The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

lol, it's not silly, it's perfectly apt.
There doesn't have to be a reason that concerns intent. And please don't address me with a "just because you dont know the answer " since it is you inserting a God into your gaps. I already am well acquainted with the theories and I accept them as they are. YOU are the one adding extra.

This is not God of the gaps at all. It is impossible for nature to be the cause of itself, which is what you have to believe in order to be in line with your non-theistic thinking. The universe began to exist. It couldnt have created itself. Postulating a natural cause would be pushing the issue back to infinity which is absurd and continuing to think the universe is eternal is absurd and unscientific at this point. So it is quite rational to postulate Intelligent Design. As a matter of fact, lets not talk about why God IS the cause and talk about why an eternal universe and infinite regression ISN'T the cause. Most of you people continuously attack the God hypotheis while not addressing the absurdities of the two default positions that you are left with after you take God out of the equation. You would rather believe the chaos creates order, intelligence comes from non-intelligence. We dont even believe that NOW, so why should we have believed it then??

This does not address the problem I pointed out in your analogy at that point

Yes it does, time begins to exist in both analogies. Time began to exist in our universe. Point blank, peroid.

If it knew it WOULD fall, that implies knowledge PRIOR TO FALLING.

Granted, but he never BEGAN to think or BEGAN to have knowledge of the falling. If it always knew that it would fall, and when it would fall, where is the temporality of the knowledge??

Nnnno, eternity is 'all Time that has been'.

Well you can argue this all you want, I already gave the wiki link at which my point was backed.

Timelessness is Timelessness. Eternity is a passage of Time, not a lack of it.
It was YOU who commented that the chandelier, which represents God in your analogy mess, 'has a brain'.

The brain idea was only to show the chandelier acted on FREE WILL IN ORDER TO FALL. Just like God acted on his free WILL to create the universe.

But whatever the form he needs thoughts in whatever form they must take. Thoughts REQUIRE Time to occur. They change from state to state; pondering his situation and desiring to move or drop or create or whatever.
Just because you don't understand this idea... dot dot dot.

I didnt know a being that knows all true propositions have to think. God doesnt sit there and ponder. He doesnt need to comprehend. God KNOWS.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I know that. I've already said so in earlier posts. Currently they are just hypostheses and not scientific theory like the Big Bang model. But we may one day developed the technology to observe what the real pre-Big Bang was like before 13.7 billion light years from now. This will probably prove one of these current hypotheses being true, or debunk all of these (current ones) but provide avenue for a new hypothesis.

Back to infinite regression. Just cant stay away from it.

But one things all of these theories and hypotheses have shown that no "deity" is required for any of these explanations.

So nature can create itself, how absurd is that?

Like everyone have said, you have only this silly god-of-the-gap. Once this "gap" is filled, what then? Would you go back further in time to find more gaps to shove your precious god into?

Once the gap is filled? The gap can never be filled because nature cant be the absolute origin of its own self. As i said numerous other occasations, all you do is push the question of origins back one step.

God is "timeless" or "outside of time" is really beyond absurd. For God to be timeless or living forever, then time would have to exist. It is oxymoron claim. You are simply making baseless claim which you could never prove. The Bible is hardly a trustworthy evidence and your "faith" is no better as evidence.

Time began to exist. Whatever gave it its beginning could not itself exist in time. This is elementary school logic here people.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I got pantheism from the sentence I underlined:

"But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more."

It sounds like you are describing the chandelier/universe as being a conscious being which all by itself decides to fall. That sounds very pantheistic to me.

Went way over your head, thats all i will say about this...

 

[PolyHedral]

Time began to exist in our universe.

There was a first moment of time in our universe.

The two statements are not synonymous. (And yours is nonsensical, since time beginning to exist logically implies a moment where it doesn't; that's a contradiction.)

 

[gnostic]

Back to infinite regression. Just cant stay away from it.

What you are doing is worse.

The god-of-the-gap is the sort of thing some ignorant goat-herders would use because they don't understand science. Inserting god into science is to fill in the gap of what you don't know is the worse form of hocus-pocus magic.

BTW, I ask you not to apply your stupid notion of "infinite regression" to my post.

 

[gnostic]

BTW, call of the wild.

You've misquoted the wrong people again. This time - in post 402 - those quotes should all have my name, not Heathen Hammer. Please correct them.

 

[gnostic]

Time began to exist. Whatever gave it its beginning could not itself exist in time. This is elementary school logic here people.

You're the one to state that God is outside of time or timeless. From the standpoint of this reality - our universe - it make no sense no sense for God to create time or start the Big Bang.

The start of the Big Bang (13.7 billion light years) ONLY DENOTES when the expansion begun, not that time itself start at this point. 13.7 billion years only provide us a point of reference of when the Big Bang, not that time didn't exist prior this initial expansion.

It is your persistence of inserting god-of-the-gap present a fallacy that God is timeless and being the cause of the BB and start of time. You also keep misrepresenting the Big Bang with illogical and faulty assumptions, so don't your mistake on me and everyone else.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is not God of the gaps at all.

I realize you don't wish it to be, but it is

It is impossible for nature to be the cause of itself, which is what you have to believe in order to be in line with your non-theistic thinking.

Yet its fine for God to be. If he can do it so can Nature.
Also I am a theist. Its just that my worldview relates to science's discoveries without any real conflict.
I realize you'd like me to be an atheist, but Im not.

The universe began to exist. It couldnt have created itself.

'Create' is a bit of a misnomer here, but, why couldn't it? You assert this but cannot explain it.

Postulating a natural cause would be pushing the issue back to infinity which is absurd and continuing to think the universe is eternal is absurd and unscientific at this point. So it is quite rational to postulate Intelligent Design.

It's not, really. And you push God back to infinity and somehow THAT makes sense? lol, your issues fail at self-reflexivity, and thus your reasoning is unsound.

As a matter of fact, lets not talk about why God IS the cause and talk about why an eternal universe and infinite regression ISN'T the cause. Most of you people continuously attack the God hypotheis while not addressing the absurdities of the two default positions that you are left with after you take God out of the equation. You would rather believe the chaos creates order, intelligence comes from non-intelligence. We dont even believe that NOW, so why should we have believed it then??

Actually you don't understand what is believed about it; but you do regurgitate frequent creationist mistakes as to what they are fighting. but yes, let's please stop talking about how God is the cause because that is definitely absurd.

Yes it does, time begins to exist in both analogies. Time began to exist in our universe. Point blank, period.

Granted, but he never BEGAN to think or BEGAN to have knowledge of the falling. If it always knew that it would fall, and when it would fall, where is the temporality of the knowledge??

In the part where you said 'always'.

Well you can argue this all you want, I already gave the wiki link at which my point was backed.

It is, but the alternate definition is also given for the same word, plus the newer word, which you nor I have ever seen used here. Perhaps you have introduced us to the word 'sempiternity'. Since you didn't it would appear both definitions are valid.

The brain idea was only to show the chandelier acted on FREE WILL IN ORDER TO FALL. Just like God acted on his free WILL to create the universe.

Well, I know what the brain idea was really for. In any case, since your analogy implies an act, and a will to do something, this by default indicates there is a moment when the situation desired by that will is NOT in effect. Therefore Time MUST pass between the changes of state. You simply cannot get around this fact.

I didnt know a being that knows all true propositions have to think. God doesnt sit there and ponder. He doesnt need to comprehend. God KNOWS.

Semantic errors on your part. I have already explained why this is wrong.

 

[lunakilo]

Went way over your head, thats all i will say about this...

Thank you for calling me stupid.

So you are just going to ignore my observation then I guess

 

[lunakilo]

This is not God of the gaps at all. It is impossible for nature to be the cause of itself, which is what you have to believe in order to be in line with your non-theistic thinking. The universe began to exist. It couldnt have created itself. Postulating a natural cause would be pushing the issue back to infinity which is absurd and continuing to think the universe is eternal is absurd and unscientific at this point. So it is quite rational to postulate Intelligent Design. As a matter of fact, lets not talk about why God IS the cause and talk about why an eternal universe and infinite regression ISN'T the cause. Most of you people continuously attack the God hypotheis while not addressing the absurdities of the two default positions that you are left with after you take God out of the equation. You would rather believe the chaos creates order, intelligence comes from non-intelligence. We dont even believe that NOW, so why should we have believed it then??

Taking the infinite regression and eternity and wrapping them up in colorful wrappings and calling it God the eternal intelligent being does NOT solve any problem.
It is just hiding the problem.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Another thought just occurred to me in regards to Call's defining 'eternity' as being the opposite of 'sempiternity'. In isolating God's eternity to be 'no time/timeless' as opposed to 'all possible Time, well, God's eternal will really isn't impressive or powerful at all. Since he essentially spent an infinitesimally small amount of time knowing something. His will didn't even last an instant.Seems far more impressive when God was sitting through aeons rather than not even existing for the blink of an eye, so to speak

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Taking the infinite regression and eternity and wrapping them up in colorful wrappings and calling it God the eternal intelligent being does NOT solve any problem.
It is just hiding the problem.

Not at all. Infinite regression is temporal, eternity is atemporal, two totally different terms.

 

[idav]

Not at all. Infinite regression is temporal, eternity is atemporal, two totally different terms.

Infinite regression is what you get when you keep trying to find the cause of a cause of a cause. Sure we want to no how something came about via no cause but inserting an intelligent being does not solve the issue. Intelligence and will require a cause. If intelligence can be inherent then the universe doesn't require a creator to cause it either.

 

[gnostic]

Not at all. Infinite regression is temporal, eternity is atemporal, two totally different terms.

There are no testable or verifiable evidences of any god.

With that being the case there are no way to substantiate your claim that your god has eternal life. Nor there are any solid foundation that your god is "outside of time". And these are not your only problems:

1. There are also no evidences to tie your deity to the formation of the universe, to the Milky Way, to our solar system and to our Earth.
2. There are no evidences to tie your god to life and nature on this planet, including us humans.

The only things you have is your belief of your god from your bible, hence your faith, and your willingness to twist both science and your scriptures in order to fit your god into whatever gaps you can find. In this case, your "gap" at this moment is that god supposedly create the universe out of nothing with our current knowledge of the universe formation (via the Big Bang).

 

[shawn001]

There are no testable or verifiable evidences of any god.

With that being the case there are no way to substantiate your claim that your god has eternal life. Nor there are any solid foundation that your god is "outside of time". And these are not your only problems:
There are also no evidences to tie your deity to the formation of the universe, to the Milky Way, to our solar system and to our Earth.
There are no evidences to tie your god to life and nature on this planet, including us humans.

The only things you have is your belief of your god from your bible, hence your faith, and your willingness to twist both science and your scriptures in order to fit your god into whatever gaps you can find. In this case, your "gap" at this moment is that god supposedly create the universe out of nothing with our current knowledge of the universe formation (via the Big Bang).

Then Callofthewild denies evolution.

Which means he didn't follow all that cosmology he studies through to the formation of the solar system and earth and then life evolving.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

BTW, call of the wild.

You've misquoted the wrong people again. This time - in post 402 - those quotes should all have my name, not Heathen Hammer. Please correct them.

My bad once again. Sometimes i become a little.......absent minded I will try not to let it happen again.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I realize you don't wish it to be, but it is

I could make the same argument. I could say you people are using "science of the gaps". To me that is no more logical than what you call "god of the gaps". Thats only if we are to play that particular game. And if you are using "science of the gaps" arguments, you are begging the question in favor of naturalism. I only use God to fill in the blanks of when science is not possible. It is impossible for science to be the cause of its own domain. You can't logically explain the origin of nature with nature. Thats what you people continue to do, and whenever I raise this point, and i have been saying this for days now, you people ignore it. I am using a transcendent cause to explain nature. You people are using a non-transcendent cause to explain nature, which is foolish. Things that come in to being dont create itself, and thats exactly what you people are claiming (or either infinite regression).

Also I am a theist.

:clap

Its just that my worldview relates to science's discoveries without any real conflict.

So does mine. Science has been used as a tool to draw the conclusion that the universe began to exist. Thats all i need right there.

'Create' is a bit of a misnomer here, but, why couldn't it? You assert this but cannot explain it.

Now see, this is EXACTLY what im talking about right here. You are entertaining the possibility of the universe creating itself. I can't believe anyone that claims to be a theist to believe such a thing. I wouldnt even entertain this thought if I WERE'NT a theist. Wow.

It's not, really. And you push God back to infinity and somehow THAT makes sense? lol, your issues fail at self-reflexivity, and thus your reasoning is unsound.

Im not. On the Christian view, God didn't traverse through infinity. You people continuously describe God as a being who has endured through infinite time. This is NOT what is meant when it is said that God is eternal. Eternity can mean existing outside out time, or BEYOND TIME. Wikipedia has a good read on this subject and I would invite you all to read it and try to understand God and eternity, instead of attacking straw man. I am not saying the subject is not a difficult one to grasp, but if you do attempt to grasp it at least put it in its proper context because I feel as if i am repeating myself for reasons unknown.

Actually you don't understand what is believed about it; but you do regurgitate frequent creationist mistakes as to what they are fighting. but yes, let's please stop talking about how God is the cause because that is definitely absurd.

So let me see? We should stop believing in Intelligent Design and start believing that the universe created itself??? If that is the default position to theism then i will leave you to that absurdity realm of thinking. If you have to go through those great lengths to not believe in God, I will leave you to it.

In the part where you said 'always'.

Well, if he "always" knew, that would imply he never began to think, therefore, no change was made, therefore, no time is needed.

It is, but the alternate definition is also given for the same word, plus the newer word, which you nor I have ever seen used here. Perhaps you have introduced us to the word 'sempiternity'. Since you didn't it would appear both definitions are valid.

The word "eternity" has two definitions. I have argued in favor of one of those definitions, but you attack the other one. Odd.

Well, I know what the brain idea was really for. In any case, since your analogy implies an act, and a will to do something, this by default indicates there is a moment when the situation desired by that will is NOT in effect. Therefore Time MUST pass between the changes of state. You simply cannot get around this fact.

Semantic errors on your part. I have already explained why this is wrong.

All you seem to do is apply temporality with a being that isn't temporal. Categorical error on your part.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Taking the infinite regression and eternity and wrapping them up in colorful wrappings and calling it God the eternal intelligent being does NOT solve any problem.
It is just hiding the problem.

God is Eternal, not existing in time. The universe, if it existed for an infinity, has existed in time. Infinite regression is impossible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Infinite regression is what you get when you keep trying to find the cause of a cause of a cause.

Isn't that what naturalistic explanations are? A cause of a cause of a cause of a cause all the way to past infinity??

Sure we want to no how something came about via no cause but inserting an intelligent being does not solve the issue. Intelligence and will require a cause. If intelligence can be inherent then the universe doesn't require a creator to cause it either.

There is no infinite regression with God. He is the first cause. There were no causes before him so therefore the problem of infinite regression is negated. Since he is by definition a timeless being, the problem of infinite regression is still negated. But we cant say the same for the universe.

 

[YmirGF]

There is no infinite regression with God. He is the first cause. There were no causes before him so therefore the problem of infinite regression is negated. Since he is by definition a timeless being, the problem of infinite regression is still negated. But we cant say the same for the universe.

Now, if only you could prove that God exists and is indeed a timeless being. Good luck. I still say it was a demented Unicorn.