Mythical Christ

[logician]

Again...Please prove otherwise!
You Can't
There are alot of things in History we know true...and some because of Some sort of Biblical, Scriptural, or even Hyroglyhic,
Yet you cant show one Credible..well anything.... that shows Jesus didnt Exist ><

And you can't show me one credible piece of hard evidence that he did.

Case closed.

 

[logician]

And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.

So you posit that the unverse came from nothing? No matter or energy existed before its creation? Where is your proof?

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

indeed he did Indeed it was

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

wanderer085

Matter and energy have existed forever in the multiverse, therefore no creation or creator is needed.​

Jay

And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.​

wanderer085

Using the logic of god-believers, prove that it isn't true.​

Jay

You made a claim. I asked you to defend that claim. I did not ask for cowardly avoidance or some adolescent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Now, once again, please reference a single credible source that presents your claim as fact rather than hypothesis.​

So you posit that the unverse came from nothing? No matter or energy existed before its creation? Where is your proof?

Pay attention. I posited nothing. Rather, I asked you to support your assertion. Your attempts to dodge the question have been transparent and pathetic. Now, for the third time: please reference a single credible source that presents your claim as fact rather than hypothesis.

 

[PureX]

Matter and energy have existed forever in the multiverse, therefore no creation or creator is needed.

Jay
And this is testable how? Please reference a single credible source that presents this as fact rather than hypothesis.

Using the logic of god-believers, prove that it isn't true.

Jay
You made a claim. I asked you to defend that claim. I did not ask for cowardly avoidance or some adolescent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Now, once again, please reference a single credible source that presents your claim as fact rather than hypothesis.

Actually, wanderer is not obliged to do so, as his claim is self evident.

Matter and energy do exist. This is self evident. Wanderer is assuming that it has always existed, and this is a reasonable assumption given the fact that it exists now, and has existed for as long as any human beings have existed, and well beyond. It actually would fall to those who claim that energy (I leave matter out, here, because matter is really just an expression of energy) must have a "first cause" to prove their claim, as their claim is the one that asserts a change to what is already self-evident.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, wanderer is not obliged to do so, as his claim is self evident.

Damn! And to think I didn't realize that the multiverse is "self-evident". How foolish of me ...

 

[PureX]

The multi-verse isn't the essential part of his statement. Now look who's resorting to "cowardly avoidance"! *smile*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The multi-verse isn't the essential part of his statement. Now look who's resorting to "cowardly avoidance"! *smile*

In fact the speculative multiverse is essential precisely because it affords some possibility for 'eternity' in the face of the wide acceptance of the Big Bang. As for contingency and creation ex nihilo, I'll be more than happy to discuss Aristotle contra Plato if you'd like, but to claim that eternity is self evident is self-serving nonsense.

 

[logician]

The point here that some are trying to obfuscate is that for someone to claim there must be a "creator god" there must be something to create, therefore, they must prove that matter and energy have "not" always existed, in some form or another. There are several versions of string theory that posit an eternal multiverse, or universes coming in and out of existence. Of course, I wasn't there to witness this process, so it's only theory. However, stating that a god must have created the universe requires extraordinary evidence, none of which I've seen. I do see matter and energy, thus the assumption that it has existed in some fashion and had no "beginning" is not an infeasible one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the assumption that it has existed in some fashion and had no "beginning" is not an infeasible one.

Of course it's not an infeasible one. Nor is it a necessary one unless, of course, one rejects a creation event, at which point it very much takes on the quality of a circular argument ...

• There can't be a creation event without something being created.
• But there can't be something created without a creation event.
• But ...

It's an underwhelming mantra.

 

[PureX]

In fact the speculative multi-verse is essential precisely because it affords some possibility for 'eternity' in the face of the wide acceptance of the Big Bang. As for contingency and creation ex nihilo, I'll be more than happy to discuss Aristotle contra Plato if you'd like, but to claim that eternity is self evident is self-serving nonsense.

Actually, the multi-verse theory isn't really even necessary to his proposition. All the evidence in THIS universe suggests that energy has always existed, and will always exist. There is no time or place or condition within this entire universe, where energy ceased to exist or came into existence, and in fact the universe itself would cease to exist were it not for this energy. And even though the current structure of the universe may not have always been as it is now, we have absolutely no evidence at all, in the entire universe, to suggest that this energy didn't always exist, and will not always exist in the future.

Now on the other side of the coin, we have the flimsy and rather arcane argument that because it appears to us that everything in the universe has a cause, that the universe itself must also have one, and by extension, somehow, this assumption includes the very energy of existence, itself. Yet this proposition fails in a couple of ways. One is that the appearance of 'cause and effect' could simply be a kind of illusion created in our own human minds by our recognizing existence as both a single inter-related event, and as a collection of separate individual phenomena, at the same time. The human brain is peculiar in that it functions by comparing and contrasting different views of the same phenomena, and it's likely that our recognition of "cause and effect" is a perceptual by-product of this inherent duality happening within our minds.

And secondly, the "law of cause and effect", even if it were a universal law, would END at the edges of the universe itself. And it therefor would NOT extend to whatever, if anything, happened before or after. And therefor cannot reasonably be used to support propositions involving conditions or circumstances before, after, and beyond the universe.

So as odd as it might seem to you, the proposition that the energy of existence is perpetual is actually self-evident, while the proposition that it must have a first cause tends to fall apart when applied to conditions and circumstances of the scale of the universe, and to the whole of existence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All the evidence in THIS universe suggests that energy has always existed, and will always exist.

So much for Planck time ...

 

[PureX]

So much for Planck time ...

Planck time is irrelevant. I looked it up at wikipedia:

"According to the Big Bang theory nothing is known about the universe at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted and that all matter, energy, and space-time expanded outward from an extremely hot and dense singularity. One planck time after the event is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it, and at that time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental forces."

Planck time is still a description of phenomena occuring within the parameters of the universe, and so has no bearing on the eternal nature of energy, nor on the proposition of a divine 'first cause'.

I highlighted the phrase that I did to point out the evidence for the perpetual existence of energy, as an "extremely hot and dense singularity" would certainly connote the presence of energy, and this is BEFORE the Big Bang.

 

[logician]

Of course, there come the arguments that if there is a god, who created god, was there a first god, were there an infinite number of gods? Assuming the existence of a supernatural intelligence with no hard evidence is more of a leap of faith than assuming the existence of matter and energy of which we see.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Planck time is irrelevant. I looked it up at wikipedia: ...

Classic! :bow: