The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Sapiens]

Dear Metis, God told us HOW He created matter thousands of years ago.

Evidence please.

It's from Energy, which God has in abundance. Heb 11:3

Evidence please.

 

[Aman777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear Metis, God told us HOW He created matter thousands of years ago.

Evidence please.

Dear Sapiens, You mean scientitic evidence I suppose....from a time BEFORE the Big Bang? The best and only evidence of the events BEFORE the Big Bang is found in Scripture, which those who worship at the Altar of Humanism have already REJECTED. Let them wallow in their false hopes of teaching their children to be greedy.

Those who put their faith and devotion in today's changable Theories of Science will continually be disappointed. God's Truth changes NOT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
It's from Energy, which God has in abundance. Heb 11:3

Evidence please.

Did you go to the link? Here is the verse:

Heb 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.

Christians believe what God told us, and by Faith we understand that God spoke and Jesus actually physically made what the God spoke to Him. Jesus is the Word of God John 1:1 Our Faith is based on what God has told us, from within us. IOW: We BELIEVE that Jesus framed or physically made the worlds, or the Universes, within our Multiverse. We believe Him because He is the Spirit of Truth. Jhn 14:17

By Faith, we shall never die, but will live forever with Jesus. Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about God's Truth. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Sapiens]

Dear Sapiens, You mean scientitic evidence I suppose

That'd do, but verses are not evidence.

....from a time BEFORE the Big Bang?

No such thing.

The best and only evidence of the events BEFORE the Big Bang is found in Scripture,

That is a claim, not evidence.

which those who worship at the Altar of Humanism have already REJECTED.

No worship at any altar here.

Let them wallow in their false hopes of teaching their children to be greedy.

Unsupported claim, my kid's anything but greedy.

Those who put their faith and devotion in today's changable Theories of Science will continually be disappointed.

Unsupported claim, history seems to indicate that it is the religionists that are disappointed, time and time again.

God's Truth changes NOT.

Kinda like the difference between ignorant and stupid, ignorant is reparable, stupid changes not.

 

[Aman777]

That'd do, but verses are not evidence.

No such thing.

That is a claim, not evidence.
No worship at any altar here.

Unsupported claim, my kid's anything but greedy.
Unsupported claim, history seems to indicate that it is the religionists that are disappointed, time and time again.

Kinda like the difference between ignorant and stupid, ignorant is reparable, stupid changes not.

Dear Sapiens, You should know, since you're the finest example on the boards. :yes: God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Sapiens]

Dear Sapiens, You should know, since you're the finest example on the boards. :yes: God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Nah, nah, am not, sticks to you.

Are we down to your level yet?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not accept any evidence other than that in 'Les Propheties' of Nostradamus.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So here is my question: What did God uses to create the VERY FIRST thing that he created? Wouldn't that FIRST thing had to be created from ....nothing?? For example, if he created dirt first, what did he create that dirt from (since dirt would be the first thing created, there wouldn't be any other "something" around; would there)?

There is no 'first thing'. First understand that and then you understand what everything is.

 

[Aman777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_TJ
So here is my question: What did God uses to create the VERY FIRST thing that he created? Wouldn't that FIRST thing had to be created from ....nothing?? For example, if he created dirt first, what did he create that dirt from (since dirt would be the first thing created, there wouldn't be any other "something" around; would there)?

There is no 'first thing'. First understand that and then you understand what everything is.

Dear Readers, The first thing God created or changed from Energy into matter, in the physical world, was heaven or Air, which contains all of the gases necessary for life, and water. It was easy for God to do this since He knows that energy and matter are different sides of the same coin, and He lives in a world of total Energy.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light (Energy)which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to Whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

It took Humankind thousands of years, and a mind like Albert Einstein, to discover the SAME thing God told us thousands of years before. It's PROOF of God. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Shad]

The word energy is in brackets signifying the writers interpretation in the form of a comment not that the verse actually say this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How would I pull it off? I can't have a NDE on demand, or at least would not attempt to.

Since no one has claimed the prize when libraries are full of claimants to it I will assume they have set it up where nothing can satisfy them. I can however supply links.

It's "set up" in such a way that it has to pass rigorous scientific testing, like anything else we accept as scientific fact.

The lady I mentioned.
Pam Reynolds case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People have .

So what do you think is talked about here that can't be explained by medical science, that can only be explained by minds existing outside of brains?

 

[Thief]

There is no 'first thing'. First understand that and then you understand what everything is.

So you understand what everything is?........................?

Soon to have a Noble Prize no doubt.
Got equation?
hehehehehhe.

 

[1robin]

It's "set up" in such a way that it has to pass rigorous scientific testing, like anything else we accept as scientific fact.

You mean using naturalistic methods to verify a spiritual event? A ruler for temperature? I will meet you half way and use legal criteria of you want.

So what do you think is talked about here that can't be explained by medical science, that can only be explained by minds existing outside of brains?

Not necessarily. What I claimed does not have much medical relevance. However we do not know what we do not know. Like most things I am left to make due with the information we do have. I am fine with ruling out any single or even most NDE claims, but to reject the entire category of claims is desperate and irresponsible. I found a few that I consider credible.

 

[1robin]

No it isn't irrational at all. Look at the human body. We are only made of those elements and have mind.

That is an assumption. It is also on of the trickiest assumptions in science. No one has the slightest idea how an arrangement of atoms can be about another. However if we are only atoms then we have no need of the word mind. Mind's only function is to distinguish between the merely materialistic. If it equals material it is a useless redundancy. The same with God and nature.

 

[1robin]

What is irrational is saying the mind is default in order to explain the mind found in creation. I am almost saying the same thing, mind is default and found in all existence but the parts never know what the whole knows. The parts never even know they part of a bigger system with a greater mind.

Then the label God is the worst label possible.

The major difference is I stop creation at the existence of everything including god. Theist throw one extra step and have god creating something after he somehow magically existed without needing a creator like a creation requires. Theists have this magical exception that I avoid for consistency. If anything can exist by virtue of itself then I don't turn around and say the universe doesn't qualify.

Since we know nature began to exist the last step is the most necessary. No part of nature explains it's self. From a single atom to them all they are devoid of their own explanation.

When we get to the beginnings cause and effect were not valid. Before the big bang was a realm where things can be caused by there effect. In such a realm much is possible, god and what not, but we hit a brick wall with event horizon. We can't know what started things in a realm where things can start without having started. Yet all of existence is like this and we are very much a part of that.

You can pretend like cause and effect ceased but you must do so without a single observational similarity. Even in the quantum where things begin to exist cause and effect is present. In any invented realm anything is possible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean using naturalistic methods to verify a spiritual event? A ruler for temperature? I will meet you half way and use legal criteria of you want.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I'm sure someone clever enough could come up with something. That person is not me.

What exactly is a "spiritual event" anyway? How can it be defined, because I'm sorry but I don't really know what that means. Lots of people use it in many different ways.

Not necessarily. What I claimed does not have much medical relevance. However we do not know what we do not know. Like most things I am left to make due with the information we do have. I am fine with ruling out any single or even most NDE claims, but to reject the entire category of claims is desperate and irresponsible. I found a few that I consider credible.

Okay then I guess maybe I asked the wrong question.

How about this one ...

Can you explain why you feel this case is a credible example of someone actually having a supernatural experience, and more to the point, how this is an example of a mind existing outside of a brain (which I think was the original point of contention in going down this path).

 

[Aman777]

The word energy is in brackets signifying the writers interpretation in the form of a comment not that the verse actually say this.

Dear Shad, What do you think it says? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[1robin]

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I'm sure someone clever enough could come up with something. That person is not me.

Then in the context of our discussion it is irrelevant.

What exactly is a "spiritual event" anyway? How can it be defined, because I'm sorry but I don't really know what that means. Lots of people use it in many different ways.

For this discussion lets define it as a non natural event (not determined by natural mechanics) and a result of divine intervention.

Okay then I guess maybe I asked the wrong question.

How about this one ...

Can you explain why you feel this case is a credible example of someone actually having a supernatural experience, and more to the point, how this is an example of a mind existing outside of a brain (which I think was the original point of contention in going down this path).

I gave more than one and each have unique aspects. You will need to clarify which you made my estimation of.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then in the context of our discussion it is irrelevant.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'd say you need to be able to demonstrate something if you want to convince anyone of it.

For this discussion lets define it as a non natural event (not determined by natural mechanics) and a result of divine intervention.

Okay.

I gave more than one and each have unique aspects. You will need to clarify which you made my estimation of.

I'm referring to the Pam Reynolds case you provided.

 

[ArtieE]

For this discussion lets define it as a non natural event (not determined by natural mechanics) and a result of divine intervention.

Let's use two magnets sticking together. You have a god standing beside you. He says he can make these magnets fly apart contrary to "natural mechanics". You have all existing measuring equipment in the world available, he makes them fly apart, and your equipment registers no forces acting on the magnets. Did he use something "supernatural" or just something natural we can't measure yet? If he tells us how to measure what he used, would it then still be "supernatural"?

 

[1robin]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'd say you need to be able to demonstrate something if you want to convince anyone of it.

I thought that is what you were saying. I guess you meant you had no personal theory.

Okay.

Vey well.

I'm referring to the Pam Reynolds case you provided.

That one is easy. It was well researched. I think her claims were instantaneous and she was still under close observation. It has been a few years since I researched it but I believe that was the case. In any event her case is well documented and provoked a lot of study. I think every account of it I have heard was from a secular source.

There is a show (I found it on utube) that recounted case after case. Many of which were hard to ignore. Even before I had any theistic tendencies I found them compelling. Of particular interest to me were accounts of going to Hell and ones where things unknowable were described. I could never see too many who would claim to have been to Hell. Three is not much fame and money in it and it is embarrassing. Another I remember was from a hard core gang member who would not even let his identity be revealed and was extremely uncomfortable when discussing it. You want to get into Pam Reynolds story in detail or something else? I also want to point out what made a huge difference in my studies. I originally thought no religion could possibly be true but that there must be something to them on some level. There are juts way to many to ignore in general. That is the way I began my search. I was only looking for some explanation for the proliferation of supernatural claims in general. It is easy to pick any one claim and find problems. I found it impossible to deny some factual basis for them in totality. That is where I began.