Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In all of law what can be checked and determined is used to establish the reliability of what can't be. In science things with no evidence and that defy known science are an almost certainty to even the greatest scientists. Why are the standards that apply to everything else not used for God? You do not even have the potentiality of a point unless I was stating proven fact. I was stating faith claims not fact claims. My evidence is more than sufficient for my claims.
That is true, at least as far as I have been taught. God can act within it but is independent from it. He is not before time of after it he is outside of time.
No, you have a short memory. I gave you an article written by two others, and, its an EXTREMELY safe bet they are not alone in their entire field.
Except for, you know, experts in a relevant field. Oops. And here you go, once again, trying to dismiss credible expert opinions with a wave of your hand (and, yet again, without even attempting to understand the claim you dismiss). Seriously, if this is all you're willing to do, why bother engaging cosmology at all, since you've already decided exactly how things are BEFOREHAND?
That's great, even if its irrelevant.
We aren't talking about Hawking.
It isn't self-contradictory- and if you seriously think the matter can be effectively decided by the mere intuitions of laymen (e.g. yourself), don't you find it curious that scientists are bothering with experiments or publishing works on the subject at all? Don't you realize you may be approaching the matter in a woefully simple-minded matter?
Something which you wouldn't know, because you've demonstrated you don't know the context in which his claim is made in the first place.
We can verify much of it and it has proven to be astoundingly accurate. As in law it is absurd to verify 80% of testimony but make the argument the source lost there mind on the 20% that can't be. The Bible with regularity make fools out of those who have tried to suggest it is inaccurate. There are entire museums full of artifacts that came from cultures that "experts" said never existed. I know of no greater conversion rate than for the group that honestly tried to prove it wrong. Many of the greatest Christians in history became that way by trying to prove the Bible was incorrect and could not do so. It is especially so when those same men died and suffered for their faith claims. Even my admitted claims of faith are based on much greater evidence and mush less faith than any science that is used to contend with God.
I made claims about the concept of God as it is most often defined by the great faiths and philosophers. It's truth is very likely but it completely independent from what is true of the concept.
The rest of this has to do with how reliable my claims that the concept is true are. That was not the issue. Your claims asked for a creator for a concept without the need of one. Whether that concept is true requires different argumentation and was never the issue. This musical chair of burdens is not meaningful.
Do they have a nothing in mind that actually is nothing? Every single one of these "nothing" created stuff guys has a something they are dishonestly calling nothing as in Kraus's and Hawking's case. I am getting weary of the effort.
Every word I gave is the professional consensus. That is where I got it from. Nothing comes from nothing is a mantra of Physicists and cosmologists and has been for a long time and judging from Krauss and Hawking not even under contention. They just re-define nothing as something and then make their claims for grant money and attention I guess. You have yet to produce a single example of this miracle or even a claim that is truly something from nothing beyond a contrived version of nothing.
You have no use fro critiques I see.
I have been. For a subject that includes Hawking so often you are sure trying to separate him from it.
There does not get anything any more self contradicting that claiming that because something exists that is proof that nothing can create anything. It is not unlikely, rare, or irrational that nothing even theoretically can ever produce anything. It is utterly impossible.
I read all the text that lead to the comment, or followed in the same context from it. I have heard 4 professional experts in the field independently say the same thing and have read dozens of critiques of that claim by people who have no faith in a creator at all. They are all the same. In fact only your comments have I ever seen that even suggest that he is not being self contradictory. I have also heard three professional in the field the comment exists within (and it is not cosmology) suggest the exact same thing I have. No wonder you resist including him so much. Look, this is just getting monotonous.Something which you wouldn't know, because you've demonstrated you don't know the context in which his claim is made in the first place.
Do you want to have a Biblical archeological debate? Do you realize it is a primary archeological resource of even secular archeologists. I can't do a drive by post about many issues, that each one requires much investigation to resolve. I do not recommend you do so but hope you will. Pick the best from your list if you do. However do not do so unless you plan to invest the time to resolve the issues. BTW I have made no claims about the Torah.
No, the scriptures deal mostly with peoples interactions with other people. However even many of God's actions with people have verifiable evidence which the scriptural explanation is by far the best. For example there are three primary claims about the Gospels that are almost unanimous among NT scholars from either side and are getting stronger daily.
Well, not of all physicists, as we've seen here...
When they're irrelevant to the point at issue, yes. Since I've merely pointed out to you that at least some credible experts believe precisely what you claim is universally rejected, and not that these experts are right, what so-and-so has to say about them isn't relevant at all.
When he has absolutely zero to do with what we're talking about, yes. You keep jumping about like grease off a hot griddle- we talk about the BBT, you try to drag in Hawking's NB Proposal. We talk about Krauss, you change the subject to Hawking. Try to stay on track.
Except for, you know, actual self-contradictions like "Its raining and its not raining" or "bachelors are married".
A metaphysical article of faith, no more.
Been there, done that. You didn't bother checking it out, you just zoomed out and tried to find critiques of the writer so you could feel justified in rejecting it out of hand. Once again, I'm simply correcting your errors for the benefit of other posters- I've long since stopped expecting you to be honest when you make a mistake.