The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Willamena]

It is no more a concrete object than length or weight. There are no lengths floating around in space, nor weights. They are descriptions of the essence or quality of a thing. If you say something exists you have only said it has being in a particular moment or span as opposed to non-being. I cannot imagine a less meaningful discussing than what being means. No matter what description you give it it will never get something from nothing so why bother in this context?

Objects and properties are different things, yes.

 

[natsy]

I have seen this argument branded about to somewhat discredit evolution (I am lost as to why persons think this have anything to do with evolution, but that's another story). But I would put it to "creationists" that it is you who are advocating that something indeed came out of nothing. Let's forget the "who created God" question for a while; you (usually) advocate that God created everything..ok.

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)?

See, your argument that God created everything cannot, in my opinion, work unless you are advocating the "something actually came from nothing."

a thought can come from nothing, like if i think of nothing then start to think of an orange, that's something from nothing

 

[idav]

If time is finite then when did existence come into being? Existence is not a thing it is a property of a thing. Cosmology suggests all natural things came into existence so you have two choices.

See but when is a nonsensical term for something timeless, and thats everything.

I can grant time stretching or shrinking according to gravity but it would not make the universe or any component in it eternal because gravity depends on mass and mass began to exist a finite time ago.

Yet there is, and this is how I get to that logically. What we came from is within everything, and that everything has no use for space or time. The energy that makes us up is zero. Spacetime and everything in it, isn't really anywhere or at any time, thats an illusion spacetime creates for us, and thats what the experiments show, the ramifications of the evidence.

Black holes are dependent on matter as well. No matter how radical or theoretical your other ideas are they do not have the potentiality of making anything natural eternal.

Yet that is what matter is, beyond the spacetime that we are only trapped in because of physics. Matter is already that energy, at the micro level, beyond classical physics and beyond spacetime.

We cannot see that timeless states are part of anything.

This is a valid contention. Though I go back to everything is zero and not really anywhere or at any time. Deep down this is where everything comes from and is part of everything made from it. It isn't separable, we have the illusion of being separate.

edit: the simplest evidence is objects that have clocked differently when going different speeds. THis is proof time slows down. Given enough energy, say a singularity, time and space won't matter. We are the singularity though, we have simply slowed and cooled as spacetime took hold of us as our energy levels went down.

 

[1robin]

Well, I don't see how that is related to the nature of spacetime. Incidentally, I come from a very secular country. We do not seem to experience any inconvenience because of that.

I get so board with these extremely speculative and fantastic theories from the deepest end of science that I occasionally wonder back into some subdivision of reality in spite of myself. If you live in Europe you are in no possible way living free from faith. The entire mindset and culture of Europe was dominated by Christianity. I cannot and did not comment on what you find inconvenient. Secular folks find it convenient to end the lives of million s of the most innocent human lives of earth in the name of a right they do not have but deny to the child. I cannot tell you whether you find that inconvenient only that it is morally abominable. BTW that was meant as a general comment about secularism not you in particular. I have only studied the moral decline of major cultures since going secular and would be pretty sure they are large enough to indicate a universal decline but do not necessary indicate any ones specific decline.

We are.

I just go where I feel but recognize you might wish to stay in one context. So you can ignore anything off topic that you wish.

It was justified at that time. It is not today, because it can be easily shown to be wrong.

In general Newton's laws are still taught as fact today as well as most of his principles. He has not been discarded and did not even know of the environment to which his laws do not apply. He is just as necessary to build a building as he ever was. In general he was right not wrong. No more than the existence of jets makes reciprocating aircraft wrong.

The A-theory is simply untenable today. Fact, sorry.

I can't find anything specifically about A-theory, nothing about Newton and A-theory, and was never taught about A-theory in class. Newton is known for his laws regarding gravity, thermodynamics, and motion. They are still as right as they ever were, and tensed time is still by far the most dominant model.

Partially tue. Nevertheless, not applicable to relativity, given its evidential status, which seems to be independent from the metaphysical beliefs of its discoverer and the ones testing it.

I never denied relativity despite the fact that is not proven in totality. I denied some of the deductions or extrapolations made from it and I gave some reasons to be suspicious in general. I have become with very good reasons extremely skeptical of the deeper ends of science, the only place arguments against God ever come from. Relativity is deep but these conclusions are what I am referring to. Relativity does not even hint that time or nature is eternal.

For the heck of it I will list another example where even applicable science suffers. I was reading a text on the Exodus (one of the most denied of biblical stories). Much evidence exists to justify the story but Islam will not even let you dig or get near it because they (for some reason) believe it would legitimize Israel's claims in Egypt. There is a Stella with descriptions of the exodus in great detail and all kinds of other artifacts in the old Hyksos capitol. Not only will they not allow it to be removed for study they required the pit to be filled in after every dig season and no theological scholar allowed anywhere near it. It was only smuggled photographs and transcripts that allow study and people were jailed for them.

If I were born two hundred years ago, I would only contemplate a tensed theory of time, obviously. But now, it is simply untenable. Like most things we know today that would have been unconceivable in the past.

Sometimes we are ignorant of things that are later found to be true and many times we believe things and prefer them because they are new not because they are true. I know of no reason today to think tensed time has suffered any blow of any kind. In the same way slow gradual evolution was the rage but has been disproven I think tense less time will gradually fade away.

Nope, if tenseless theory is correct, as it seems.

Now that is begging the question and circular.

The north pole on a sphere requires an explanation? What about the other points?

All of them have explanations if they actually exist.

Not really if the surface is eternal and, by definition, trascending space and time. And this is what the block universe is. A static 4 dimensional continuum that simply is.

Block universes were invented for textbooks. Go back CHRONOLOGICALLY through textbooks and they cease to exist.

Ciao

- viole

adika yoyla

 

[1robin]

The "Being" is the entity part and being entails existing. Being existence is a bit different even though I grant that being means existing. Nothing can "be existence" but the source of all existence, everything else is being or existing within existence.

Redefining this word over and over is making my head hurt and since I cannot see the point. It will never get you anything from nothing or a natural infinite I will leave you to it.

 

[idav]

natural infinite

What is the singularity then, an unnatural infinite? Or it isn't infinite, how do you know?

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but who cares how long it has been around? Astrology has been around a long time too.

Pretty much everyone cares. You seemed to think Islam invented cause and effect and if you can get rid of the Kalam (which no one has been able to do) cause and effect goes with it. Not so, it existed as a perfectly justified concept consistent with every observation ever made long long before Muhammad ever had the acid trip in the cave.

Simple. The Universe did not necessarily begin to exist, if tenseless theory is correct.

You have made a whole lot of claims that basically say if X is true then X is valid. That is not very persuasive. Tens less time is not the dominant model, the absence of cause and effect is not the dominant model, abiogenesis is not the dominant model, an eternal natural anything is not the dominant model. It is always ironic that those who reject faith do so by denying the best science and relying on faith (not even faith but almost pure speculation). If the universe does exist and always has it must necessarily exist, only on my view is the universe a properly contingent reality.

Necessary as following logically fronm the premises.

Things can logically follow from a premise and be completely false. Something false is by definition not necessary.

Good. Then show to me, in simple words, how you resolve the experimentally inconsistencies of the tensed view of time. Or, alternatively, the logical inconsistencies of the tenseless one.

You may supply one of your choosing for each case.

Spacetime can be seen as a manifold, yes. And by definition, it is eternal. After all, traditional space can be seen as a manifold too. That does not make it any less real althought it does not need to be eternal. Spacetime does.

Nothing is true by definition. You can't label or describe reality into existence. Descriptions are not prescriptions and saying manifolds are eternal does nothing to make them so. We seem shipwrecked on your claiming X is true and me that Y is true. There is no bottom to it. I will only say that in just about every single field tense less time is dominant. You want to go against dominant science, that is fine by me but I will not and cannot justify following in this case. My faith and reliable and accepted science is consistent. That is by far more than faith's burden and far less than atheism requires to be intellectually justifiable. Why is it always some vagary of bizarre and incomprehensible theories like strings where God is attacked instead of 2 + 2. It appears as if your hiding plausible deniability in the ambiguity of speculation.

You should. Since the tensed theory does not support the evidence.

Tensed theory is consistent with everything I hold to be true or have observed.

Hope springs eternal. Althought it is more likely to be proven wrong before Jesus returns than the other way round.

You lost me.

Not really, since you cannot offer any justification for a tensed theory that explains away the experimental inconsistencies

. I do not argue by disproving every existing complaint that has ever been raised against a view point. I can only practically take points as you post them. There was a total of 28 years of education in the little group that discussed your manifold claims. None of them contained a single reason to agree with it that was voiced, but all of them independently voiced the exact same indictment that I articulated about it.

No doubt. Althought it is puzzling that you consider relativity the bleeding edge of speculative science.

Relativity is definitely in the deep end but not to far out there. However the conclusions you use relativity for are. I think that probably less than 1% of even scholars actually firmly understand relativity in totality.

What specificity do you need?

I need the conclusions for which you provided the links. They claim X and that leads to what exactly? I need to view things in the context of purpose.

Ciao

- viole

salutu

 

[1robin]

What is the singularity then, an unnatural infinite? Or it isn't infinite, how do you know?

It is all but an unknown. However among the few things we can rule out is infinite temperature (why is the universe not infinitely hot? Infinite mass, where is it and why is the universe not infinitely full of infinitely dense matter? Infinitely old. Thermodynamically the universe appears extremely young in every single detail. Infinity is a word far too easily abused.

Why is it that instead of common sense and reliable arguments used to disprove the fantastic claims of the bible not ever used and instead technicalities of semantics and only the most least unreliable and least understood science relied upon? You have gone even further. Your objecting to God based on the least possible understood 1 X 10^-47ths of a second that ever occurred. Why can't atheism get out of dark ambiguity to defend it's self?
Non-theism's defenses are like an ideological sniper. It's best defense is it's inability to be found.

 

[idav]

Infinity is a word far too easily abused.

Sure but that is the closest we have to describing the singularity. It doesn't have to be infinite. There certainly can be a stopping point which would mean it doesn't infinitely regress which is evidence for a source. Others say it's evidence we are in a super computer but I won't go there.

Why is it that instead of common sense and reliable arguments used to disprove the fantastic claims of the bible not ever used and instead technicalities of semantics and only the most least unreliable and least understood science relied upon? You have gone even further. Your objecting to God based on the least possible understood 1 X 10^-47ths of a second that ever occurred. Why can't atheism get out of dark ambiguity to defend it's self?
Non-theism's defenses are like an ideological sniper. It's best defense is it's inability to be found.

I don't know what your contention is here. I am not trying to prove atheism and I do believe a something from something type thing. If anything I am saying the singularity is god and has the attributes for it, even if not infinite or whatever that doesn't bother me. This universe and all the energy and all is enough of an infinite for my limited scope.

 

[Aman777]

That has nothing to do with the cosmology of the universe coming from nothing.

You are describing the micro scale of matter that already exists, observation detects these virtual particles.

People dont heal just by becoming Christian, come off it.

Dear idav, The ONLY healing of the death sentence on all Humans, is through Jesus. Stephen Hawking is short sided in his thinking, and reveals this because he refuses to believe God. Since he can see the virtual particles blink in and out of existence, he ASSUMES it could have happened to the Cosmos, thereby eliminating the need of a Creator. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory

Great! Then we cut out the part where God is said to have created it.

Dear ruffen, I was quoting the words of Stephen Hawking. It appears that the smartest man in the world THINKS he knows more than God, when in FACT it's because he cannot understand Genesis, since the FIRST two Days of Creation are detailed there. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[idav]

Dear idav, The ONLY healing of the death sentence on all Humans, is through Jesus. Stephen Hawking is short sided in his thinking, and reveals this because he refuses to believe God. Since he can see the virtual particles blink in and out of existence, he ASSUMES it could have happened to the Cosmos, thereby eliminating the need of a Creator.

You are still misinformed. Sure he may believe there is no need for a creator but not cause of YOUR reasoning but because he is a cosmologist, his scientific field of study is the beginnings of the universe.

 

[viole]

I get so board with these extremely speculative and fantastic theories from the deepest end of science that I occasionally wonder back into some subdivision of reality in spite of myself.

Relativity is an extremely speculative and fantastic theory?

If you live in Europe you are in no possible way living free from faith. The entire mindset and culture of Europe was dominated by Christianity. I cannot and did not comment on what you find inconvenient.

I come from Sweden. We used to be dominated by Thor, then by God and now by nothing.

We sill go to church, though. Three times. When we are born, when we marry and when we die.

Secular folks find it convenient to end the lives of million s of the most innocent human lives of earth in the name of a right they do not have but deny to the child. I cannot tell you whether you find that inconvenient only that it is morally abominable. BTW that was meant as a general comment about secularism not you in particular. I have only studied the moral decline of major cultures since going secular and would be pretty sure they are large enough to indicate a universal decline but do not necessary indicate any ones specific decline.

I think you are confusing today's Sweden with Old Testament's Israel.

In general Newton's laws are still taught as fact today as well as most of his principles. He has not been discarded and did not even know of the environment to which his laws do not apply. He is just as necessary to build a building as he ever was. In general he was right not wrong. No more than the existence of jets makes reciprocating aircraft wrong.

Newton's laws are still useful for building a bridge or going to the moon. Less so to calibrate GPS. Relativity covers both.

Newton's theory expects immediate transfer of gravitational force. It sees time as a absolute and independent from all observers. All these things are provably wrong.

I can't find anything specifically about A-theory, nothing about Newton and A-theory, and was never taught about A-theory in class. Newton is known for his laws regarding gravity, thermodynamics, and motion. They are still as right as they ever were, and tensed time is still by far the most dominant model.

It might be the prevalent model but it is wrong. Provably wrong, like Newton's laws when tested under extreme conditions. Not so extreme after all. We can easily prove that time goes slower on the surface of earth than in outer space. If you go in outer space for a while and come back, you will be a little older than your twin. Not a lot, but measurable.

Nothing of the sort makes sense if Newton's was right.

I never denied relativity despite the fact that is not proven in totality.

You seem to prefer provably wrong theories than not proven in their totality ones (as if any theory could be proved in its totality).

Does belief in God, at any cost, really cause that? This fact alone should explain why atheists like me like to debate intelligent theists. They try to correct those last clearly defective epistemologies

I denied some of the deductions or extrapolations made from it and I gave some reasons to be suspicious in general. I have become with very good reasons extremely skeptical of the deeper ends of science, the only place arguments against God ever come from. Relativity is deep but these conclusions are what I am referring to. Relativity does not even hint that time or nature is eternal.

Of course you are skeptical of modern science. I think your skepticism arrow points in the wrong direction, though.

But you can still believe in God and modern science. Paul Davies is a B-theorist that believes in God. Or at least in a fine tuning of the Universe. Many do. I don't know how, but they look to manage.

But I agree with you that modern science is deeply corrosive of religious belief.

What we know is that the A-theory does not make sense if relativity is true. If you can find an alternative to the B-theory that agrees with relativity, you are welcome to explain it to me.

And B-theory entails eternalism by definition.

For the heck of it I will list another example where even applicable science suffers. I was reading a text on the Exodus (one of the most denied of biblical stories). Much evidence exists to justify the story but Islam will not even let you dig or get near it because they (for some reason) believe it would legitimize Israel's claims in Egypt. There is a Stella with descriptions of the exodus in great detail and all kinds of other artifacts in the old Hyksos capitol. Not only will they not allow it to be removed for study they required the pit to be filled in after every dig season and no theological scholar allowed anywhere near it. It was only smuggled photographs and transcripts that allow study and people were jailed for them.

Religion poisons everything, especially when mixed with politics, as it usually does

Secular people are better, at least here. I am confident you will never be jailed by secular people for looking for the rests of Noah's ark. Especially if you use your own money to do that.

Sometimes we are ignorant of things that are later found to be true and many times we believe things and prefer them because they are new not because they are true.

True. But the trend seems to go from spiritual explanations to naturalistic ones. The contrary never happens.

I know of no reason today to think tensed time has suffered any blow of any kind. In the same way slow gradual evolution was the rage but has been disproven I think tense less time will gradually fade away.

I cannot say the same about tensed time without using tensed verbs, lol. Let's try. There is a location is space time in which nobody holds tensed time as true.

The blow rests in its definition. There is not such a thing as the present that separates the past from the future. Present time is dependent on the observer, like time itself.

Anyway, as long as that there is no internal contradiction in the B-theory of time, this can be used to annihilate the necessity of Kalam premises. And all its variants. Including the something-from-nothing argument.

Now that is begging the question and circular.

I wish you were right, for I love to be proven wrong. Alas, you are not. As long as relativity is valid, B-theory is the only game in town.

All of them have explanations if they actually exist.

Is that why God does not need an explanation?

Block universes were invented for textbooks. Go back CHRONOLOGICALLY through textbooks and they cease to exist.

adika yoyla

What?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Sure but that is the closest we have to describing the singularity. It doesn't have to be infinite. There certainly can be a stopping point which would mean it doesn't infinitely regress which is evidence for a source. Others say it's evidence we are in a super computer but I won't go there.

By definition infinity is about the most worst possible way of describing anything natural. Since the finite is infinitely different than the infinite it is the worst possible description.

I don't know what your contention is here. I am not trying to prove atheism and I do believe a something from something type thing. If anything I am saying the singularity is god and has the attributes for it, even if not infinite or whatever that doesn't bother me. This universe and all the energy and all is enough of an infinite for my limited scope.

Pantheism IMO is a less justifiable explanation than atheism. In what way could the natural be the supernatural? The natural is finite - God is infinite, the natural is obedient to law - God created law, nature is not intentional - God is, natural is amoral - God is the locus of morality it's self, nature is impersonal - God is personal, etc... Though I subscribe to neither I regard atheism as more justifiable than Pantheism. Debates do not take place on the grounds of your own arbitrary criteria for words and concepts. They take place in the officially accepted definition of words. I have no idea what infinite enough for you means but nature is not in a respect infinite in reality. No matter how small or how large a section of the universe you take it does not contain the explanation of it's existence, every single thing ever observed requires an ultimate explanation that nothing in nature so far seems to have.

 

[idav]

Pantheism IMO is a less justifiable explanation than atheism. In what way could the natural be the supernatural? The natural is finite - God is infinite, the natural is obedient to law - God created law, nature is not intentional - God is, natural is amoral - God is the locus of morality it's self, nature is impersonal - God is personal, etc... Though I subscribe to neither I regard atheism as more justifiable than Pantheism. Debates do not take place on the grounds of your own arbitrary criteria for words and concepts. They take place in the officially accepted definition of words. I have no idea what infinite enough for you means but nature is not in a respect infinite in reality. No matter how small or how large a section of the universe you take it does not contain the explanation of it's existence, every single thing ever observed requires an ultimate explanation that nothing in nature so far seems to have.

Yes so there we come down to the true contention. You want god to be super duper infinite beyond anything recognizable. I don't have that hang up.

With definitions let me ask you something. What is the difference between timeless and eternal and why should those words necessarily entail infinite? I don't think it entails that at all. Your not trying to pose infinite regress so eternal is what if not infinitely regressing? You want to claim infinite regress impossible but god is somehow eternal and infinte? I don't know why these hang ups other than you want god to be something it isn't. Nature is already those things and probably more.

 

[1robin]

Yes so there we come down to the true contention. You want god to be super duper infinite beyond anything recognizable. I don't have that hang up.

What I want has nothing to do with anything. In fact what I believe is not what I would choose to. It just happens to be true IMO. I think Pantheism is more a product of wishful thinking that Christianity.
Calling gravity or electrons God offers no explanatory value and answers no need. If God is nature then he is redundant. I have no need of adding a God description to nature. It is a meaningless exercise. I did not invent what is true of the concept of God. I found it preexisting me by thousands of years in most cultures and only evaluated it. Not only has it been around in theology for as long as we can see it has also been part of the philosophical concept of God and a virtual necessity. Someone might create heaven as wishful thinking but not original sin, hell, judgment, our inherent corruption, the historical evidence for Christ, nor a bible more textually accurate than any work of ancient history of any kind.

With definitions let me ask you something. What is the difference between timeless and eternal and why should those words necessarily entail infinite? I don't think it entails that at all. Your not trying to pose infinite regress so eternal is what if not infinitely regressing? You want to claim infinite regress impossible but god is somehow eternal and infinte? I don't know why these hang ups other than you want god to be something it isn't. Nature is already those things and probably more.

Time is a temporal measurement of duration quantified for convenience. Eternal is the absence of the potential nonresistance of a thing. Certain abstract concepts and mathematics can be viewed as eternal but electrons cannot be. Eternal regress has to do with a chronological eternity of causal and effectual actions. It does not have to do with an uncaused first cause. I did not want to claim eternal regress is impossible, and most of philosophy has found it to be so. I am not hung up on God's attributes any more than I am hung up on the attributes of a star. I am simply taking a hypothesis and examining the data for consistency. Apparently you have given up on finding any logical inconsistency and so have unjustly appealed to a non-existent inconsistency concerning my motivations which you have no access to.

 

[idav]

What I want has nothing to do with anything. In fact what I believe is not what I would choose to. It just happens to be true IMO.

Great, nice opinion.

I think Pantheism is more a product of wishful thinking that Christianity.

Thats laughable, seriously.

Calling gravity or electrons God offers no explanatory value and answers no need. If God is nature then he is redundant.

I have gone beyond that, the attributes for god are all around.

I have no need of adding a God description to nature. It is a meaningless exercise.

There is obviously more to nature than what we can see in front of us, these descriptions lead to a timeless creative type aspect to nature.

I did not invent what is true of the concept of God. I found it preexisting me by thousands of years in most cultures and only evaluated it. Not only has it been around in theology for as long as we can see it has also been part of the philosophical concept of God and a virtual necessity.

And? Pantheism is an opposing viewpoint on many theological concepts.

Someone might create heaven as wishful thinking but not original sin, hell, judgment, our inherent corruption, the historical evidence for Christ, nor a bible more textually accurate than any work of ancient history of any kind.

All faith based. Nobody disagrees that people are need of something more cause we cause much suffering. The rest is debatable.

Time is a temporal measurement of duration quantified for convenience. Eternal is the absence of the potential nonresistance of a thing.

Time is much more than that and experiments prove it. If someone traveled the speed of light they will come back to earth with there kids having caught up and maybe surpassed in age. This is an actual observable reality quantified by rigorous experimentation.

Certain abstract concepts and mathematics can be viewed as eternal but electrons cannot be.

Where do you think the particles come from? The singularity means everything has been timeless and eternal.

Eternal regress has to do with a chronological eternity of causal and effectual actions.

Chronology has no effect on the singularity.

It does not have to do with an uncaused first cause.

You can't know that. The mechanism for "uncaused" is debatable.

I did not want to claim eternal regress is impossible, and most of philosophy has found it to be so.

OK

I am not hung up on God's attributes any more than I am hung up on the attributes of a star.

Yet your pushing attributes of god based on what you believe to be true.

I am simply taking a hypothesis and examining the data for consistency. Apparently you have given up on finding any logical inconsistency and so have unjustly appealed to a non-existent inconsistency concerning my motivations which you have no access to.

I feel I have been consistent especially since I have no reason to appeal to faith for what I am saying.

 

[1robin]

Great, nice opinion.

Ok

Thats laughable, seriously.

Wishful thinking is not a reasonable explanation for either faith, I was just saying that comparing them would suggest more preference would be required to come to the pantheistic conclusion.

I have gone beyond that, the attributes for god are all around.

Nice platitude. All around is just as much all around whether you apply the term God to it or not. If I subtract he label of God from nature it suffers no loss. It is a meaningless redundancy. Why bother? Does the explanation of aerodynamics gain by calling it God? What is the point?

There is obviously more to nature than what we can see in front of us, these descriptions lead to a timeless creative type aspect to nature.

So you have no evidence nature is creative, timeless, or God but your worldview simply declares it to be true. Faith based on rational deduction is persuasive, faith based on speculation and declaration is not.

And? Pantheism is an opposing viewpoint on many theological concepts.

That is irrelevant to what I said. You said my faith was the result of some kind of hang-up. I responded that I did not originate my faith but found it preexisting and only adopted based on deduction, historical evidence, philosophy, logic. I did not pantheism was missing from the historical landscape.

All faith based. Nobody disagrees that people are need of something more cause we cause much suffering. The rest is debatable.

Actually secular people constantly refer to the modern era where abortions have become industrial efforts and we have created the capacity to wipe out all life on earth and the moral insanity to almost have done so, as well as justifying sexual appetites that compose 4% of the population and 60% of aids cases as progress. Stalin called killing 20 million innocent people progress, So would Mao, Pol Pot, etc...... Chesterton said that even if we could agree what was wrong we would still disagree about what wrongs to excuse. We are not learning and admitting our faults so as to improve in general, we are denying faults are bad. In fact there is a modern trend that denies moral truth or truth it self exists at all. Let me ask you something. Without a personal God what are the objective morals grounded in that would allow anyone to actually say what is wrong or right. Without a moral law giver there is AT BEST only opinion.

Time is much more than that and experiments prove it. If someone traveled the speed of light they will come back to earth with there kids having caught up and maybe surpassed in age. This is an actual observable reality quantified by rigorous experimentation.

You grossly misunderstand relativity. Where is the experimental data for someone who did what you claim? That is not an experiment it is science fiction and parlor games. Relativity does suggest some weird things but never claims a reversal of causal chronology, is.... an effect preceding a cause. You grossly misunderstand relativity.

Where do you think the particles come from? The singularity means everything has been timeless and eternal.

The only certain thing singularity means is we have absolutely no way of knowing what it means. It is a word that serves as a placeholder for the first nano-second of the universe because we do not even have the potential to scientifically evaluate it. Particles always come from something else yet previous to the singularity nothing existed. Even in the quantum particles do not come from nothing but from fluctuating energy. Have you forgotten that people who know a whole lot more about singularities and relativity than we do have in the most part concluded as Vilenkin has: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Since your world view claims the exact opposite as emphatic and reliable models such as BGVT then I think the hang up is on your side.

Chronology has no effect on the singularity.

How exactly do you know that? What did you use to measure that claim? What observations is that consistent with? What philosophic principles was that based on? You cannot declare reality into being.

You can't know that. The mechanism for "uncaused" is debatable.

What? Uncaused to begin with is inconsistent with every single natural observation ever made and is by definition vacant of mechanism. It is about agency not mechanism. 2 + 2 nor any other physical law ever brought anything into existence from nothing. Nature is a causal dead end.

Yet your pushing attributes of god based on what you believe to be true.

You still do not get my faith. I did not create anything I believe. I found it not only to be true in general of theology, but specifically of theism for thousands of years of history. I took those views and examined philosophy, history, science, logic, reason, etc... and found them to not only be the best explanation known, experientially apprehended in many cases, but to be almost deductively a necessity. You might as well claim I believe in thermodynamics because I want to.

I feel I have been consistent especially since I have no reason to appeal to faith for what I am saying.

Your claims have far greater reliance on faith than mine do. Mine are deductive your seem to be merely declarative. Nothing observable is inconsistent with my faith but yours seems to be inconsistent with much of experience and science. For example my cosmology is based on a theory so robust it does not matter what the singularity or relativity ever produces, yours invents things about each that either can't be true or can't be knowable even if true. Your may be constant with yourself but you are not consistent with science or what is deduced from it, history, or philosophy.

 

[idav]

Wishful thinking is not a reasonable explanation for either faith, I was just saying that comparing them would suggest more preference would be required to come to the pantheistic conclusion.

I don't agree. Natural phenomenon doesn't require wishful thinking. Supernatural does.

Nice platitude. All around is just as much all around whether you apply the term God to it or not. If I subtract he label of God from nature it suffers no loss. It is a meaningless redundancy. Why bother? Does the explanation of aerodynamics gain by calling it God? What is the point?

The point is everything is of god and god is the fabric of it all.

So you have no evidence nature is creative, timeless, or God but your worldview simply declares it to be true. Faith based on rational deduction is persuasive, faith based on speculation and declaration is not.

I have given these discriptions, physics has shown it. Einstein and Wheeler are two people that have expressed much of the issue.

That is irrelevant to what I said. You said my faith was the result of some kind of hang-up. I responded that I did not originate my faith but found it preexisting and only adopted based on deduction, historical evidence, philosophy, logic. I did not pantheism was missing from the historical landscape.

OK

Actually secular people constantly refer to the modern era where abortions have become industrial efforts and we have created the capacity to wipe out all life on earth and the moral insanity to almost have done so, as well as justifying sexual appetites that compose 4% of the population and 60% of aids cases as progress. Stalin called killing 20 million innocent people progress, So would Mao, Pol Pot, etc...... Chesterton said that even if we could agree what was wrong we would still disagree about what wrongs to excuse. We are not learning and admitting our faults so as to improve in general, we are denying faults are bad. In fact there is a modern trend that denies moral truth or truth it self exists at all. Let me ask you something. Without a personal God what are the objective morals grounded in that would allow anyone to actually say what is wrong or right. Without a moral law giver there is AT BEST only opinion.

We get morals from trying to live with others in a state of progression and fulfillment. We need no law giver that has no stake in the matter.

You grossly misunderstand relativity. Where is the experimental data for someone who did what you claim? That is not an experiment it is science fiction and parlor games. Relativity does suggest some weird things but never claims a reversal of causal chronology, is.... an effect preceding a cause. You grossly misunderstand relativity.

I have given the Wheeler delayed choice experiment which shows the data and choice aspects of reality, omniscience. This is because of relativity and time isn't a factor either. We have to account for this in our GPS systems, we did the clock experiment, this stuff isn't made up it is real.

"In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself.
"
Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time slows down as you approach the speed of light, this is well understood by physics.

The only certain thing singularity means is we have absolutely no way of knowing what it means. It is a word that serves as a placeholder for the first nano-second of the universe because we do not even have the potential to scientifically evaluate it.

No we physically observed the beginnings of the universe, it all fits very well with the singularity.

Particles always come from something else yet previous to the singularity nothing existed.

That is non-nonsensical like asking whats north of north.

Even in the quantum particles do not come from nothing but from fluctuating energy. Have you forgotten that people who know a whole lot more about singularities and relativity than we do have in the most part concluded as Vilenkin has: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

It doesn't matter, it solves nothing. Begining of what? Time or existence? I doubt it. Consider me a skeptic.

Since your world view claims the exact opposite as emphatic and reliable models such as BGVT then I think the hang up is on your side.

No, I agree with the wording, its accurate just not relevant to the question.

How exactly do you know that? What did you use to measure that claim? What observations is that consistent with? What philosophic principles was that based on? You cannot declare reality into being.

General relativity spells it all out for us.

"In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains infinite mass in an infinitely small space, where gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down"."
Singularities - Black Holes and Wormholes - The Physics of the Universe

What? Uncaused to begin with is inconsistent with every single natural observation ever made and is by definition vacant of mechanism. It is about agency not mechanism. 2 + 2 nor any other physical law ever brought anything into existence from nothing. Nature is a causal dead end.

Nature is much more than our domino effect, physics has shown it and you refuse to see it. It implies physics can explain away the magic. When physics breaks down we don't have to go by the cause assumption.

You still do not get my faith. I did not create anything I believe. I found it not only to be true in general of theology, but specifically of theism for thousands of years of history. I took those views and examined philosophy, history, science, logic, reason, etc... and found them to not only be the best explanation known, experientially apprehended in many cases, but to be almost deductively a necessity. You might as well claim I believe in thermodynamics because I want to.

I did something much similar. I figured it out as I studied any sort of knowledge and truth I could find. Then found prominent philosphers and scientists saying the same things since the beginning.

Your claims have far greater reliance on faith than mine do. Mine are deductive your seem to be merely declarative. Nothing observable is inconsistent with my faith but yours seems to be inconsistent with much of experience and science. For example my cosmology is based on a theory so robust it does not matter what the singularity or relativity ever produces, yours invents things about each that either can't be true or can't be knowable even if true. Your may be constant with yourself but you are not consistent with science or what is deduced from it, history, or philosophy.

I don't declare, you want the evidence I present it. Physics is proving itself everyday, this stuff is natural and therefore testable. Almost like you don't want god to be testable. I am consistent with Einstein and Wheelers and Spinozas views and that is at least something, especially when I came to it by independent study and found it verified.

 

[johnhanks]

If you live in Europe you are in no possible way living free from faith. The entire mindset and culture of Europe was dominated by Christianity.

Indeed it was. It is unlikely that Christianity alone was the real, deep cause of all of Europe's wars of religion, but in time-honoured religious tradition it served its purpose as unimpeachable casus belli.

I have only studied the moral decline of major cultures since going secular...

... the most secular democracies in the world score very high on international indexes of happiness and well-being and they have among lowest violent crime and homicide rates. ... when it comes to such things as life expectancy, infant mortality, economic equality, economic competitiveness, health care, standard of living, and education, it is the most secular democracies on earth that fare the best, doing much better than the most religious nations in the world. Sources cited in link.

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries." Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."