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

[tumbleweed41]

Is QP a "force" or a "law" or whatever you wanna call it? Does it explain how something is "working"? Then this too is a cause for those somethings to act the way they do. You can not get away from cause and effect in a created universe. You cant.

No, Quantum Physics is not a "force" or law", Quantum Physics is an area of physics that explores physics at the sub-molecular level.
Quantum Physics is not a cause of any physical reaction.
Cause/effect does not always apply at the sub-molecular level according to the findings of Quantum Physics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet for some reason you say this doesnt apply to a created universe.

No, I don't. What I say is that we don't need to consider alternate hypotheses to reject the one that you present us with.

Now you say this extraordinary claim demands an extraordinary explanation. Its simple. You cant have something before the something that started all things.

Why not? All that would happen then is your "something that started all things" would become a "something that started most things".

You cant have something that always existed with that something that started all things because then you wouldnt be able to distinguish which one started all things.

So? Do you think reality is contingent on your ability to distinguish what happened?

You cant say two somethings come together or work together to produce everything else and they both be the the ultimate something that started all things [unless one recognises that it is not completely equal with the other and the other is truly the something that started even the other something].

Did i lose ya?

Yes - you lost me when you completely failed to address my point.

You claim that something has to be "self-sustaining". While I've got problems with your argument, I'll just set that aside for a moment. You've given no justification for why your choice of "something" is necessarily the something that's self-sustaining. Why does God necessarily fill this role but other things don't?

Jesus too. He is called God but even Jesus recognised that He has a God. So that too should tell ya how un-narrow the definition of God is.

Wait... so you do agree that some God-concepts do have a beginning?

In that area only. You are adding to His words by saying anything else

I disagree. The fact that the text (kinda) specifies the geographic extent of God's wrath doesn't change the fact that the text also says God planned to kill all his living creations.

 

[McBell]

Notice carefully the words i am about to put or as i was told over and over "you gotta pay attention to all the words". Okay notice this is what ive been saying

There is nothing INSIDE CREATION that is eternal. That is why i say to you guys if yall can prove that anything INSIDE CREATION is eternal then you guys easily win the debate.

You assume that there was a creation.
Define this "creation" you are saying we must stay inside of.
What is in it?
What is outside of it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Okay so like the evolution that is being taught as truth and believed by most to be true yet there is no proof of it.

You are so right. There is no "proof" for evolution....but on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence for evolution that validates the theory.

Although i dont really want to get into the evolution argument.

Nothing wrong with that except you can see how this would become that debate when you make such a baseless claim.

Compare your list to just the evolution theory and the bible. See there is a big difference there.

Well, there is a huge difference. One is grounded in the scientific method and welcomes new information and change from previous understandings of said theory where as the other is a mixture or fiction and facts. The book is highly interpretive blurry the line between literal and allegory. Case in point, the biblical creation story, if goes against all that we know about the natural world. It's completely wrong on how man came into being who and what he is today.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Notice carefully the words i am about to put or as i was told over and over "you gotta pay attention to all the words". Okay notice this is what ive been saying

There is nothing INSIDE CREATION that is eternal.

Really?
By what law of physics do you assert that matter/energy disappear from the Universe?

Matter is converted to energy, energy to matter. At no time does either simply disappear.

That is why i say to you guys if yall can prove that anything INSIDE CREATION is eternal then you guys easily win the debate.

Yeah!!! I win!!!

 

[McBell]

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

This is at best just flat out wrong.
At worst a bold faced lie.

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

QM?
You can humpty dumpty all you want. It will not change the facts or the truth.

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?

I love it when people say things like "so many scientists" or there are lots of scientists" without listing them.
It merely shows their desperation.

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.

You go right ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to in order to keep your warm fuzzies.

 

[McBell]

In that area only. You are adding to His words by saying anything else

Please show where it says "every living thing I have made in this tiny little area only"?

 

[AK4]

The first thing I must address is the specious assertion that the universe has a beginning. There is nothing to show that physical existence either sprung into being from nothing or that it was caused to exist by something else.

Granted only if you regard the bible as being nothing. I believe we both agree about science and philosophy could explain the physical existence.

Theories such as the Big Bang only describe physical changes and do not account for the changes themselves.

If a thing is demonstrably self-sustaining through cyclical regeneration, as indeed the world is, then its dependence upon a further sustaining power must be proved beyond question, otherwise it is no more than just speculative reasoning.

Okay so we can throw out the world analogy because it is not self sustaining. As far as we know it needs a sun to get to the self-sustainment aspect. So lets jump up to the universe. The universe, in order for it to be self-sustaining, it has to have all the things that are in. So far so good. But now you have to ask where did the stuff come from or even better where did the very first thing that had everything else in it come from. So now you are down to two options,

1. either the it didnt come from anything else and somehow existed in a state, at some time, where it shows evidence that it couldnt stay in
2. or something put it there and gave it a beginning

The second point, which I think you might have missed, is that when I spoke of the argument to sufficient reason I wasn’t meaning a reason for God’s existence. The Supreme Being as an eternally and necessarily existing entity can be God or the universe, and therefore doesn’t need a reason for its existence.

Just as above #1 answers why it cant be the universe.

What I was referring to was a reason for the universe being created. If the universe, or a necessary component of it, is self-existent then just like God it requires no cause, but if it was created by a personal being there must be a reason for its creation. Again, what is it

?

Oh i get what your asking now , If God created the universe, what is the reason. Is this what you are asking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is at best just flat out wrong.
At worst a bold faced lie.

No, no - the logic works fine.

This is why I refuse to accept the idea that the movie serial The Perils of Pauline ever existed at all until they find intact copies of every single episode.

 

[AK4]

Genesis 6:6-7 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain
So the Lord said "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the earth" Looks like He intended to destroy all His creations to me, except for Noah, family and the animals that He wished to save......[/

Even the NASB has it "from the face of the land". The word used for earth/land is

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 0127[/FONT]hmd) אדמה [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] אדמה [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]from (0119)[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]'adamah[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ad-aw-maw'[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]25b[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]ground, land

1. ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
2. piece of ground, a specific plot of land
3. earth substance (for building or constructing)
4. ground as earth's visible surface
5. land, territory, country
6. whole inhabited earth
7. city in Naphtali

[/FONT]


Nowhere does the whole earth fit here.

 

[AK4]

Anything of doubtful validity is considered unsubstantial.

unsubstantial, adj
1. lacking weight, strength, or firmness
2. of doubtful validity
3. of no material existence or substance; unreal

However, in contrast, we have empirical evidence of the moon landing. It is the claims of the deniers that are in truth unsubstantial.

See now we are going into the gray area of opinions because from their eyes they have more that substantial evidence and everything else is "smoke and mirrors".

See how this argument can go even when the evidence is right there in their/your face? Hint hint.

 

[Mr Cheese]

so how do rubber chickens fit in all of this?

 

[AK4]

Okay. And you do believe that God did what he said he'd do, right?

Yup yup....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Right. I was reading online about how gravity does affect a Super Nova but what I didn't realize was there is more than one "type" of Super Nova. So I understand his question but it was vague in light of the evidence.

Supernovae

 

[tumbleweed41]

Anything of doubtful validity is considered unsubstantial.

unsubstantial, adj
1. lacking weight, strength, or firmness
2. of doubtful validity
3. of no material existence or substance; unreal

However, in contrast, we have empirical evidence of the moon landing. It is the claims of the deniers that are in truth unsubstantial.

See now we are going into the gray area of opinions because from their eyes they have more that substantial evidence and everything else is "smoke and mirrors".

See how this argument can go even when the evidence is right there in their/your face? Hint hint.

We are not talking opinion here. We are talking empirical evidence. Or do you accept unverified claims as substantial based on the "belief" of those making the claim?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Such is the case for "God"......right...?

 

[AK4]

But this is pure speculation. You originally claimed
You are in effect charging a highly professional body of scholars with conspiracy to dishonestly distort the truth - with brainwashing, indeed - for motives of prestige and self-importance, with no evidence other than your own need that their conclusions must be wrong. Sorry, AK, but unless you can come up with more substantial evidence than that most of us will stick with the scholarship.

Is the internet down? Is not all this info every on it to back up what im saying? Is what im saying just only something i know? Is it not known of the what the early catholic church did? Is it not known of some of the jewish taintings of scripture and whats in the mishrah and talmud and the unscriptural noahide laws--well myabe not by all because this info is suppressed but its out there? And then the biggest clue of it all is THE SCRIPTURES SAYS SO ABOUT THEM IN THE VERY BOOK THEY PRODUCED!!!

I tell ya it just crazy

 

[tumbleweed41]

I tell ya it just crazy

Your right!! I mean, with all the evidence of scriptural mistranslations, adding to and taking away from the original scriptures, early church canonization of certain books and letters while discarding those that did not fit their early theology.
One would have to be crazy to accept the current scripture as the actual "Word of God"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Unless there was no "beginning", beginning being simply the end of some other event or process, a transformation from one state to another

Right... I was watching the science channel a few weeks ago and came across this....

[youtube]Kcdt6i1oMb0[/youtube]
YouTube - Parallel Universes (1 of 5)

 

[AK4]

"every living substance that I have made"


Seems the only one adding to His words is the one claiming "In that area only"

lol. I understand. You guys cant see because of faulty, inconsistent translations that God what talking about that region that whole time and then makes the statement "every living substance that I have made" and somehow this jumps to the whole global world. Oh and dont forget to take into that even if "the writers intent" was the whole world, that the whole world that he knew of was more than likely just that region.

Good grief.