Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

So basically you are saying that "every living thing god made" was located in this limited local flood, right?

No. see post 1568 i think it was.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So the law of gravity doesnt cause supernovas, solar systems, galaxies, etc etc?

No the Law of Universal Gravitation is a mathematical description of gravities affect on mass.

,
where:

• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

The law that says you must pay your taxes or youll go to jail doesnt make you pay your taxes?

Equating civil laws with scientific laws shows your ignorance of the entire scientific process.

However you want to try to bend the definition of law, it still is a cause that produces effects

Incorrect on all accounts. your ignorance is showing.

 

[godnotgod]

Which is more unsubstantiated? A self existing, self producing, eternal universe or the fact that if something has a beginning, it demands that something was before it.

Unless there was no "beginning", beginning being simply the end of some other event or process, a transformation from one state to another, such as birth and death are. In reality, there is no such thing as birth and death, just as there is no such thing as creation and destruction, beginning and end. They are all just linear concepts, created by and for the rational mind as a means of making it feel comfortable in a universe it does not understand. Because it does not understand the universe, it attempts to gain some control over it via of analysis, dissection, and knowledge, while all the while remaining a separate ego apart from it...or so it thinks.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Could be. But i also think that maybe it could have actually happened, its just that scholars and theologians have brainwashed the masses to think a certain way and blinded people to think that their views are correct.

Could be.

This indicates uncertainty, revealing the unsubstantial nature of the rest of the statement.

 

[AK4]

That assumes there was a "creation" at all. For a creation to have occurred, something had to have come from nothing (ex nihilo), so we are now faced with a different problem in explaining how that is possible. In terms of science, it is not.

See you people say ex nihilo but scriptures say from God. So thats not something from nothing, its something from God. Creation ex nihilo....was that something christian scholars came up with? Or was it jewish first? Hmmm maybe a combination.

So we are left with two possibilities: that which we call the 'created universe' is actually an illusion, not requiring that anything pre-exist for the something to come into being, or that there was no "creation" at all; that is to say, that what we call the universe has always existed, except that it has always existed in one of two phases: on and off. When the universe is switched "on", it appears to have been "created", when, in fact, it is only being manifested in that moment. When it is in the "off" phase, it is unmanifested, but it is still there, just as a light bulb, though off, is still there. All that is required is for the switch to be flipped.

This fails because it is known that if the universe could be flipped on or off, it could not stay in the state of being off.

If it is a manifested apparition, whose appearance is so real that we think it to be real, the problem lies not with the universe, but with how we see it, and how we see it is via of a mind so conditioned that we are not aware that it is conditioned.

This does have some truth to it IMO.

"That which you are seeking is what is causing you to to seek".

Not a bad statement.

 

[AK4]

Transformational Causation

"Now the rules that govern transformational causation are very well understood at the universities. The energy that goes into an operation at the beginning comes out at the end. Although the form of the energy may change, you never get any new energy that way. It's like pouring gold. You melt it and pour it into a set of forms. Then you remelt it and pour it into another set of forms. You never get rich that way. No matter how many times you remelt it, you never get any new gold. Transformational causation is like that. What you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. It is governed by the conservation laws. Whether it's matter, energy, momentum or electrical charge -- whatever you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. And since the Universe is made out of energy, the changes of which are governed by these conservation laws, the Universe cannot have arisen through transformational causation. It cannot have come out of nothing."

The Equations of Maya

My point exactly. The scriptures say all come out from God. Since people cant see God they describe Him as nothing thus you get unbelievers who say God doesnt exist because something cannot come from nothing. Incerdible aint it

 

[tumbleweed41]

See you people say ex nihilo but scriptures say from God. So thats not something from nothing, its something from God. Creation ex nihilo....was that something christian scholars came up with? Or was it jewish first? Hmmm maybe a combination.

2nd Century Church leaders based the idea of creation ex nihilo on these verses...

John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Romans 4:17 "... even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

1 Corinthians 1:28 "And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are"

Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

And from the Jerusalem Bible...

2 Maccabees 7:27-29 "My son, have pity on me; I carried you nine months in the womb and suckled you three years.... I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being in the same way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers, and make death welcome, so that in the day of mercy I may receive you back in your brothers' company."

What you seem to advocate is creatio ex deo, whereby creation is from the very substance of God. And is sustained by the very existence of God.
This is process theism, a metaphysical approach to creation usually referred to as panentheism.

 

[AK4]

[

Those things at the bottom of the ocean, and even the ocean itself, do not have to exist, because God isn’t obliged to create anything. There doesn’t have to be any humans, there doesn’t have to be laws of gravity, laws of motion or the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. But if there is no law of cause and effect God immediately becomes impossible. Every scrap of contingent matter may be said to be absolutely dependent upon God, but God cannot be God without cause and effect,

Like I said this sounds logical, very logical. But when you think deeper on it one has to recognize that a God concept demands that nothing cause God to come into being. It would be a direct contradiction to the God concept. That is why I used the USP thing. You absolutely cannot have something before it or cause it.

As you will see below, i am not saying God is completely immune from the law cause and effect, i am saying that nothing caused Him to be [this even includes when there no creation at all]. In fact He created the law of cause and effect which automatically makes it effect Him.[only after He created it though]

But if God created things differently they would still be perfect – if that was his perfect will.

Ill share something with you. Even God is not free from cause and effect because of the standards He put on Himself. He reveals to us that He is only good. So if He is not a liar and His words are always true then He has caused Himself to only do good.

I’m sorry but you’re misreading the argument. In two hundred and thirty-three years nobody yet has answered Hume. Far from defining cause you are actually committing exactly the common error that Hume’s exposition identified. In this case you are presupposing God as the cause and then saying from him came an idea and thus all created things! Hume explains: ‘If we examine the operations of body, and the production of efforts from their causes, we shall find that all our faculties can never carry us farther in our knowledge of this relation than barely to observe that particular objects are constantly conjoined, and that the mind is carried by a customary transition from the appearance of one to the belief of the other. Cause and effect is based on experience, which is founded upon the belief that the future must be like the past, which itself is based on experience. This circularity (The Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference) identifies the impossibility of directly observing causal effects. And so the assumption ‘God exists’ is dependent upon the assumption that a sequence of events must always follow, which is dependent upon a yet further assumption that such a phenomenon exists outside the world of experience. It comes down to this: If ‘God exists’ is true, then cause and effect is necessary; otherwise ‘God is the creator’ is false. But there is no demonstration to prove that cause is necessary. And there isn’t even an explanation for causality in empirical terms!

You kinda confusing me because at times we are on the same page like whats in green, I agree with, but whats in red I don’t because you say there is no demonstration to prove that cause is necessary yet the universe, being that it had a beginning, is demonstrating the necessity for a cause, otherwise it is eternal or self existing/producing. That is the demonstration and unless we can find something in this universe, inside creation, that shows it had no beginning, then a cause for our universe is necessary

The concept of Supreme Being (omnipotence and all sufficiency) doesn’t desire or want for anything because it has and is everything, by definition. And as there can only be one Supreme Being it follows that it cannot be the logically inferior biblical God. Interestingly, and in contrast, the concept of Supreme Being as the self-existent world, isn’t affected in the least by that problem.

No that is what people who don’t know God think. Really if ya break the whole God concept down, those who say God doesn’t desire or want should really think about what they are saying because if He didn’t have those then there would absolutely be no creation or anything else but Him. He would be a god of doing nothing. They couldn’t use the argument that He just created for no reason, hence you have the law of cause and effect come into play again here.

 

[AK4]

Please be patient with me. Im trying to catch up on the responses while at work:angel2:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Incredible. See post 1568

Post 1568 doesn't address my point at all.

For a moment, forget about any distinctions between "world" and "land" while we go back to step one: the text does say that God would destroy every living thing he had created, doesn't it?

 

[AK4]

Heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. So the undeniable fact is that the universe exists as a sustaining power. Why then is it necessary to look for a further sustaining power? And why should the world be created? This last point is known as an argument from sufficient reason. A self-existent world (or God) doesn’t require an explanation or need a reason for being, but if a thing is created there must be a reason or a purpose for its creation. So what is it?

See the thing you are not taking into account or not questioning with the world or universe being a sustaining power is whatbrought it into being since we know that it has a beginning. Being cyclical answers the sustaining part but not what brought the things to make it sustainable. A self sustaining God doesnt require an explanation because the concept implies no beginning. A world or universe does because we know it has a beginning, although it may be self sustaining after its beginnings. And so we agree here "but if a thing is created there must be a reason or a purpose for its creation." But remember in a God concept, He is not created and has no beginning

 

[AK4]

At best, this is flat out wrong.
At worst, it is a bold faced lie.

Until and if they find the missing links, this is not wrong or a lie

What makes the Bible anything more than superficial?
I mean other than your wanting it to be more than it is?

Okay then QM, ToE, evolution [actually let me call it Darwinism], everything is superficial.

Yes there is.
The Theory of Evolution is the only one based upon verifiable fact.

If that’s true then why are there so many scientists who say otherwise? Why hasn’t anyone found the missing links to make the theory true?

Seems to me that you seem to think that the number of people who believe is somehow related to how true said belief is.

This is definitely not true because I know what I and others like minded as me believe about God and that we are few compared to Christianity and the many. And as Charity said earlier in this thread, i dont have a very different belief than most of christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A self sustaining God doesnt require an explanation because the concept implies no beginning.

On the contrary - the idea that some object can be "self-sustaining" and needs no cause is an extraordinary claim and therefore demands an extraordinary explanation.

But remember in a God concept, He is not created and has no beginning

Your concept of "god" is too narrow. Historically, many people's gods were created and had beginnings. Even Zeus was born.

 

[AK4]

again:

So basically you are saying that "every living thing god made" was located in this limited local flood, right?
​

No, where are you getting that? Im saying the translators not being consistent makes it seem that it was a global flood killing every living thing. Notice that Jeremiah verse i quoted about the lying pen. And now you are trying to make it seem as if every living thing was located in the area of a local flood. You are being just as bad as they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, where are you getting that? Im saying the translators not being consistent makes it seem that it was a global flood killing every living thing. Notice that Jeremiah verse i quoted about the lying pen. And now you are trying to make it seem as if every living thing was located in the area of a local flood. You are being just as bad as they are.

No, he's not. He's reading the plain meaning of the text: that God intended to kill every living thing he had created.

 

[AK4]

This is a common misconception about the Theory of Evolution. The word "theory" as commonly used by lay people does not carry the same meaning that the scientific use of the term does. A scientific theory is a working model, one which, for all practical purposes, is a fact. It is beyond just an idea or hypothesis. New findings continue to confirm the Theory of Evolution as being true, even though some of these findings alter previous conclusions, making the Theory of Evolution a dynamic process. The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is being proven every day, both by new archaeological findings and by those in the life sciences.

On the other hand, the religious view of nature is a relatively fixed, static view. It is for this reason that it has come to be known as the 'artifact' model of the universe.

Dont get me wrong, some elements of it is true. Just some of it is bogus when it says that these things evolved without some kind of instruction either previously programmed in or just flat out divinely or supernaturally altered. The latter is hard to believe also because God doesnt work that way.

 

[AK4]

No. The law of gravity states that massive bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. It is this force that does the things you describe; but the law does not explain the force, it merely describes it.
.

"It is this force that does the things you describe; but the law does not explain the force, it merely describes it."

Whatever and however you want to break it down. Lets use what you said then, it is the force, which the force was given a title, gravity, that makes this happen. Either way you have a cause, therefore cause and effect still applies.

 

[AK4]

Fascinating. With what motive, do you suppose?

Oh theres many. Power, prestige, the need to feel important or superior, control, etc etc or some maybe just be ignorant to all the facts. Read up how the hell doctrine was used to control the masses back centuries ago and see how they purposely distorted and changed scripture so this doctrine can be enforced. Do tithing also. Do also the doctrine of everlasting/eternal/ and for ever and ever and how those of the judaism religion need this for their religion to be viable. The proof is everywhere if you are will to research it.

 

[AxisMundi]

The text states?....The translation states. And the translation is not consistent with the word. The author could not have at all thought it was literally the whole world, but i will give ya that he could have thought it was the whole world in the sense of what he knew to be the whole world which still makes it local, regional. To further prove my point you have in Jeremiah the same scenario and do you really think he meant the whole world too here or all the kingdoms of the whole earth came out to fight Jerusalem...

Jer 34:1 …and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people, fought against Jerusalem…

Oh, really? All the kingdoms of the earth? The Chinese came down and the Japanese came over and the Indians and the Aborigines and the American Indians, they were all over here in the fight against Jerusalem were they? No. “All the kingdoms of the land,” that land.

So if that land, if it’s only the kingdoms of that land that came up against Jerusalem, then you have no reason to say that this water covered the whole earth. It’s the land. What land? The land where all these corrupt people were doing all these corrupt things. It doesn’t say that there weren’t any bad people anywhere else in the world. This was just a spot of utter corruptness.

The word earth is used locally all through the bible. If the translators were consistent you would see this. But as the Word says it is because of people like them His name is blasphemed throughout the world. Its no coincidence it says this about the scribes and religious leaders of that time

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Jer 8:8 - "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie. [/FONT]


and the same thing could be said of the scholars and theologians since then all the way up to our time.

Nice cherrypicking...

1The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth under his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem and against all the cities thereof, saying,...

Old Nebie didn't have a world spanning empire.

And "earth" is only used "locally" when it talks of dirt.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"It is this force that does the things you describe; but the law does not explain the force, it merely describes it."

Whatever and however you want to break it down. Lets use what you said then, it is the force, which the force was given a title, gravity, that makes this happen. Either way you have a cause, therefore cause and effect still applies.

Yes, cause/effect is a part of the equation of the Law of Universal Gravitation. This is not in question.
However, when broken down to Quantum Mechanics, cause/effect does not always apply.
To insist otherwise is to show a gross ignorance of quantum physics.