First cause of the universe.

[Kfox]

"Logic", that is, common sense is fine for
some things but out past normal human
experience things get moreand more weird and counter intuitive.

I agree; but I think I was clear with him that I don't have answers to the question he is asking; nobody knows what if anything existed prior to the singularity that expanded all I have are guesses and that is what I am giving him, just guesses based on what make sense to me.

 

[Kfox]

Why?

Please go through the logic with us.

Because the idea that something can just pop into existence does not make sense to me, something existing eternally makes more sense IMO.

 

[Kfox]

Oh okay. So you take the rationalist rout. Not empiricist. But earlier you were speaking about evidence. What evidence were you referring to?

I think I was clear I do not have any answers to the question; nobody does. All I haver are guesses and that is what I am doing; guessing.

 

[Polymath257]

Because the idea that something can just pop into existence does not make sense to me, something existing eternally makes more sense IMO.

Why do you think those are the only two options?

Why not a sequence of things, each temporary, but where the sequence goes infinitely far back?

Nothing is eternal (in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time), but there is no beginning and nothing 'pops' into existence.

I'd also point out that 'popping into existence' would be a possibility if time itself is finite into the past.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where did DNA information originate from?

The form in DNA is the result of natural processes causing matter to arrange itself according to the laws of chemistry, just like the rest of the universe - matter in motion according to laws of physics.

Okay, but all I’m asking is where the information originated from? When information is put into a book or a computer system, it is put there by a person with intelligence enough to have gathered or discovered it.

Yes, but the form of DNA is not information until it is apprehended by a conscious agent. Until then, it can be called form. We can see that it the word's etymology:

Origin

late Middle English (also in the sense ‘formation of the mind, teaching’)

It's form while out there. When the FORM comes IN here, it in-forms consciousness and becomes information. Your comment, "information is put into a book or a computer system, it is put there by a person with intelligence enough to have gathered or discovered it" seems to imply an understanding that information is in minds apprehending the forms of matter and then inserting analogous form into other matter like the electrons in a chip or the ink on the pages of a book.

The proper question is where does form come from. We need only explain form, like the form of a solar system or the form of a crystal. Calling them information is presupposing that those forms exist in a mind or came from a mind. Before minds, there was only form. Calling it information is makes no sense in a universe a without consciousness to be informed or to intelligently arrange matter (form).

Thats a fallacious, bogus question. Asking for a beginning or a first cause for something that by definition does not have cause is like asking for gold from a tooth.

You're not using the correct definition of a god. The correct definition of god does not limit gods to being eternal. The question is a valid one: where do gods come from? If one says that they have always existed, he has an additional burden of proof. I don't believe that you've met that simply by declaring true "by definition."

ON what basis?

By definition. If we define the universe as having always been here, then it makes your question fallacious and bogus by your own standards, like asking for a tooth from a gold nugget.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is good reason to think that whenever there was time, there was also matter and energy.

The only question is whether time it 'eternal' and that depends on what you mean by the word 'eternal'. it it means 'for all time', then matter and energy are, in fact, eternal. If, instead, you mean 'has no beginning', then it is quite possible time is NOT eternal (but then, nothing is).

Hence everything to be created. Including time. Believing it just happened defies logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hence everything to be created. Including time. Believing it just happened defies logic.

I don't see why your beliefs follow logic. Just claiming that one's ideas follow logic is not good enough. We can give all sorts of examples of events occurring that do not require an agency behind them. Water freezes and makes snowflakes. They can be very complex and no "creator of snowflakes" is required.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Simply a belief? First, energy. Mass / energy
is demonstrably real, with a sound experimental
and theoretical framework.

Second, any " god" otoh is just an emotion based
opinion about which opinion about countless
made up entities might be a real one.
It has zero evudence for its existence,
but does require violation of all known
natrural law for it to exist.

But you see this difference as just potato-
potawto?

Nobody is claiming energy doesn't exist.
But you have no explanation for what started it. An energy source we haven't yet discovered is the most likely explanation. What would a source of endless energy have to be like?

 

[Kfox]

Why do you think those are the only two options?

Why not a sequence of things, each temporary, but where the sequence goes infinitely far back?

Nothing is eternal (in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time), but there is no beginning and nothing 'pops' into existence.

That sounds like a possibility as well.

 

[ChristineM]

But you have no explanation for what started it.

Nor do you. What happens is there are two camps,. One camp says "I don't know", the others says "god did it" with no explanation of what started god and claim their guess is logical.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't see why your beliefs follow logic. Just claiming that one's ideas follow logic is not good enough. We can give all sorts of examples of events occurring that do not require an agency behind them. Water freezes and makes snowflakes. They can be very complex and no "creator of snowflakes" is required.

Lol, really? I disagree, but you seem to miss the point that we know how snowflakes form...we have no explanation for anything coming from nothing.

 

[Audie]

Nobody is claiming energy doesn't exist.
But you have no explanation for what started it. An energy source we haven't yet discovered is the most likely explanation. What would a source of endless energy have to be like?

As if i suggested anyone thinks it doesnt exist
or you even remotely touched in what i did say.
Its like you are talking to someone else.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nor do you. What happens is there are two camps,. One camp says "I don't know", the others says "god did it" with no explanation of what started god and claim their guess is logical.

More logical than "nothing created everything. "
Every thing I see that has moving parts and functions has a designer... my vehicle didn't create itself... but I'm supposed to believe that the dog sitting next to me and the sunlight coming in the window and my own DNA just happened by some bizarre accident. Please!

 

[Wildswanderer]

As if i suggested anyone thinks it doesnt exist
or you even remotely touched in what i did say.
Its like you are talking to someone else.

All you said was that energy exists.

 

[Audie]

I agree; but I think I was clear with him that I don't have answers to the question he is asking; nobody knows what if anything existed prior to the singularity that expanded all I have are guesses and that is what I am giving him, just guesses based on what make sense to me.

Then dont pretend to have logic on
your side

 

[Audie]

God has allowed people and cultures a lot of freedom. Having freedom has revealed the true state and condition of people’s hearts and minds. Many of the OT accounts are historical narratives which do not hide the wickedness of humanity and the harmful ways people treat one another. Human cultures have been filled with abuse, even Israel which had God’s laws. Do you think further rules about rape or not treating people like property would really change the minds of so many who only care about themselves? In the NT, we are told to love our neighbor as ourselves. How many people listen or follow through with that?

Ultimately, God is more concerned with a person’s enslavement to sin and their eternal destiny, rather than perfecting this fallen world.


“The reason the Bible talks about slavery is that slavery was a very common phenomenon in both Old Testament and New Testament times. It is only natural that the topic would come up, both from a legal stand point and simply as a common part of the history recorded in both Testaments.”

“It would appear from the Old Testament that God did not specifically condemn slavery. That may seem odd to us, as slavery is such a clear violation of basic human justice. It is not as if the Bible ever encourages slavery. You will not find a single passage of scripture which in any way whatsoever encourages any follower of God to own slaves. However, in the Old Covenant, God did allow for slavery. God allowed a number of practices under the Old Covenant which he nevertheless did not want his people to do.”

“What about the New Testament? Slavery is neither specifically allowed not specifically condemned in the New Testament. At first, knowing Jesus’ teaching, this may seem a bit surprising. Clearly Jesus would never own slaves! Nevertheless, slavery was a massive institution under Greek/Roman civilization. As many as half of all people were slaves. If Jesus had declared all slaves free under the New Covenant, it would have brought massive and unnecessary persecution down on the early church. Perhaps this
is why God chose not to specifically condemn slavery. Paul encouraged
Philemon to free his slave Onesimus. Yet, in general, he encouraged new
disciples to be willing to stay in the situation they were in when
converted. As far as God is concerned, whether one is a slave or free here on earth is not the main issue. The chief concern is whether one is a slave to sin. God, through Paul, encouraged Christian slaves to be the best possible slaves, yet to seek freedom if they could. He did not incite slaves to revolt from their masters. I am sure that a slave who was owned by a disciple would have lived under exceedingly good and fair conditions, if he or she was not freed outright.

It is worth bearing in mind that in the end, it was Christianity and the
teachings of the Bible which led to the worldwide ban on slavery. Although it is true that due to the extreme level of slavery in the time of the New Testament, God chose not to ban the practice outright, history tells us that it was the teachings of Jesus Christ which caused the downfall of the cruelest institution mankind ever invented.”


Why does God allow slavery in the Old Testament? – Evidence for Christianity

Can you condense that to one paragraph

 

[Kfox]

Then dont pretend to have logic on
your side

I am just pointing out what makes sense to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is claiming energy doesn't exist.
But you have no explanation for what started it. An energy source we haven't yet discovered is the most likely explanation. What would a source of endless energy have to be like?

A lack of an explanation is never an excuse to invoke a God. That has never worked out that well historically for believers.

By the way, it can be shown mathematically that the total energy of the universe is zero. That would mean that no source is needed for the energy that we see. We still do not know why or how it started, but the need for a God keeps dropping.

 

[Wildswanderer]

By the way, it can be shown mathematically that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Well, obviously we don't exist then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More logical than "nothing created everything. "
Every thing I see that has moving parts and functions has a designer... my vehicle didn't create itself... but I'm supposed to believe that the dog sitting next to me and the sunlight coming in the window and my own DNA just happened by some bizarre accident. Please!

But that is your claim. It is not ours. We say "we don't know yet". You try to say that means "nothing" had to do it and that has not been demonstrated either. The correct answer is still "we don't know yet".

By the way "God did it" is no better of a claim than "nothing did it". They are both claims, though energy from "nothing" can be explained. How would you explain the existence of your God?