The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

Well,my example sows what is wrong with the claims you have made. There *is* no start to the negative integers. But yet, -1 is certainly a negative integer. There is no difficulty getting to -1.

Even more, at any point you decide to start with, there is an infinite number of negative numbers before that point, and only a finite number to get up to 0. So, to get to 0 only requires a finite amount of time from any place in the sequence.

In the case of time, all that happens is that there is always something going on. There is always a previous time in which the universe exists. There is no beginning.

I really fail to see what is the obstacle to 'arriving' at the current time if there is no beginning.

/E: This argument was popularized by William Craig and I have to admit that I have never seen any value in it. Maybe it's because I am a mathematician and deal with infinities every day. But Craig seems to completely misunderstand some very basic facts about infinite sets.

Start counting up from infinity until you get to -1. I think when you have reached -1 we will all have been long dead an infinite time ago.

PS I should get a like from you and others for this response...really...I should.

 

[He has Risen!]

And I reject all three of your premises. Your logic is faulty.

Is it my face that is not logical, because I fail to see your reasoning behind your sentences.

 

[He has Risen!]

Really? You are unfamiliar with the world's fastest growing carbohydrate based religion?

Rather than me explaining here is a short video that goes over the basics:.

You get an A for humor. But an F for lumping the historical Jesus, the Son of God, with your belief in the spaghetti monster, which is a figment of your (and others) imagination. I did not create Jesus, Peter did not create Jesus, John did not create Jesus, Luke did not create Jesus.

 

[He has Risen!]

Well, we know that after death bodies decay. We know that the brains decay. We also know that brains are the medium for consciousness, so it is reasonable to say that consciousness stops.

if anything, there is a LOT of evidence for what happens after death. Some people just don't like the conclusions to be drawn and make philosophical run-arounds to prevent those conclusions.

What about the many NDE (near death experiences) of police officers, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, school bus drivers, etc, etc. Many of them, after leaving their body see things which later are verified, like seeing a red shoe on the roof of the hospital, relatives in other rooms talking on the phone, etc. experiencing what cannot be explained within the scope of natural means.

 

[Salvador]

What about the many NDE (near death experiences) of police officers, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, school bus drivers, etc, etc. Many of them, after leaving their body see things which later are verified, like seeing a red shoe on the roof of the hospital, relatives in other rooms talking on the phone, etc. experiencing what cannot be explained within the scope of natural means.

I've personally experienced an out of body experience, which happened to me when I was 13 years old. It happened immediately after I had a fainting spell from hyperventilating and holding my breath in such a way that I'd forced myself to pass out. When I woke up from this fainting spell, I was floating outside and above my body. While I was floating outside and above my body, everything in the room started spinning around me and then became brightly illuminated with a blinding white light which blinded me until I descended back into my body. During this floating out of my body sensation, I felt as though I were weightless, like energy.

Since my out of body experience, I felt as though I was on the verge of making some sort of contact with the spiritual realm; however,I fell short. I never thought anything more of this experience for awhile. I'm now very-open minded to the notion my consciousness is somehow connected to a wave of energy.

 

[He has Risen!]

I've personally experienced an out of body experience, which happened to me when I was 13 years old. It happened immediately after I had a fainting spell from hyperventilating and holding my breath in such a way that I'd forced myself to pass out. When I woke up from this fainting spell, I was floating outside and above my body. While I was floating outside and above my body, everything in the room started spinning around me and then became brightly illuminated with a blinding white light which blinded me until I descended back into my body. During this floating out of my body sensation, I felt as though I were weightless, like energy.

Since my out of body experience, I felt as though I was on the verge of making some sort of contact with the spiritual realm; however,I fell short. I never thought anything more of this experience for awhile. I'm now very-open minded to the notion my consciousness is somehow connected to a wave of energy.

I did not bring the topic of NDE to derail this thread, but to add yet another facet that validates the position that life is not only a materialistic experience. I have read many books on the NDE and would never promote the notion that anyone should dabble in trying to contact beings from other side. It is an area that God has warned His people to avoid. But when a person has legitimately been pronounced dead, and then experiences something beyond his natural body, I believe there is something to the consistent stories that the majority of people with NDE share.
Jesus was crucified, died, was buried in a tomb and rose on the third day. He was seen after He rose from the dead over a forty day period, after which He was taken into heaven and left us with a promise to return. I believe this, not because I am gullible, but because it happened almost 2019 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it my face that is not logical, because I fail to see your reasoning behind your sentences.



View attachment 26943

Let's start with your first claim you said:

". Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was."

The logical fallacy for that is that you made a strawman. No one is claiming that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You get an A for humor. But an F for lumping the historical Jesus, the Son of God, with your belief in the spaghetti monster, which is a figment of your (and others) imagination. I did not create Jesus, Peter did not create Jesus, John did not create Jesus, Luke did not create Jesus.

You are now making the error of conflating the historical Jesus with the mythical one. We both know that Abraham Lincoln was real, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

The FSM (RAmen) appears to be just as real as the mythical Jesus.

 

[He has Risen!]

Let's start with your first claim you said:

". Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was."

The logical fallacy for that is that you made a strawman. No one is claiming that.

My post is stating three basic positions that people hold to. Whether you hold to that position or not is irrelevant to others who do. Your claim of a straw man is invalid.

 

[He has Risen!]

You are now making the error of conflating the historical Jesus with the mythical one. We both know that Abraham Lincoln was real, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

The FSM (RAmen) appears to be just as real as the mythical Jesus.

I do not claim to believe in a mythical Jesus. My position is belief in the historical Jesus that was witnessed by many people who seen his miracles and His resurrection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We may not KNOW, but we certainly have a few good ideas. I'm very partial to the chemical and molecular theories posited. That is, that the origin of life on earth was the result of a slow chemical and molecular process, which occurred from pre-existing non-living materials such as, mud, clay, hay, etc. This led to self-replicating molecules, amino acids, proteins, and the precursors to nuclear materials and RNA. This seems more common sense than science, since all life is composed of all the elements existing before life. I don't think we will ever be able to duplicate the exact early environment of an early primitive earth. Nor, are we able to observe biogenesis occurring on another earth-like planet. So clearly we do not know, and are still working on it..

I agree with everything you say here, except I would not have thought to include hay as a potential precursor to life. Of course, it is non-living. Take this with the humor that is intended. I assume all the recent discussion of spontaneous generation creationism probably lent a little contamination to your list.

My point to the poster was not his views on Abiogenesis. It was his explanation of how he believed life evolved on this planet. Since he seemed to have a problem with the term "evolved", I restated my question and asked how did he think all life got here. In hindsight, a very poor choice of words. So, I understand the confusion. Since the poster was determined to deposit a category error(living vs. non-living things), I wanted an example of any living thing that can be directly linked to an Intelligent Designer. Since watches, buildings, art, bridges, etc., are all directly linked to a human designer, what living organisms can be directly linked to a non-human designer? Also, are there examples of living things that are not intelligently designed by a Designer?

I find the current penchant of creationist to swap out evolve with the word adaptation, and basically accept examples of evolution as long as adaptation is used, to be very amusing. The adaptation they are accepting is evolution.

As far as can be determined using science, all living organisms are examples of living things that cannot be linked to an intelligent designer.

I don't really expect an answer to my questions. The poster is not interested in degrees of certainty. He is only interested in absolutes as a substitute for certainty. Not absolute, not certain. Adding to "SZ's" comments, "You don't fully understand the BB, therefore Newton is wrong". "You don't absolutely understand Abiogenesis, therefore Evolution is wrong". "You don't absolutely understand Evolution, therefore God did it". This seems to be the level of logic necessary, for all creationist, flat-earthers, Intelligent Designers, and for all those whose beliefs that are threatened by the reality and demands of science.

It is a strange notion that lack of full understanding of a phenomenon automatically assumes the creationist default position and without need of evidence to demonstrate it either.

I see no reason that Christians should feel threatened by valid knowledge of the universe, when the only stipulation on their belief is acceptance of Christ. Biology and the study of it do not say anything about Christ at all. It is the creationist variety of Christian that has added a whole bunch of restrictions to their religion, and against their own claims of how the Bible should be viewed, that cause them a lot of problems. It is a self-induced feeling of threat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My post is stating three basic positions that people hold to. Whether you hold to that position or not is irrelevant to others who do. Your claim of a straw man is invalid.

What people hold to your first one? Be specific. Until you find people that do support it my statement stands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not claim to believe in a mythical Jesus. My position is belief in the historical Jesus that was witnessed by many people who seen his miracles and His resurrection.

Then why bring up Jesus at all?

Oops, you just contradicted yourself. There are only tales of Jesus, there are no eyewitnesses in the Bible. Especially when it comes to the miracles.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My post is stating three basic positions that people hold to. Whether you hold to that position or not is irrelevant to others who do. Your claim of a straw man is invalid.

If you are claiming that scientists are saying that something created itself, then the claim of a straw man is valid. Scientists have not made such a claim. Creationists commonly and repeatedly make this erroneous claim about origins and wrongly attribute it to a claim in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are now making the error of conflating the historical Jesus with the mythical one. We both know that Abraham Lincoln was real, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

The FSM (RAmen) appears to be just as real as the mythical Jesus.

I liked the concept of that movie, but I have not seen it yet.

 

[He has Risen!]

I see no reason that Christians should feel threatened by valid knowledge of the universe, when the only stipulation on their belief is acceptance of Christ. Biology and the study of it do not say anything about Christ at all. It is the creationist variety of Christian that has added a whole bunch of restrictions to their religion, and against their own claims of how the Bible should be viewed, that cause them a lot of problems. It is a self-induced feeling of threat.

I gave you a like because you are right in regards to salvation. No Christian should expect any new believer to immediately understand or hold to every thing contained in the Word of God to be saved. Jesus saves us from our sin and Gods' wrath, not from our ignorance of origins. But once we mature as Christians we need to take into account how we are to view Gods Word. My avatar is this...


...it is a very dangerous stairway that takes the fist step down from the infallibility of Gods Word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I liked the concept of that movie, but I have not seen it yet.

I sort of watched it on TV when I had a subscription to whatever channel it was on. About the same as any vampire movie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you a like because you are right in regards to salvation. No Christian should expect any new believer to immediately understand or hold to every thing contained in the Word of God to be saved. Jesus saves us from our sin, not from our ignorance of origins. But once we mature as Christians we need to take into account how we are to view Gods Word. My avatar is this...


...it is a very dangerous stairway that takes the fist step down from the infallibility of Gods Word.

Too bad that the person that drew that did not know the facts. He got so much wrong that it is a joke. It shows that you do believe in the Vampire Hunter version of Jesus.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How have you established that when we die, that is it? It is my understanding that we do not know what happens after death. We neither know that we surrender to paradise, live in limbo, something else or that is it. I have my own beliefs about what happens, but it is not scientific and something I can prove. It is based on faith.

Claiming that upon death that is it, is a positive claim and places you under a burden of proof to demonstrate 'that is it'.

How have you established that when we die, that is it? It is my understanding that we do not know what happens after death. We neither know that we surrender to paradise, live in limbo, something else or that is it. I have my own beliefs about what happens, but it is not scientific and something I can prove. It is based on faith.

Claiming that upon death that is it, is a positive claim and places you under a burden of proof to demonstrate 'that is it'.

You are a scientist. Surely you understand what happens after stepping on a Periplaneta brunnea(brown cockroach)? Surely you are aware that all living things must consume energy to maintain their order(metabolism). Once the organism is unable to consume or process energy, it will succumb to entropy and simply decay. It will simply become a small addition to the disorder of the Universe. NOTHING escapes entropy(except the humble jellyfish).

That said, how many dead relatives have you spoken to lately? Why would a self-evident claim that death is the end of life, require a burden of proof? The claim that death is it, is certainly scientifically consistent, and easily falsifiable. Since your claim requires an understanding that goes beyond any science understanding, it is you that has the burden of proof. Unless you think that your claim of an afterlife is also self-evident.

Any belief based on faith, is simply your opinion. My opinion of the reality of death is not based on faith. It is based on facts, and my understanding of the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did not bring the topic of NDE to derail this thread, but to add yet another facet that validates the position that life is not only a materialistic experience. I have read many books on the NDE and would never promote the notion that anyone should dabble in trying to contact beings from other side. It is an area that God has warned His people to avoid. But when a person has legitimately been pronounced dead, and then experiences something beyond his natural body, I believe there is something to the consistent stories that the majority of people with NDE share.
Jesus was crucified, died, was buried in a tomb and rose on the third day. He was seen after He rose from the dead over a forty day period, after which He was taken into heaven and left us with a promise to return. I believe this, not because I am gullible, but because it happened almost 2019 years ago.

The problem is that NDE's are likely nothing more than a perception of the physiological and chemical changes that a person undergoes as the body nears death. The similarity of the perception is not surprising considering that our body chemistry and physiology are more or less the same from one person to the next. There is no evidence that it is anything more than a biological phenomenon. All the leaps that it is some sort of evidence of God, the afterlife, the spirit world or any other supernatural experience are purely speculation.