years from now scientists won't have "refuted" it either.

The fact remains that we have perfectly reliable, testable explanations for the origin of the Universe, and not a single one of them requires the intervention of a magical deity of any kind.

And what is the use of empty theories based on uncertainties? Would you consider by default and their trial-and-error attempts, an evidence for the Creator? Of course not! How could you? Your false pride would not allow you that commonsense.

Now you're just making up things that I've never said. That's never a strong position to argue from.

I do interpret the Bible metaphorically. How could that be an appeal to authority? That's exactly what Atheists in general do: Appeal to authority who are as uncertain as they are themselves.

The appeal to authority was your constant mentioning of Einstein, as if Einstein was somehow the last word on the subject. Also, I said use "God" as a metaphor, not the Bible. You're dodging the point entirely.

How can you say, "Nobody did?" You are not the only Atheist I am debating with. Most of them do it. They claim that the universe has always existed. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. Eternal therefore. Eternity belongs with God only Who exists outside the universe; hence, the Creator of it.

And how can you demonstrate, to me or any other atheist, that what you assert about a creator is any more or less true than what they assert about the Universe always existing in some form?

Debates with Atheists are fruitless and frustrating. They are fun of debating about nothing or what they do not know. They love to chase Theists in their religious forum to discard what they believe in without any option to replace it with.

This seems a kind of strange attitude for someone who posted a thread to challenge atheists on a religious forum. Sounds to me like you're being extremely hypocritical.

Oh! You do have a point to make. What is it, that you are not sure about anything? Tell me something new. That, I know already.

And you don't know any better, either. You're as clueless as I am, except I at least have the capacity to admit when I don't know something. You didn't appear to know anything about the singularity and the breakdown the laws of the Universe around it, yet you have continually acted is if you know what you are talking about. On top of that, you have repeatedly misunderstood or misread my arguments in increasingly ridiculous ways.

At the very least, I know what I do not know. You don't even seem to have a clue about what you do or do not know.

 

[Meow Mix]

But of course MM, how could I expect you to disagree with your coleague? Everything is possible in the realm of Atheism. Do you know what? It happens that with God, everything is also possible. I mean, the God, Who, according to Atheism, at least yours, is possible to exist. Can you agree that it is possible He might have at least started the universe ex nihilo? Please, don't say that's impossible because it would be an atheistic contradiction. I mean, your kind of Atheism. Is it possible that the Bible could be telling the truth albeit metaphorically? If so, could it be possible that the universe declares the handiwork of God? (Psallm 19:1) Most Atheists, except for you of course, declare with a false certainty that God does not exist. Now, I am going along with you and admit that's possible. Can you, in exchange, agree with me that it is possible that, according to Psalm 14:1, those who declare boldly that God does not exist are fools? Again, I am excluding you who have declared that everything is possible. Do you confirm your assertion or are ready to back them up?

Everything you just said is indeed possible; but that says nothing about its plausibility. I hope you didn't expect me to disagree

I think the crux of the issue here is that it's possible God exists. It's also possible God does not exist. Either way, it's only rational to believe something's truth if one has justification (of the epistemic sort) for that belief. Since I have no epistemic justification to believe a God exists, then I lack belief that God exists. I agree it's possible that God exists, perhaps in such a way that I simply haven't seen the right evidence yet or in such a way that it's beyond my comprehension -- but either way, unless I have justification to believe it, I should remain skeptical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everything you just said is indeed possible; but that says nothing about its plausibility. I hope you didn't expect me to disagree

I think the crux of the issue here is that it's possible God exists. It's also possible God does not exist. Either way, it's only rational to believe something's truth if one has justification (of the epistemic sort) for that belief. Since I have no epistemic justification to believe a God exists, then I lack belief that God exists. I agree it's possible that God exists, perhaps in such a way that I simply haven't seen the right evidence yet or in such a way that it's beyond my comprehension -- but either way, unless I have justification to believe it, I should remain skeptical.

As ever, MM puts my argument in better words than most could.

 

[Ben Masada]

So, you think that because we are a part of the Universe, the Universe as a whole functions and has always functioned - even beyond the formation of the laws which currently govern it - and conforms to the same principles as our bodies do? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I meant, if we are born and die, the same happens with other kinds of matter in the universe.

The Universe, as we know it, did NOT start out as "nothing", it started out as a singularity. "Before" the singularity (if such a period in time could have existed) we have NO IDEA how the Universe functioned or what laws existed that governed the mass that made the Universe, so we have absolutely no way of knowing whether there was or was not anything before our Universe started.

Two points here: First, you affirm that the universe did not start out of nothing. I won't ask you how you know it lest you will change your mind. But let us go for the second point. You refer to the mass that made the universe. So, there was a mass that made the universe. As I can see, you are sure of something after all. Where did that mass come from to give origin to the universe? I am all ears.

I did not once assert that I knew any of this "for certain". No, quite the opposite, my position is and always has been "we don't know yet". You don't appear to be reading anything I say with any recognition of my point. I will not continue to debate with you if you insist on both completely misreading and misrepresenting my point of view so utterly.

You have just asserted above that the universe did not start from nothing and that it did start from a mass. Is it not what we read above or I have again misunderstood you? I think our debate will end because whatever you say, you retract as I find out the fallacy of it.

Once again, you are getting confused. I did not say that is no possibility of a creator - I say there is zero reason to conclude that there is a creator.

Think about who is getting confused here. If there is possibility of a Creator for the universe, how is it that there is zero reason to conclude that there is a Creator? If there is zero reason to conclude the existence of a Creator, obviously there is no possibility of a Creator. Is there any doubt about who is the confused here?

Because that's how theories works. Theories are explanatory frameworks to explain facts, and while there are some aspects within a theory which are facts there must always be a theory to explain those facts because our understanding of how such phenomena occur is never complete, but is consistently being developed and updated with the increase in information and the availability of those facts. In science, theories remain theories.

Now, it is my turn to assert that there is zero reason to believe in theories which are constantly being updated with the increase of new info. The end result could be the possibility to turn to the old aged Biblical assertions that the universe speaks of the works of God.

Please explain to me exactly how science could possibly "refute" the creation claims of the Bible. We've already proven that the earth is far older than the Bible claims it to be, we've already proven the flood never happened, we've already proven that the garden of Eden and the rest of the creation myth never happened,

It couldn't. Perhaps the literal interpretation of creation, but not from the metaphorical point of view. You must be referring to the six days of creation, or that the flood was universal. The whole Genesis of creation is metaphorical. That's where resides your success to prove yourselves agains the anthropomorphic god of Christians. You have missed I am Jewish. And here is how I look at the Genesis account of Creation:

The Double Allegory of Creation

There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.

The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.

The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with freewill and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.

Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.

Nex, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.

The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."

Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it was not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.

It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's freewill. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.

Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.

Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.

Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.

Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.

Ben

The fact remains that we have perfectly reliable, testable explanations for the origin of the Universe, and not a single one of them requires the intervention of a magical deity of any kind.

What's taking you so long to share with me these "reliable, testable explanations for the origin of the universe?" I thought you were not sure about anything. Go ahead, for I am all ears.

The appeal to authority was your constant mentioning of Einstein, as if Einstein was somehow the last word on the subject. Also, I said use "God" as a metaphor, not the Bible. You're dodging the point entirely.

What difference does it make? The Bible speaks of God as the Creator of the universe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I meant, if we are born and die, the same happens with other kinds of matter in the universe.

Except the matter that makes up a human body is not destroyed. You might as well say that because toasters toast bread, the rest of the Universe's entire function is to toast bread.

Two points here: First, you affirm that the universe did not start out of nothing.

No I didn't - I claimed that only as a counter-claim to show you how your claim is fallacious. I've explained this about three times now.

I won't ask you how you know it lest you will change your mind. But let us go for the second point. You refer to the mass that made the universe. So, there was a mass that made the universe. As I can see, you are sure of something after all. Where did that mass come from to give origin to the universe? I am all ears.

And I've already explained this about three or four times as well.

The answer is: nobody knows, yet.

You have just asserted above that the universe did not start from nothing and that it did start from a mass. Is it not what we read above or I have again misunderstood you? I think our debate will end because whatever you say, you retract as I find out the fallacy of it.

I stated that the Universe, as we know it, started out as a singularity - an infinitely dense singular point of matter. The point is that that is as far back as we can go, and we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, came before then.

Think about who is getting confused here. If there is possibility of a Creator for the universe, how is it that there is zero reason to conclude that there is a Creator?

Because there is zero evidence that a creator exists.

If there is zero reason to conclude the existence of a Creator, obviously there is no possibility of a Creator. Is there any doubt about who is the confused here?

Not really, it's clearly you, since you don't understand the difference between forming a conclusion and accepting possibilities.

Having no reason to conclude something does not mean you do not acknowledge the possibility of something. I have no reason to conclude that I will bump into my old school friend Barry tomorrow, but it is possible that I will. Likewise, I have no reason to conclude that bigfoot exists, but it is still possible that bigfoot exists. I have no reason to conclude that a God or Gods exist, but it is - of course - still possible that a God or Gods exist.

This is really a very simple distinction, Ben.

Now, it is my turn to assert that there is zero reason to believe in theories which are constantly being updated with the increase of new info. The end result could be the possibility to turn to the old aged Biblical assertions that the universe speaks of the works of God.

So, you don't believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, then?

The fact that theories are changed and updated based on the available information makes them more reliable, not less reliable. The ability for science to adjust it's views based on what is demonstrable means that they can continually reach a deeper understanding of a particular subject. What's more, the fact that we are constantly gathering new knowledge does not somehow erase the facts that we already possess. If scientists discover some new facet of gravity that we never knew before, it doesn't suddenly make everything we already knew about gravity null and void.

It couldn't. Perhaps the literal interpretation of creation, but not from the metaphorical point of view.

Of course it couldn't disprove a metaphor - because the whole point of a metaphor is to conjure up an intentionally fictional scenario to explain a non-fictional scenario.

You must be referring to the six days of creation, or that the flood was universal. The whole Genesis of creation is metaphorical. That's where resides your success to prove yourselves agains the anthropomorphic god of Christians.

You asked me "how science could possibly "refute" the creation claims of the Bible". I went through those claims and explained how this was done, and now you turn around and say "well, they were metaphors, so you can't disprove them".

If this was your intention from the beginning, then your asking me how science could disprove those claims was nothing but a waste of time and/or a red herring.

You have missed I am Jewish. And here is how I look at the Genesis account of Creation:

I am not remotely interested, nor is it even remotely relevant to the discussion. What you personally interpret the Bible's claims about the origin of the Universe to mean has no impact whatsoever on how the Universe actually started.

What's taking you so long to share with me these "reliable, testable explanations for the origin of the universe?" I thought you were not sure about anything. Go ahead, for I am all ears.

The big bang theory. I thought you would have heard of that one.

What difference does it make? The Bible speaks of God as the Creator of the universe.

You said:
"Metaphor is not to mean what does not exist, but rather the use of symbols to depict the reality of what does exist. Most the time the truth is not in the letter but in the spirit of the letter or metaphor. That's in this sense that myself and Einstein could be considered Theists without the embarrassment of being considered a Theist of anthropomorphic gods."

I said:
"If you use God as a metaphor, then I would contest that there is no difference between you and an atheist. In any case, this is an appeal to authority and irrelevant."

You said:
"I do interpret the Bible metaphorically."

You went from claiming that you and Einstein both shared the same view of God as a metaphor, to claiming that you only interpreted the Bible metaphorically. If you believe there is absolutely a God and not just use the term as a deistic metaphor then you and Einstein most definitely do not share the same point of view, and you need to stop making such appeals to authority.