The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There are no testable or verifiable evidences of any god.

There are no testable or verifiables evidences of a universe creating itself either.

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".

But that isn't the case. God, at least on the Christian view, is metaphysically necessary. It is necessary for him to exist. If God wasn't eternal, that would make him not God. Second, since time began to exist, it is necessary for whatever gave time its beginning to exist OUTSIDE OF TIME. This is once again, elementary logic. Time began to exist. Anything that begins to exist has to have a transendent cause to be the source of its existence. There is no getting around this. So God, if he does exist, HAD to have existence 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.

Huh? Evidence to tie? Of course there is no caption surrounding the milky way that says "God did it". God created the universe. That includes the milky way, planets, the stars, the galaxies, and anything that is considered nature. Nothing in the universe can be its own origin. Nothing in the universe can be the origin of itself. There is no way you can use nature as a way to explain the origins of all nature. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD for crying out loud.

The only things you have is your belief of your god from your bible, hence your faith

Not true at all. I wouldnt believe the universe created itself, or intelligence comes from non-intelligence, or chaos creating order even if i WEREN'T a Christian. I can't and refuse to believe in absurdities. So if that is the price of atheism, by all means, feel free.

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).

We only need science to confirm the fact that the universe began to exist, which we knew all along, we were just waiting for science to catch up. Nothing can create itself. In fact, when you people continue to entertain the thought of the universe creating itself, i will simply just state "nothing can create itself", and move on.

 

[shawn001]

There are no testable or verifiables evidences of a universe creating itself either.




But that isn't the case. God, at least on the Christian view, is metaphysically necessary. It is necessary for him to exist. If God wasn't eternal, that would make him not God. Second, since time began to exist, it is necessary for whatever gave time its beginning to exist OUTSIDE OF TIME. This is once again, elementary logic. Time began to exist. Anything that begins to exist has to have a transendent cause to be the source of its existence. There is no getting around this. So God, if he does exist, HAD to have existence outside of time.



Huh? Evidence to tie? Of course there is no caption surrounding the milky way that says "God did it". God created the universe. That includes the milky way, planets, the stars, the galaxies, and anything that is considered nature. Nothing in the universe can be its own origin. Nothing in the universe can be the origin of itself. There is no way you can use nature as a way to explain the origins of all nature. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD for crying out loud.



Not true at all. I wouldnt believe the universe created itself, or intelligence comes from non-intelligence, or chaos creating order even if i WEREN'T a Christian. I can't and refuse to believe in absurdities. So if that is the price of atheism, by all means, feel free.



We only need science to confirm the fact that the universe began to exist, which we knew all along, we were just waiting for science to catch up. Nothing can create itself. In fact, when you people continue to entertain the thought of the universe creating itself, i will simply just state "nothing can create itself", and move on.

Call_of_the_Wild

what are quantum fluctuations?

Or virtual particles?

You should really watch this from Stephen Hawkings, because he for one doesn't agree with your hypothesis on cosmology.

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube

 

[McBell]

There are no testable or verifiables evidences of a universe creating itself either.

ok.
So we agree that there is no testable or verifiable evidences for either of your claims.

Now what?

 

[shawn001]

But a universe can create itself without breaking any known laws of nature though.

There are ways to test and verifiy this and they are working on those hypothesis

 

[YmirGF]

But a universe can create itself without breaking any known laws of nature though.

There are ways to test and verifiy this and they are working on those hypothesis

Details, details, details...

 

[shawn001]

Details, details, details...

You don't need details when you can just say "god did it" based on faith and we're done.

Of course that isn't science or answer any questions of how it actually happened. It seems to be no problem to say "god did it", but don't say pink unicorns did it, or any other god then the one "I" believe in did it or there is any other explanation that doesn't involve a diety.

It seems to be for some a curiosity killer.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I could make the same argument.

No, you can't. the term 'God of the gaps' has a specific definition and your excuse fits it to a T

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".

Your personal inability or incredulity doesn't change facts.

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.

We can, and we do, and predictions base don that explanation play out.

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).


So does mine.

It certainly does not.

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

Except science has supporting evidence, you have none. You have only wishes. What you need is evidence.

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.

Well, then we cannot blame your theism for your ignorance of this subject. Even though you fit the stereotype perfectly. Be that as it may, I am not entertaining anything that isn't born out BY ALL THE EVIDENCE.

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.

I read it, and the concept is garbage.

You consistently make exceptions to all rules you wish to apply to science; you fail at self-reflexivity. Your reasoning is poor.

So let me see? We should stop believing in Intelligent Design and start believing that the universe created itself???

If you wish to catch up with the 19th century, yeah
And 'create' isn't the right word, as I said. It's merely an emotional hook to cling to your concept.

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.

I believe your God exists, he's just an obvious liar, and not very good at it. And his children are, on the average, below average. Particularly with science and other intellectual pursuits that give results which frighten them.

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

That wouldn't imply that, it would simply suggest a passage of Time wherein he knew. That's all that short passage implies. It says nothing about the origin of the thought, but does about the duration.

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

No I argued the one you used. I even used the other term to show I was, way to fail at comprehension

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

YOU are suggesting such a being use a function that can ONLY happen temporally. Fail.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Huh? Evidence to tie? Of course there is no caption surrounding the milky way that says "God did it". God created the universe.

Since I am rather certain you also never participated in any methodology or study which took the supposed characteristics of said universal creator, and via rational, scientific method, eliminated ALL other possible Gods from the wide, wide range of potential creator and simply LEAPED to the conclusion it's the particular God you just happen to follow,

all you have is a baseless assertion and wishful thinking.

 

[gnostic]

We only need science to confirm the fact that the universe began to exist, which we knew all along, we were just waiting for science to catch up. Nothing can create itself. In fact, when you people continue to entertain the thought of the universe creating itself, i will simply just state "nothing can create itself", and move on.

You're daft.

Nature has shown that all it take is 2 individuals - male and female - to mate and produce a child.

And here is the big secret: It require no magic or god, to "create" people. People are not create out of nothing.

Other animals do it.

Maybe you know this (then again maybe you don't), it's called REPRODUCTION.

Plants don't do it the way humans do, but all it required is some seeds, good soil, water and sun.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call_of_the_Wild

what are quantum fluctuations?

Or virtual particles?

You should really watch this from Stephen Hawkings, because he for one doesn't agree with your hypothesis on cosmology.

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube

Mr. Hawking is no doubt a genius, but he doesn't have a metaphysical mind. He only speaks on terms of science. He was the one that said that everyone now believe that the universe, and time itself had a beginning with the big bang (Many of you may be familiar with the quote). His quantum model is logically flawed and through the course of the past two decades he has made some phillsophical errors in his attempts at deriving a past eternal model. Second, quantum fluctations are not example sof something coming from the state of nothingness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

ok.
So we agree that there is no testable or verifiable evidences for either of your claims.

Now what?

You tell me? God, if he exist, is supernatural. You can't put the supernatural in a test tube in a lab and run experiments on it. Theists never claimed this. You have to use metaphysics, and then you deduct the irrational and absurdities such as intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos, and life from non-life. Whats left after the nonsense has been deducted? Intelligence Design

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But a universe can create itself without breaking any known laws of nature though.

There are ways to test and verifiy this and they are working on those hypothesis

Wow. The universe can create itself? You would rather believe that the universe created itself than believe in Intelligent Design. Wow. The price of atheism, go for it.

 

[shawn001]

Wow. The universe can create itself? You would rather believe that the universe created itself than believe in Intelligent Design. Wow. The price of atheism, go for it.

First off I am not an atheist, so your wrong there and think this because of the science I have been pointing out to you. So you deduced I am an atheist and were wrong there as well.

Your also the one who doesn't believe in the billions of facts that support the scientific theory of evolution. Which is as strong a scientific theory as the big bang your posting about and believe in.

You also don't get there is no evidence what so ever for intelligent design.

"You have to use metaphysics, and then you deduct the irrational and absurdities such as intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos, and life from non-life. Whats left after the nonsense has been deducted? Intelligence Design "

This is not science and you have a lot of it wrong.

First off in your deductions, did you take into account quantum flutuations?

"intelligence from non-intelligence"

Has been happening on earth now for at least 3.8 billion years. Its called evolution.

"order from chaos"

You have this backwards, its order to chaos. Hence the second law of thermo dynamics and entrophy. The universe has become more disordered with time and is continuing to do so.

"Whats left after the nonsense has been deducted? Intelligence Design"

No its not, its just what you personally think. Again has has been pointed out to you numerous times, there is something called the anthropic principle, but I doubt you will understand it and what it means.

Who do you think actually no more about cosmology, you or Stephen hawkings? Or a ton of other cosmologists at Harvard, Princeton, MIT and around the world.

Go ahead walk into a comology or astronomy class and tell them you have the answer to the origin of the universe, not based on scince but based on your personal opinion, because you personally deduced the universe was created by a supernatural being, because your too lasy to study it further or understand the science better.

Tell me then how did the solar system form and then the planets and very importantly our moon?

 

[shawn001]

Vatican paper article says 'intelligent design' not science

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.
The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials — including the pope — on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.
The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."


He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.


"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

USATODAY.com - Vatican paper article says 'intelligent design' not science

I guess they deduced differently on the matter.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, you can't. the term 'God of the gaps' has a specific definition and your excuse fits it to a T
Your personal inability or incredulity doesn't change facts.

Not a "God of the gaps" argument at all. It would be only a God of the gaps argument if and only IF it is possible for there to be another simpler explanation for the origin of the universe (natuarlistic of course). There isn't and there CANNOT be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of nature. Nothing can be used to explain the origin of its own being. The question becomes "what is the best EXPLANATION for the origin of the universe". The answer cannot be anything physical. And if you think otherwise, I would like you to explain how the universe could have created itself.

We can, and we do, and predictions base don that explanation play out.

So explain how something can be the origin of its own self. I will not respond to any more of your posts until you do this. I refuse to play the "we wont back up our claims but we will attack yours" game. You've made a statement, now back it up with evidence.

Except science has supporting evidence, you have none. You have only wishes. What you need is evidence.

You and at least one other have claimed that the universe created itself. So I guess I am not the only one with wishes.

Well, then we cannot blame your theism for your ignorance of this subject. Even though you fit the stereotype perfectly. Be that as it may, I am not entertaining anything that isn't born out BY ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You believe that the universe created itself, as you stated above. Yet this is not supporting by evidence, which is the point you are making now. Contradictions.

I read it, and the concept is garbage.

"The term "eternity" has a specific definition and your personal inability or incredulity doesn't change facts." Sound familiar, huh

If you wish to catch up with the 19th century, yeah
And 'create' isn't the right word, as I said. It's merely an emotional hook to cling to your concept.

The universe began to exist.

I believe your God exists, he's just an obvious liar, and not very good at it.

Hebrews 6:18 "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie" I don't think one has to be good at something that is impossible for them to do. Maybe its just me.

And his children are, on the average, below average. Particularly with science and other intellectual pursuits that give results which frighten them.

Average. So everyone that is a Christian is average when it comes to science and other "intellectual pursuits"? So every non-Christian is above average when it comes to these things?? Give me the reference regarding these ridiculous self made statstistical claims

That wouldn't imply that, it would simply suggest a passage of Time wherein he knew. That's all that short passage implies. It says nothing about the origin of the thought, but does about the duration.

Still applying temporal terms to an atemporal entity, right. You should know that "duration" describes a period of time. God was timeless before the universe, so he didnt endure through a infinite period of time before the universe. He transcends time in the since that time was absolutely not a factor before the universe was created. There is only eternity.

No I argued the one you used. I even used the other term to show I was, way to fail at comprehension

YOU are suggesting such a being use a function that can ONLY happen temporally. Fail.

God was in an timeless and unchanging state. If there was no changes made, how can it be temporal? Just like the chandelier example i gave. If the chandelier has been hanging there for eternity with no outside inferfence, there was never an instance at which two points can be distingiushed, which is what time is, the duration of two points.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Since I am rather certain you also never participated in any methodology or study which took the supposed characteristics of said universal creator, and via rational, scientific method, eliminated ALL other possible Gods from the wide, wide range of potential creator and simply LEAPED to the conclusion it's the particular God you just happen to follow,

all you have is a baseless assertion and wishful thinking.

Well, we are basically talking about the kalam cosmological argument. This argument is a case being made for THEISM. Which God created the universe is irrelevant at this point. To arrive at Christianity (which is my religion), different arguments need to be made, which I haven't made an attempt to argue as of yet. So it doesnt matter at this point the "particulars" about doctrine. The fact of the matter is, a case is being made for a CREATOR, whichever one it is.

 

[outhouse]

You can't put the supernatural in a test tube in a lab and run experiments on it.

then it doesnt exist

 

[outhouse]

There isn't and there CANNOT be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of nature.

You dont have the education to make that statement with any credibiliy at all.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're daft.

Nature has shown that all it take is 2 individuals - male and female - to mate and produce a child.

And here is the big secret: It require no magic or god, to "create" people. People are not create out of nothing.

Wow. The male and female that you are talking about, were created right? You do realize that the first human EVER made had to have a transcendent cause, right? There had to be something ALREADY IN EXISTENT, to give the first humans there existence, right? Follow me on this. The origin of the first human could not itself be human, otherwise it would be the origin of its own self. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[McBell]

You tell me? God, if he exist, is supernatural. You can't put the supernatural in a test tube in a lab and run experiments on it. Theists never claimed this. You have to use metaphysics, and then you deduct the irrational and absurdities such as intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos, and life from non-life. Whats left after the nonsense has been deducted? Intelligence Design