The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

Dear Readers, Forgive Monk for he obviously hasn't read Genesis. Our universe is one among at least three other Heavens, in our Multiverse. It was caused on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 which means that there were TWO other Days or Ages, in God's time, BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Since each of God's Days is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time, you can read of the events BEFORE the Big Bang, which are recorded in Gen 1:1through Gen 1:8. Someone should tell Monk. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

Where did get this "stuff" from?

 

[1robin]

I'll check it out.

It is at least a plausible and very scholarly scientific perspective on Genesis.

Reality is a jigsaw puzzle of various pieces of knowledge. You claim the Bible has a few pieces of this reality puzzle. It is up to you to show that your pieces fit in with all the pieces we have outside the Bible such as dinosaurs and the Big Bang etc. All pieces combined must fit into each other and show a clear motive. I am asking you to fit all the pieces together and show how they fit. If you can't do that your faith is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe. It doesn't matter to us how detailed you can describe each piece if you can't show it fits with all the other pieces. All pieces have to make sense together.

If I could make every piece fit in it's proper place I would not only be on time and get the Nobel I would be omniscient. You find me anyone who simply claims to know where every piece of evidence fits in just a recent event like WW2 and I will attempt the Godlike task you assigned me. I claim to have sufficient evidence to justify faith in the pieces of evidence I defend. That is it.

 

[1robin]

You must present that "creation" is a change of state. By all accounts it is not.

All of who's accounts? Who in the history of the world claims that non-existence to existence is not a change of state.

Except I have defined them very differently.
A= "change in state" B= "creation of matter/energy" c= causality. A implies C. B is not A therefore B does is not required to imply C.

You defined them one way then used them a different way in the last episode. You defined A as change then used it only as it applied to a pre-existent thing.

Went back a few pages to look into that back and forth and you misunderstood my point. Our "existence" the fact we exist (not us specifically) was a component of the argument. What it means to exist is another gray area. You misunderstood that to mean us specifically.

I can accept that.

That the argument proves that god is the best answer. Rather I think that is a personal belief to you rather than fact. If it were then there would be no atheists.

Actually it is not really. I met God without any reference to cosmology at all. I had subjective proof that had no need of an argument about space or beginnings. Many years later I ran across the argument and found it reliable in a logical sense. I studied what it's justification is and found it academically supportable. I use it because it is simple and robust not because it has anything to do with my personal faith.

I think your bias has a large amount to do with the way you view things. For example I find Dawkins and I differ on our view of things considerably. However he is still a very good scientist who is very intelligent. To call him an idiot would require some proof. And the fact you think that Craig had ever "torn apart" anyone in a debate that was dictated by facts and reason is a bit beyond me. I've seen him make a lot of fallacies and I've actually addressed his arguments and claims in depth about a year ago. I kind of feel that 90% of your arguments are directly from watching his videos.

No one is free from bias. I however unlike most expect it and make every effort to limit it. Dawkins is probably a good biology authority. However he is a terrible philosopher and a deplorable theologian. I want to know what parts compose a flagellum I have confidence in him. I want to know about morality and he is at the bottom of a long list. Craig is paid very well by several institutions for competence. I would think your nuts but excusable to think he may have lost any specific debate but you lose credibility by making these claims for example that he could not have won a debate. Harris said when it was announced he would debate Craig he never got so many e-mails before. They said don't blow it, good luck, and even condolences. He said he was the only debater who could put the fear of God in an atheist. I have never seen anyone he debated not in some manner concede the loss. They will excuse it by saying they are not professionals, or not accustomed to formal debate but they invariably concede at some point. You could have picked on any debate or two and not have damaged your credibility. These hyperbolic statements do you no credit.

Is the argument valid? Yes. Is the argument sound? That is a different horse.

Well it sure took a long time to get that established. It will be another month for soundness I guess.

I saw. But that doesn't change the actual scientific position. The position is "we don't know". It could be natural but at this point we don't see how we could ever postulate what it is. If it is "unnatural" then once we figure out what it is then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural. I liked the phrase "magic is just science we don't understand yet". If there is some kind of unseen unknown force that provides some kind of answer, when we find out what it is, it is no longer "supernatural". If "god" exists then he is "natural". We just don't understand it yet. And once we do then I wonder if we will still call him god?

Science is a natural pursuit. When natural no longer exists science no longer holds any value. Philosophy and theology are alone still relevant. You might as well complain your ruler does not tell you how hot it is.

Yes it does follow. If I have a box and we have ZERO idea of what is inside it but we can postulate a philosophical argument that states that there is a possibility that it could be a rock then that doesn't make it the best answer. It could just as easily be a book. Or a feather. If the answer to the question "what is in the unkown box" and no one has ANY degree of certainty of their answer then "a rock" is no better an explanation than any other.

This is not a box or rock. It is an effect in need of a cause that has certain characteristics.

The theory of god is no better. It cannot be proven wrong. It is not falsifiable. I truly don't understand why you seem to think that this argument has any kind of superiority as it holds the exact same flaws as you point out in any other theory.

The principles that posit a entity with Godlike characteristics is in every way better than well nothing. Exactly how much merit does it require to beat nothing anyway?

I would guess I understand better than them as the first one to have ever conceptualized it in any sort of meaningful way was Einstein. Prior to that no one knew that space and time were even connected. It is not due to any brilliance on my part but just the fact that I was born in an age where this information has been found out by very smart individuals. In the future another thousand years, assuming society continues to advance, they will know things we didn't even dream off. Not because they are vastly more intelligent than us but because they are in a more advanced time.

That was not what I asked. I was not asking if you understood space time. I was asking if you understood that space time was not the same as a time domain alone or a time domain with another reference. The end of space is the end of space time but does not imply the end of any kind of time. It might get confusing because even experts refer to space time as just time.

So I challenge the notion that Bronze Age men were adept in dealing with the philosophy of inherent contradictions to our known universe and the laws governing spacetime.

I know you challenge them but so far I have yet to see the specific challenge. I do not claim they understood any of that. I claim they got what science they did claim right in spite of not being able to derive it. It was revealed not deduced and it seems as if science has taken a long time to catch up.

In many things. But there is no "lighter grey" given to your argument than any of the others.

That will be a subjective issue where we do not agree.

Exactly. So what "information" in the universe exists that we have decoded that must have been put there by god? You have never mentioned any.

I made a general claim about intelligence.

Exactly. There has to be intent and pre-ascribed meaning given to specific "patterns" for them to be recognized by another (or the same) intelligent "decoder". What "information" do you see in the universe that follows this? And no, DNA sequences, are not an example of this.

Oh yes they are. DNA has to be constructed and read by two systems of unimaginable complexity which are tuned. Bill gates took one look at DNA and said it was exactly like a computer code but far more complex. Does software do anything without firmware and hardware tuned to it?


I have noticed it so often I find it funny. Now matter how hard the most atheistic of atheist is when describing genetics they will use the word design over and over. Dawkins does so like a reflex. They deny the designer but the imprint of design is so intuitive and obvious they use the word constantly in spite of themselves.

As for others how about mathematics and our minds. I have never understood it so seldom use it but I constantly hear that it is the greatest of miracles that our minds are tuned to allow us to do science. There is no explanation for why the neurons in my head are tuned to the rationality of the universe. Or materialism can explain why science can explain but only God can explain why I can do science. Like I said I do not get it but it used so often it must have merit.

I haggle that your side is no brighter than any of the other theories and if anything it tends to be darker as you are based upon presuppositions that may or may not be true.

Haggle? That's a new perspective. What composes haggling as say apart from bartering etc..?

And Aristotle was Greek. You should have specified "some Greek philosophers" not "Greek philosophers" as a whole.

I said Greek philosophers believed X. That does not imply every single one did. If I say people do great good that does not imply no one does evil.

I understand more than them. I understand less than we will in a 100 years.

More than who? My argument is not confined to any time span. It is just as (actually far more) consented to today that in 500 BC.

I'll be waiting. As the whole of this argument isn't that your argument as a whole is invalid but that it does not stand above the rest and I am tired of trying to prove that when you are obviously arguing something else.

I don't think that discussion has even began. To do so you need to specify an alternative of some kind. What is better than mine?

 

[Aman777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear Readers, Forgive Monk for he obviously hasn't read Genesis. Our universe is one among at least three other Heavens, in our Multiverse. It was caused on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 which means that there were TWO other Days or Ages, in God's time, BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Since each of God's Days is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time, you can read of the events BEFORE the Big Bang, which are recorded in Gen 1:1through Gen 1:8. Someone should tell Monk. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

Where did get this "stuff" from?

Dear 1robin, It's God's Truth, which means that it agrees in EVERY way with EVERY other discovered Truth. It's the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History, which could ONLY have been authored by God Himself. I use the KJV of Scripture and Strong's online Concordance to support my views.

The FIRST Heaven or Universe was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
The other Heavens or Universes were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

One plus two equals the Fact that we live in a Multiverse, composed of at least 3 Universes. It's proof of God since No man, thousands of years ago, could have possibly known this. You can find the complete HISTORY of the Creation of the perfect Heaven in the FIRST 34 verses of Scripture. This account includes the end of Human History, which is yet future to 2014, at the end of the present 6th Day. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Every known state of change has an explanation and a cause. You need to justify why only state changes that involve coming into existence would be exempt for that principle which has no known exception.

Some would argue quantum entanglement would be in stark opposition to this claim.

A disembodied mind. Abstract concepts we use every day, morality, ascetics, numbers, etc.... Why is only the first out of bounds but the rest part of every day life they are equally immaterial? BTW much of the latest science (the theoretical type which I have little faith in even when it is on my side) suggests minds are primary and material derivative. I once posted an article on it if you want to search for it. I do not understand it but I assume the scholars like Max Planck they used, potentially do.

You are falling into the misunderstanding or misconception of dualism. The one in which we think of our brain is somehow separate from our mind. Its a very common psychological phenomenon that is so over powering many people feel it is almost impossible to conceive otherwise. However make no mistake that there is no legitimate evidence of a disembodied mind and that the existence of "thoughts", "Theories" and the like are not "physical" beings but abstract concepts that exist only within the very physical minds of people. The only evidence you have appealed for yet about these non-physical existences are from philosophical arguments that attempted to explain something that science managed to do several thousands of years later.

I was not the one who accused any group of being insufficiently intelligent to arrive at truth. My view is that science is filtered through whatever lens existed previously to viewing it. I try hard to remove anything that seems to be the result of lensing and see if what is left is reliable. I think both sides have reasonable positions but I think theisms side is by far the better of the two. So no I do not claim Hawking is an idiot in science though he is an idiot in philosophy which is where his conclusions unfortunately come from. I think most scholars honestly find data but I think the atheists view more biased when making a conclusion. Now a few rungs down in the amateur level and the opposite is the case. Most laymen's arguments why evolution is lacking are terrible but at the top levels the theist scholars are better IMO. Very modern science of any kind is suspicious in my view because money, grants, infighting, and getting published has become more important than truth. I am skeptical about the quantum, string theory, Penrose claimed M theory was not even a good excuse for not having a theory, and holographic theory for example. That is why I seldom use them even when in my favor.

I have not made the point that theists were any less intelligent. I do claim intellectual dishonesty for anyone who claims a young earth creationist view or people that continue to deny evolution. I don't think they are mentally incapable of accepting it but are mentally unwilling because of their pre-existing worldview. You are the only one bring reductio ad absurdum by stating my argument somehow must reduce their intellectual status.

You can be skeptical of the sciences all you want but just know that your opinion on the science and any skepticism you actually have will be diluted by your lack of understanding of these sciences. I am the same way and anyone who isn't a physicist to some degree will have a similar problem. I don't have opinions on the best way to design a building with proper structural integrity.

Though I must, even in my ignorance, point something out. In your list of things to be skeptical about you list them as if they were equal. String theory is a blanket term for several different theories while M theory is a specific theory and the dominate one that attempts to tie all of the different superstring theories together. Do not attempt to pass your opinion off as educated enough to even know what it is much less state that it is a pitiful excuse. Holographic theory is not a dominate theory held in science and has only gotten media attention because it is unique. I wouldn't use that as an example of a legitimate explination upheld by the scientific community as a whole. In fact their view is my view (and by no coincidence) is that we don't know.

Lastly QM is in fact a well established science. I still do not understand what your objection is.

Non-existence to existence is the greatest change in state possible. A state is a property of essence. How many times have you heard the phrase "state of existence"?

You cannot "change state" if you don't exist.

Depends on the claim. You made the claim you could teach a logical class. How many five year olds have? Maybe the best modal logician in history (Kripke) only did so in his late teens or early twenties.

I didn't state that I was qualified to teach a logic course. I never claimed that. I am actually qualified to teach one in the primary level of k-12 but that is another matter all together. And I could, pending a universe hired me, teach it at a collegiate level. But I don't think I'm qualified for that personally. But even if I wasn't and even if I did claim anything of the sort (which I did not), anyone who has taken a basic logic 101 course would know exactly what I just stated and how one would be able to equate the situation to the logical equation.

Usually arguments with true flaws do not survive that long. Flat earth long gone, the earth being supported by a turtle or elephant gone, hollow earth theory long gone, earth-centricity long gone. Even second tear arguments like alien visitors get relegated to the basement very quickly. Yet arguments 40 times older like the cosmological argument is not still believed in by many but is at the forefront of professional debate.

With theological implications do not underestimate the amount of validity people will believe it to have. Young earth creationism is still being fought for after hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary.

Also it depends on what you mean by "argument". The cosmological argument isn't a scientific argument and therefore is not in the realm of being 'proven" or "disprove" by evidence. Through reasoning and greater understanding of the way the universe works we can safely assume that the argument itself does not provide a "best" answer as it is funalsifiable and is based upon one great flaw that I have pointed out several times that we may have to agree to disagree on.

You said A = change, then you out of no where said it later equaled a change in a thing that already existed. Which one is it? IN the argument change is anything that doe snot remain static. A box coming into existence is about the most radical change I can comprehend.

For something to change in state it must have a pre-existence and a post-existent state. In the creation of matter/energy itself there is no "pre-existence". There was no state to change. It wasn't "state of non-existence" as that is a nonsensical statement. It didn't exist in some kind of illusionary form prior. Or maybe it did. At this point we don't know. And what about before that? And before that? We end up with an endless chain of infinite regression which I know for a fact you are not a fan of. However we then have the problem of spacetime no longer existing so there couldn't be change or existence prior to it as there was NO BEFORE TIME.

Therefore if it didn't "exist" there couldn't have been a "change" in its "state". It didn't have a "state". Your not getting this "there was no before the universe".

It does not matter that much.

I meant I got it from google. Not telling you to go google it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All of who's accounts? Who in the history of the world claims that non-existence to existence is not a change of state.

The definition of "change of state" itself would be a good one.

You defined them one way then used them a different way in the last episode. You defined A as change then used it only as it applied to a pre-existent thing.

I have defined them the same way. I specified it further with different language in case you were somehow confused about the original meaning. But yes the definition of "change" is dependent upon its pre-existence to the change. Otherwise what changed?

Actually it is not really. I met God without any reference to cosmology at all. I had subjective proof that had no need of an argument about space or beginnings. Many years later I ran across the argument and found it reliable in a logical sense. I studied what it's justification is and found it academically supportable. I use it because it is simple and robust not because it has anything to do with my personal faith.

Actually your belief in god plays a HUGE role in why you think it makes sense. I don't care how much you deny it you still have this need to have an answer and you don't seem to care if its wrong or not. It also is based upon this idea that there was something "before" time. Which is profoundly intertwined with your theological stance.

No one is free from bias. I however unlike most expect it and make every effort to limit it. Dawkins is probably a good biology authority. However he is a terrible philosopher and a deplorable theologian. I want to know what parts compose a flagellum I have confidence in him. I want to know about morality and he is at the bottom of a long list. Craig is paid very well by several institutions for competence. I would think your nuts but excusable to think he may have lost any specific debate but you lose credibility by making these claims for example that he could not have won a debate. Harris said when it was announced he would debate Craig he never got so many e-mails before. They said don't blow it, good luck, and even condolences. He said he was the only debater who could put the fear of God in an atheist. I have never seen anyone he debated not in some manner concede the loss. They will excuse it by saying they are not professionals, or not accustomed to formal debate but they invariably concede at some point. You could have picked on any debate or two and not have damaged your credibility. These hyperbolic statements do you no credit.

I have seen about 9-10 of his debates over the course of the years. I don't know of any he has definitively won. And I have never heard of an atheist having "the fear of god" put him them by him.

Well it sure took a long time to get that established. It will be another month for soundness I guess.

I haven't changed my position. Only your understanding of my position.

Science is a natural pursuit. When natural no longer exists science no longer holds any value. Philosophy and theology are alone still relevant. You might as well complain your ruler does not tell you how hot it is.

Or saying that because we can't use a ruler to measure the distance to the sun it means that by default the magic 8 ball has the answer.

This is not a box or rock. It is an effect in need of a cause that has certain characteristics.

Except there was no "before time" There was no pre-causal cause by the understanding of causality we have now. For our understanding of causlaity there MUST be time involved and existence involved. Neither seem to be the case.

The principles that posit a entity with Godlike characteristics is in every way better than well nothing. Exactly how much merit does it require to beat nothing anyway?

Quite a lot. Because then you are not going against "nothing". The fact there is not a leading theory does not give credibility to anyone who makes a stance. The current and best answer is "we don't know". What is dark matter? We don't know. What is dark energy? We don't know. What is the sound of one hand clapping? We don't know.

That was not what I asked. I was not asking if you understood space time. I was asking if you understood that space time was not the same as a time domain alone or a time domain with another reference. The end of space is the end of space time but does not imply the end of any kind of time. It might get confusing because even experts refer to space time as just time.

Actually it does. Spacetime does not exclude time. Spacetime INCLUDES TIME. Time is but one aspect of spacetime that we are able to precieve through our passage through it via entropy. You are factually wrong to state that it does not imply the end of "all time".

I know you challenge them but so far I have yet to see the specific challenge. I do not claim they understood any of that. I claim they got what science they did claim right in spite of not being able to derive it. It was revealed not deduced and it seems as if science has taken a long time to catch up.

I have yet to see an example of conclusive evidence they understood anything beyond basic philosophical understandings of our universe.

I made a general claim about intelligence.

One that is wildly unsupported.

Oh yes they are. DNA has to be constructed and read by two systems of unimaginable complexity which are tuned. Bill gates took one look at DNA and said it was exactly like a computer code but far more complex. Does software do anything without firmware and hardware tuned to it?

Yes. In DNA a naturally occurring chemical chain. We even understand how it formed from RNA.

I have noticed it so often I find it funny. Now matter how hard the most atheistic of atheist is when describing genetics they will use the word design over and over. Dawkins does so like a reflex. They deny the designer but the imprint of design is so intuitive and obvious they use the word constantly in spite of themselves.

Because we understand the process in which it formed. Complexity is not evidence of a designer.

As for others how about mathematics and our minds. I have never understood it so seldom use it but I constantly hear that it is the greatest of miracles that our minds are tuned to allow us to do science. There is no explanation for why the neurons in my head are tuned to the rationality of the universe. Or materialism can explain why science can explain but only God can explain why I can do science. Like I said I do not get it but it used so often it must have merit.

High functioning pattern recognition and recreation honed over millions and millions of years of evolution with that being a successful and favorable genetic trait.

Haggle? That's a new perspective. What composes haggling as say apart from bartering etc..?

I saw you use the term. I meant it as a divisive struggle in order to attain some kind of understanding or acceptable middle point. Through points and such.

I said Greek philosophers believed X. That does not imply every single one did. If I say people do great good that does not imply no one does evil.

You did, as a blanket statement, state "Greek philosophers" as a whole. And it isn't just "exceptions" but in entirety your representation of "Greek Philosophers" is inaccurate.

More than who? My argument is not confined to any time span. It is just as (actually far more) consented to today that in 500 BC.

IN society we understand more about the science of what your argument speculates about.

I don't think that discussion has even began. To do so you need to specify an alternative of some kind. What is better than mine?

"I don't know". That is a much better answer than anything based upon ignorance.

Though if you take ANYTHING away from this debate please take that just because there is no "answer" doesn't mean that any answer would be better by default. That is not true. Not philosophically, scientifically or otherwise.

 

[The Cosmic Lawnmower]

I personally think this argument is valid up to a point.

Since I believe in a divine creator who just made the universe, it would be a respectful stance to take because until we find an answer it's kinda indisputable.

But if science tells me otherwise than I'll happily join their side.

 

[1robin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear Readers, Forgive Monk for he obviously hasn't read Genesis. Our universe is one among at least three other Heavens, in our Multiverse. It was caused on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 which means that there were TWO other Days or Ages, in God's time, BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Since each of God's Days is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time, you can read of the events BEFORE the Big Bang, which are recorded in Gen 1:1through Gen 1:8. Someone should tell Monk. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman


Dear 1robin, It's God's Truth, which means that it agrees in EVERY way with EVERY other discovered Truth. It's the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History, which could ONLY have been authored by God Himself. I use the KJV of Scripture and Strong's online Concordance to support my views.

The FIRST Heaven or Universe was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
The other Heavens or Universes were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

One plus two equals the Fact that we live in a Multiverse, composed of at least 3 Universes. It's proof of God since No man, thousands of years ago, could have possibly known this. You can find the complete HISTORY of the Creation of the perfect Heaven in the FIRST 34 verses of Scripture. This account includes the end of Human History, which is yet future to 2014, at the end of the present 6th Day. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

The three heavens are not three universes. They are three regions in our own universe. One is terrestrial, the bible says the other is where the birds live (the atmosphere), the third is space and the rest of natural and supernatural reality. The bible and reality have only one universe.
Having three redundant universe is incoherent and unnecessary, nor is it biblical. The rest of your claims were close enough to allow me to leave them alone.

 

[1robin]

Some would argue quantum entanglement would be in stark opposition to this claim.

Well when I meet the dozen or so that are possibly qualified to make the claim responsibly and I see their evidence I will consider it.

You are falling into the misunderstanding or misconception of dualism. The one in which we think of our brain is somehow separate from our mind. Its a very common psychological phenomenon that is so over powering many people feel it is almost impossible to conceive otherwise. However make no mistake that there is no legitimate evidence of a disembodied mind and that the existence of "thoughts", "Theories" and the like are not "physical" beings but abstract concepts that exist only within the very physical minds of people. The only evidence you have appealed for yet about these non-physical existences are from philosophical arguments that attempted to explain something that science managed to do several thousands of years later.

We were not discussing dualism but what can exist independent of the natural. As for dualism, I find it the very opposite. I find it intuitive I am a brain. I find evidence however that I have a mind independent from a brain.

There are many arguments and evidences for this and it is a dominant modern scientific position. I will give you just one I happen to read last night. Most correlate ourselves as minds. When we say I or you we mean our or your soul or mind. (Christianity actually posits a trinity by the way). So is that true? Is there a me that is not my physicality. Since my identity doe snot suffer loss with the loss of a limb then my identity is not equal to my body. If X is me and Y is my body. X does not equal Y so they are not the same. Losing an arm or even brain tissue does not make anyone less of a person. If you saw a friend who had only a functioning cortex you would still think of their identity as a whole.

I have not made the point that theists were any less intelligent. I do claim intellectual dishonesty for anyone who claims a young earth creationist view or people that continue to deny evolution. I don't think they are mentally incapable of accepting it but are mentally unwilling because of their pre-existing worldview. You are the only one bring reductio ad absurdum by stating my argument somehow must reduce their intellectual status.

You may claim ignorance for young earth people but not necessarily dishonesty. They honestly feel he data supports it. I have seen volumes of data that support a young earth. However I find the old earth evidence more convincing. Atheist have such limited and well worn tactics and traits at times I see them in arguments that suggest them even if that was not the intent. I will assume I was mistaken.

You can be skeptical of the sciences all you want but just know that your opinion on the science and any skepticism you actually have will be diluted by your lack of understanding of these sciences. I am the same way and anyone who isn't a physicist to some degree will have a similar problem. I don't have opinions on the best way to design a building with proper structural integrity.

I am educated in science, I work in a scientific lab. I am not highly skeptical of science. I am highly skeptical of modern theoretical science. Science has become not only big business but a virtual cult of personality. It has every motivation for making claims light years beyond where evidence can lead. I am skeptical of that.

Though I must, even in my ignorance, point something out. In your list of things to be skeptical about you list them as if they were equal. String theory is a blanket term for several different theories while M theory is a specific theory and the dominate one that attempts to tie all of the different superstring theories together. Do not attempt to pass your opinion off as educated enough to even know what it is much less state that it is a pitiful excuse. Holographic theory is not a dominate theory held in science and has only gotten media attention because it is unique. I wouldn't use that as an example of a legitimate explination upheld by the scientific community as a whole. In fact their view is my view (and by no coincidence) is that we don't know.

I had no relative values in mind for any of them. They all have conclusions well beyond what evidence merits but some may have a wider margin.

Lastly QM is in fact a well established science. I still do not understand what your objection is.

QM is two letters not a theory. I have confidence that the general view that Newtonian physics can't explain small things but I do not have any confidence that any specific Quantum view is as yet reliable. They currently have ten models and no one knows which one is correct and many are mutually exclusive. An analogy would be seeing 5 year old with a 10 year old reading level and math aptitude. He will probably be successful but at what I don't know and he could turn into a burned out drug addict. At this point not enough maturity exists for either to have reliable conclusions.

You cannot "change state" if you don't exist.

Non-existence is a state. Existence is a state. You have never heard the overwhelming common statement "State of non-existence" or "state of existence before"? An atom appearing in the universe not only has a unique state change but the universe does as well.

I didn't state that I was qualified to teach a logic course. I never claimed that. I am actually qualified to teach one in the primary level of k-12 but that is another matter all together. And I could, pending a universe hired me, teach it at a collegiate level. But I don't think I'm qualified for that personally. But even if I wasn't and even if I did claim anything of the sort (which I did not), anyone who has taken a basic logic 101 course would know exactly what I just stated and how one would be able to equate the situation to the logical equation.

So you have a masters in logic? Even my community college I went to for two of my ten miserable years of higher education required a masters in all subjects I took. What about your state certs for K-12. You must have a bachelors in the subject and be state certified? Actually I am just curious.

With theological implications do not underestimate the amount of validity people will believe it to have. Young earth creationism is still being fought for after hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary.

I know if very well, however the opposite is just as true. I regard many of the arguments against God pure fantasy and many actually defy the evidence yet are held on to for dear life by many.

Also it depends on what you mean by "argument". The cosmological argument isn't a scientific argument and therefore is not in the realm of being 'proven" or "disprove" by evidence. Through reasoning and greater understanding of the way the universe works we can safely assume that the argument itself does not provide a "best" answer as it is funalsifiable and is based upon one great flaw that I have pointed out several times that we may have to agree to disagree on.

Argument is a word that has philosophical foundations.

For something to change in state it must have a pre-existence and a post-existent state. In the creation of matter/energy itself there is no "pre-existence". There was no state to change. It wasn't "state of non-existence" as that is a nonsensical statement. It didn't exist in some kind of illusionary form prior. Or maybe it did. At this point we don't know. And what about before that? And before that? We end up with an endless chain of infinite regression which I know for a fact you are not a fan of. However we then have the problem of spacetime no longer existing so there couldn't be change or existence prior to it as there was NO BEFORE TIME.

So 1 + 1 did not equal two until time = not 0? Existence is a state.

Therefore if it didn't "exist" there couldn't have been a "change" in its "state". It didn't have a "state". Your not getting this "there was no before the universe".

I see we are mired down in the favorite non-theistic morass of semantic Armageddon. Since nothing can extricate an atheist from a morass he prefers, lets just skip the word and use change. Certainly not even arbitrary semantic quicksand can allow claiming non-existence and existence is not a change.

I meant I got it from google. Not telling you to go google it.

Ok.

 

[1robin]

The definition of "change of state" itself would be a good one.

I see we are in the same swamp we left off in.
non•ex•ist•ence (ˌnɒn ɪgˈzɪs təns)


1. absence of existence.

2. something that has no existence.


Type in "state of non-existence" you will get 4 million reasons to get out of the swamp.

BTW the most common argument I get from the quantum is about atoms beginning to exist. They usually mistakenly claim they do uncaused (which is perfectly wrong) but what they don't claim is that it does not occur. Fluctuations in quantum energy field literally cause an atom to begin to exist trillion of times.

I have defined them the same way. I specified it further with different language in case you were somehow confused about the original meaning. But yes the definition of "change" is dependent upon its pre-existence to the change. Otherwise what changed?

This is a trivial point and these posts are getting too large.

Actually your belief in god plays a HUGE role in why you think it makes sense. I don't care how much you deny it you still have this need to have an answer and you don't seem to care if its wrong or not. It also is based upon this idea that there was something "before" time. Which is profoundly intertwined with your theological stance.

I may very well do so but you have no evidence what so ever to evacuate whether it does nor how much it does. It is also a genetic fallacy anyway.

I have seen about 9-10 of his debates over the course of the years. I don't know of any he has definitively won. And I have never heard of an atheist having "the fear of god" put him them by him.

That was the point of the joke. It was Sam Harris who said it. I have never seen him not dominate his counter part with the exception of Carroll. IMO Carroll is the best your side has.

I haven't changed my position. Only your understanding of my position.

I don't think so. I have been stating from the word go the argument passes every validity test. You kept arguing against that but finally agreed.

Or saying that because we can't use a ruler to measure the distance to the sun it means that by default the magic 8 ball has the answer.

This is not about what is right. It was about your claiming not being even in the right category. Pointing to a discipline strictly limited to the natural as a resource for the supernatural is just silly. It is even sillier to limit that point to an arbitrary "modern" time period in science. Most scientists in history have been men of faith and a huge proportion of the best have been Christian.

Except there was no "before time" There was no pre-causal cause by the understanding of causality we have now. For our understanding of causality there MUST be time involved and existence involved. Neither seem to be the case.

I am only going to say this one last time. WE have reasons to believe space time began to exist with the big bang. We have no reasons whatever to think that another time reference did not exist.

Quite a lot. Because then you are not going against "nothing". The fact there is not a leading theory does not give credibility to anyone who makes a stance. The current and best answer is "we don't know". What is dark matter? We don't know. What is dark energy? We don't know. What is the sound of one hand clapping? We don't know.

There is a leading theory, God.

You see the assumptions you make even when attempting to show you do not make any. Dark matter is not known to exist. It isn't a thing we know exists to know anything about. I happen to believe it does exist but unlike you did I admit it is a faith determination. You simply assumed it did in order to make a claim about not assuming things. Atheists are some of the most ironic people I know of.

Actually it does. Spacetime does not exclude time. Spacetime INCLUDES TIME. Time is but one aspect of spacetime that we are able to precieve through our passage through it via entropy. You are factually wrong to state that it does not imply the end of "all time".

Space time is a relation between two things. When one of the things it relates to is missing that part breaks down not the other. For example when moving Miles per hour
applies. When stopped neither miles nor hours cease to exist, but the relational terminology does. Now I can see how space may have not existed and if so then space-time would not have applied, nor would the space part of it. However time is so abstract and unknown as to not have a direct connection with space at the very least in potential. Have you ever had vector mechanics? If so I might can add something to this?

I have yet to see an example of conclusive evidence they understood anything beyond basic philosophical understandings of our universe.

I disagree but lets pretend you were right. There was no philosophy in 1800Bc Israel. How did they get things so abstract so correct.

One that is wildly unsupported.

I can't remember the claim.

Yes. In DNA a naturally occurring chemical chain. We even understand how it formed from RNA.

Here we go again. No one know how this happened. Some have assumed it happened certain ways in spite of mountains of reasons it couldn't but no one has ever seen it occur.

Because we understand the process in which it formed. Complexity is not evidence of a designer.

Complexity almost exclusively is, always greater than equilibrium is, but specified complexity is always caused by mind. No one understands this process. There are guesses and theories but no proof and almost no evidence. I have been given at least two dozen links just to proof about abiogenesis. After following and reading them all there was no evidence what ever for it, they were all thought experiments. I finally gave it up and no longer even follow those links.

High functioning pattern recognition and recreation honed over millions and millions of years of evolution with that being a successful and favorable genetic trait.

The level of difference in capacity in intelligence is greater between us and our "supposed nearest relative" than for anything in the entire 4 billion course of evolution combined. More between us and a chimp than between a chimp and a bacterium.

I saw you use the term. I meant it as a divisive struggle in order to attain some kind of understanding or acceptable middle point. Through points and such.

I used that term? Go figure, I have no recollection of ever typing or writing that word in my life.

You did, as a blanket statement, state "Greek philosophers" as a whole. And it isn't just "exceptions" but in entirety your representation of "Greek Philosophers" is inaccurate.

I wrote Greek philosophers I did not add as a whole. At least I have no memory of doing so. I said Greek philosophers did X and Greek philosophers did x. Only some obsession with technicality would explain bothering with this.

IN society we understand more about the science of what your argument speculates about.

I thought you mentioned time not urbanization. Which is it?

"I don't know". That is a much better answer than anything based upon ignorance.

I do not know is not even the same type of explanation. It is a claim about objective fact. Mine is a claim about best explanations. They do not compete at least in this case. I was on a jury once. I did not know the truth yet we had a consensus about the best explanation.

Though if you take ANYTHING away from this debate please take that just because there is no "answer" doesn't mean that any answer would be better by default. That is not true. Not philosophically, scientifically or otherwise.

My answer is the best explanation we have. Now, that is not dependent on the fact you claim to not know. It is better than those who claim to have a rival explanation. I do not know and I may be wrong, but it is the best explanation we have today.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We were not discussing dualism but what can exist independent of the natural. As for dualism, I find it the very opposite. I find it intuitive I am a brain. I find evidence however that I have a mind independent from a brain.

There are many arguments and evidences for this and it is a dominant modern scientific position. I will give you just one I happen to read last night. Most correlate ourselves as minds. When we say I or you we mean our or your soul or mind. (Christianity actually posits a trinity by the way). So is that true? Is there a me that is not my physicality. Since my identity doe snot suffer loss with the loss of a limb then my identity is not equal to my body. If X is me and Y is my body. X does not equal Y so they are not the same. Losing an arm or even brain tissue does not make anyone less of a person. If you saw a friend who had only a functioning cortex you would still think of their identity as a whole.

But it is still a product of the brain. A physical product of the brain. The "concept" of "me" and "You" and anyone would be a concept not a physical thing. But our thoughts and every other part of us do stem from the physical.

I am educated in science, I work in a scientific lab. I am not highly skeptical of science. I am highly skeptical of modern theoretical science. Science has become not only big business but a virtual cult of personality. It has every motivation for making claims light years beyond where evidence can lead. I am skeptical of that.

Such as?

I had no relative values in mind for any of them. They all have conclusions well beyond what evidence merits but some may have a wider margin.

Then there is nothing more I can argue. If we cannot agree on the facts then we cannot agree on the facts. For example QM isn't a theoretical science. But I like one quote that has been stated several times in this forum by different people "All theories are wrong. But some are useful".

QM is two letters not a theory. I have confidence that the general view that Newtonian physics can't explain small things but I do not have any confidence that any specific Quantum view is as yet reliable. They currently have ten models and no one knows which one is correct and many are mutually exclusive. An analogy would be seeing 5 year old with a 10 year old reading level and math aptitude. He will probably be successful but at what I don't know and he could turn into a burned out drug addict. At this point not enough maturity exists for either to have reliable conclusions.

There is established quantum mechanics mechanisms that we are learning more and more about every day. But what is it exactly that you are not convinced of?

Non-existence is a state. Existence is a state. You have never heard the overwhelming common statement "State of non-existence" or "state of existence before"? An atom appearing in the universe not only has a unique state change but the universe does as well.

Its actually a colorful phrase turned on people to mean that what we assumed to be there wasn't there but the statement itself is nonsensical. Something cannot be in a "state" of non-existence EXCEPT in conceptual form.

So you have a masters in logic? Even my community college I went to for two of my ten miserable years of higher education required a masters in all subjects I took. What about your state certs for K-12. You must have a bachelors in the subject and be state certified? Actually I am just curious.

You only need a BA to teach in elementary school. I now ask what state you attempted to be a teacher in that required that nonsense. Secondly if you teach math it is very likely you don't actually have a degree in mathematics. Especially primary school education and middle school education you don't require any kind of specialization other than a BA in childhood education. Similarly I can get a job as a teacher without a BA in childhood education but it is preferred. All you actually need is a teaching certification. But I think we are getting really off track.

I know if very well, however the opposite is just as true. I regard many of the arguments against God pure fantasy and many actually defy the evidence yet are held on to for dear life by many.

Such as?

So 1 + 1 did not equal two until time = not 0? Existence is a state.

To exist requires a state. To not exist is not a state of existence. In what state is the water found in an empty bucket? Is it Ice, liquid or gas?

I see we are mired down in the favorite non-theistic morass of semantic Armageddon. Since nothing can extricate an atheist from a morass he prefers, lets just skip the word and use change. Certainly not even arbitrary semantic quicksand can allow claiming non-existence and existence is not a change.

There was nothing to change. There was no "anything" prior to the big bang as far as we understand it. Maybe there is. But we don't know.

I see we are in the same swamp we left off in.
non•ex•ist•ence (ˌnɒn ɪgˈzɪs təns)


1. absence of existence.

2. something that has no existence.


Type in "state of non-existence" you will get 4 million reasons to get out of the swamp.

BTW the most common argument I get from the quantum is about atoms beginning to exist. They usually mistakenly claim they do uncaused (which is perfectly wrong) but what they don't claim is that it does not occur. Fluctuations in quantum energy field literally cause an atom to begin to exist trillion of times.

Do you mean "not existing" as in "non physical"? We have non-matter existence. Photons for example. But prior to space time not even that "existed". But do not take QM and defend your position and in the same breath say it is profoundly wrong.

I may very well do so but you have no evidence what so ever to evacuate whether it does nor how much it does. It is also a genetic fallacy anyway.

If I were debating your position was "incorrect" it would be. But do you remember my position?

I don't think so. I have been stating from the word go the argument passes every validity test. You kept arguing against that but finally agreed.

I stated that it is possible for it to be true. By that reguard there is no philisophical argument or truth that invalidates it or proves it wrong. However I do challenge that it "must" be true. It 'COULD" be true but it doesn't "have to be". Nor do I agree it is "best".

This is not about what is right. It was about your claiming not being even in the right category. Pointing to a discipline strictly limited to the natural as a resource for the supernatural is just silly. It is even sillier to limit that point to an arbitrary "modern" time period in science. Most scientists in history have been men of faith and a huge proportion of the best have been Christian.

This is about theological implementation for explanations about the natural world where it doesn't belong. Talk about using the wrong instrument.

I am only going to say this one last time. WE have reasons to believe space time began to exist with the big bang. We have no reasons whatever to think that another time reference did not exist.

Correct. This is the basis of the multiverse theory. But you cannot assume that there was.

There is a leading theory, God.

Except its not a leading theory. Its a possible answer based off of theological presuppositions.

You see the assumptions you make even when attempting to show you do not make any. Dark matter is not known to exist. It isn't a thing we know exists to know anything about. I happen to believe it does exist but unlike you did I admit it is a faith determination. You simply assumed it did in order to make a claim about not assuming things. Atheists are some of the most ironic people I know of.

What is dark matter and I can then show you from there why you are wrong.

Space time is a relation between two things. When one of the things it relates to is missing that part breaks down not the other. For example when moving Miles per hour
applies. When stopped neither miles nor hours cease to exist, but the relational terminology does. Now I can see how space may have not existed and if so then space-time would not have applied, nor would the space part of it. However time is so abstract and unknown as to not have a direct connection with space at the very least in potential. Have you ever had vector mechanics? If so I might can add something to this?

This is untrue. Spacetime is one thing. There are two aspects of it that we experience in different ways but space and time are one. If one did not exist then neither would the other. Where would you be if there was no time? How could something exist if time did not?

And yes I am vaguely familiar with it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Cutting this in two but I tried to cut out the irrelevant parts to make it slimmer.

I disagree but lets pretend you were right. There was no philosophy in 1800Bc Israel. How did they get things so abstract so correct.

There was always philosphy. Were there dedicated schools of philosphy? No. But they did not obtain any kind of scientific truth. I do not believe they got it right.

Here we go again. No one know how this happened. Some have assumed it happened certain ways in spite of mountains of reasons it couldn't but no one has ever seen it occur.

We have ideas on how it works and several different experiments saw the development of the chemicals that would lead to RNA in lab tests with conditions similar to early earth. But don't reduce this to "I need to see it" for a process that took nearly 4 billion years.

But I do agree that abiogensis isn't exact. We don't have a photograph of the first "life" and it is still a mystery. But again because it is absent from knowledge doesn't automatically make theological claims correct. Theological claims but bring about evidence on their own.

Have a read on one of many articles. How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily

Complexity almost exclusively is, always greater than equilibrium is, but specified complexity is always caused by mind. No one understands this process. There are guesses and theories but no proof and almost no evidence. I have been given at least two dozen links just to proof about abiogenesis. After following and reading them all there was no evidence what ever for it, they were all thought experiments. I finally gave it up and no longer even follow those links.

We understand the process of evolution and exactly how it becomes more and more complex. There is natural complexity all around us and there are very very very very very very very basic, non-complex, designed objects. I think you would like this thread

The level of difference in capacity in intelligence is greater between us and our "supposed nearest relative" than for anything in the entire 4 billion course of evolution combined. More between us and a chimp than between a chimp and a bacterium.

Demonstrably false.

I do not know is not even the same type of explanation. It is a claim about objective fact. Mine is a claim about best explanations. They do not compete at least in this case. I was on a jury once. I did not know the truth yet we had a consensus about the best explanation.

But your argument doesn't provide you with a "best" epxlination. A possible one not a best one. You have yet to provide reason as to why it is the best explanation.

My answer is the best explanation we have. Now, that is not dependent on the fact you claim to not know. It is better than those who claim to have a rival explanation. I do not know and I may be wrong, but it is the best explanation we have today.

What if I removed "god" and put in "force". Would that not be equally valid?

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>The FIRST Heaven or Universe was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
The other Heavens or Universes were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

The three heavens are not three universes. They are three regions in our own universe. One is terrestrial, the bible says the other is where the birds live (the atmosphere), the third is space and the rest of natural and supernatural reality. The bible and reality have only one universe.
Having three redundant universe is incoherent and unnecessary, nor is it biblical. The rest of your claims were close enough to allow me to leave them alone.

Dear robin, Isaiah 24:19 tells us the world of Adam was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Are you trying to tell us that it was Planet Earth which was clean dissolved. IF so, then WHY is it still here? You also tell us that the 2nd Heaven is our atmosphere. Where will we go when our Heaven is burned. ll Peter 3:10

IOW, your false idea of what Scripture is speaking of is absurd. Here is God's Truth.

Adam's 1st Heaven was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:5
Our 2nd Heaven will be burned. ll Peter 3:10
The THIRD Heaven, spoken of in ll Corinthians 12:2 and called the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21:1, is where Christians will live forever.

Sounds like 3 Biospheres or Universes to me. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[1robin]

But it is still a product of the brain. A physical product of the brain. The "concept" of "me" and "You" and anyone would be a concept not a physical thing. But our thoughts and every other part of us do stem from the physical.

That is an assumption. One which runs against a lot of evidence and even theoretical physics. Besides that it is not even a challenge. It matters what is true of the concept not what it's source is. Even if the brain alone produces the concept it would not invalidate the concept anyway. When people with all the blood drained from there brains sand even brain specialists themselves have all types and kinds of experiences while dead your speculation has problems beyond being speculative.

Such as?

Multiverses, dark matter, holographic theory, M theory, abiogenesis, etc....

Then there is nothing more I can argue. If we cannot agree on the facts then we cannot agree on the facts. For example QM isn't a theoretical science. But I like one quote that has been stated several times in this forum by different people "All theories are wrong. But some are useful".

The existence of quantum science is not theoretical but specific claims are. Your saying is also technically incorrect. Some theories are true.

There is established quantum mechanics mechanisms that we are learning more and more about every day. But what is it exactly that you are not convinced of?

Well I have no general interest in the quantum. I simply have never seen anything it contains used as a counter to God that is reliable enough to persuade me. May be true but at this time far too speculative to be persuasive. I must have heard the appearance of atoms without Newtonian causes short circuits the cosmological argument. That is just plain wrong, no quantum event lacks a cause, it is just an exotic cause usually of an energy fluctuation is an example.

Its actually a colorful phrase turned on people to mean that what we assumed to be there wasn't there but the statement itself is nonsensical. Something cannot be in a "state" of non-existence EXCEPT in conceptual form. You only need a BA to teach in elementary school. I now ask what state you attempted to be a teacher in that required that nonsense. Secondly if you teach math it is very likely you don't actually have a degree in mathematics. Especially primary school education and middle school education you don't require any kind of specialization other than a BA in childhood education. Similarly I can get a job as a teacher without a BA in childhood education but it is preferred. All you actually need is a teaching certification. But I think we are getting really off track.

Some one should patent non-theistic semantic quicksand. Once you contact it you can never escape it.

Such as?

I listed a few above.

To exist requires a state. To not exist is not a state of existence. In what state is the water found in an empty bucket? Is it Ice, liquid or gas?

Non-existence is a state of existence. It is the contrary state of existence. Water is found to be in a non-existent state in an empty bucket. If I move in this quick sand do I sink faster?

There was nothing to change. There was no "anything" prior to the big bang as far as we understand it. Maybe there is. But we don't know.

If you cannot agree that something beginning to exist is not a change then I have no basis on which to debate the issue at all.

Do you mean "not existing" as in "non physical"? We have non-matter existence. Photons for example. But prior to space time not even that "existed". But do not take QM and defend your position and in the same breath say it is profoundly wrong.

I have known what you meant from the first mention. We just are not going to agree and to continue this is like two mules fighting over a turnip.

If I were debating your position was "incorrect" it would be. But do you remember my position?

I can't remember the context of this or my statement. I seem to attract every prolific debater there is and my memory is not the best in the world.

I stated that it is possible for it to be true. By that reguard there is no philisophical argument or truth that invalidates it or proves it wrong. However I do challenge that it "must" be true. It 'COULD" be true but it doesn't "have to be". Nor do I agree it is "best".

I am drawing a blank of what the "it" was here. I am too busy with scientific failures in my lab currently to allow going back and looking. Sorry.

This is about theological implementation for explanations about the natural world where it doesn't belong. Talk about using the wrong instrument.

Now this one I remember. You made a claim similar to the common one about how many scientists believe in God or what science's conclusion is about him.

1. This is arbitrary in that only recently has secularism dominated science. Science's Golden age and general history has been dominated by theists.
2. A naturalistic discipline is necessarily the worst one to draw supernatural conclusions from.

Correct. This is the basis of the multiverse theory. But you cannot assume that there was.

I really do not have a need for time before the universe. God and his activities are independent of time. I was simply pointing out it is arbitrary to suspend time even when space time ceases.

Except its not a leading theory. Its a possible answer based off of theological presuppositions.

No it is a leading theory that only compares scientific and theological conclusions to pre-existing theological descriptions. Secular reasons necessitate something very God like created the universe. I find they match exactly a theological concept I found pre-existing.

What is dark matter and I can then show you from there why you are wrong.

That is humorously presumptuous. I am not the one that assumed dark matter exists and so have no burden of defining it.

This is untrue. Spacetime is one thing. There are two aspects of it that we experience in different ways but space and time are one. If one did not exist then neither would the other. Where would you be if there was no time? How could something exist if time did not?

If space did not exist space-time would cease to exist but any manner of other time domains would not be affected. Something independent of time is not bound by time. God can either by independent of time or exist in a God-time relationship instead of a space time relationship. Time is almost a variable here since it is such an illusive abstract concept.

 

[1robin]

Cutting this in two but I tried to cut out the irrelevant parts to make it slimmer.

I'm going to have to continue cutting to make this practical.

There was always philosphy. Were there dedicated schools of philosphy? No. But they did not obtain any kind of scientific truth. I do not believe they got it right.

The brilliant scholars who have agreed with the cosmological argument disagree.

We have ideas on how it works and several different experiments saw the development of the chemicals that would lead to RNA in lab tests with conditions similar to early earth. But don't reduce this to "I need to see it" for a process that took nearly 4 billion years.

I get I need to see it requests for concepts that do not even exist in the natural world. Why does science get a pass?

But I do agree that abiogensis isn't exact. We don't have a photograph of the first "life" and it is still a mystery. But again because it is absent from knowledge doesn't automatically make theological claims correct. Theological claims but bring about evidence on their own.

The lack of evidence is not really part of my claim. My claim is that naturalism has no good explanation for it. Every one I hear is torn to shreds by even other biologists. Every link to even partial evidence turns out to be a goose chase. I juts do not find any reason to think materialism alone could ever produce life but I am not a biologist.

Have a read on one of many articles. How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily
We understand the process of evolution and exactly how it becomes more and more complex. There is natural complexity all around us and there are very very very very very very very basic, non-complex, designed objects. I think you would like this thread

Sorry I just don't have time right now. BTW how can intelligence producing something be proof intelligence did not produce it. Just a weird irony there.

Demonstrably false.

Good grief. Ok find my any other species in the history of the universe that has created even the simplest tools from the bronze age.

But your argument doesn't provide you with a "best" epxlination. A possible one not a best one. You have yet to provide reason as to why it is the best explanation.

I have never heard another explanation that both had evidence and did not have a defeater.

What if I removed "god" and put in "force". Would that not be equally valid?

That is a distinction without difference in this context. I care not what label you put on it (or at least won't bother insisting on any), whatever it is appears to be an exact match for the biblical description of God. Labeling it a force really has no impact here. Force is not technically valid here but I will not get bogged down in semantic technicalities here.

 

[1robin]

Aman:>>The FIRST Heaven or Universe was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
The other Heavens or Universes were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4



Dear robin, Isaiah 24:19 tells us the world of Adam was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Are you trying to tell us that it was Planet Earth which was clean dissolved. IF so, then WHY is it still here? You also tell us that the 2nd Heaven is our atmosphere. Where will we go when our Heaven is burned. ll Peter 3:10

IOW, your false idea of what Scripture is speaking of is absurd. Here is God's Truth.

Adam's 1st Heaven was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:5
Our 2nd Heaven will be burned. ll Peter 3:10
The THIRD Heaven, spoken of in ll Corinthians 12:2 and called the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21:1, is where Christians will live forever.

Sounds like 3 Biospheres or Universes to me. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Well to start with your English translation seems to be the exception.

New International Version
The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken.

New Living Translation
The earth has broken up. It has utterly collapsed; it is violently shaken.

English Standard Version
The earth is utterly broken, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken.

New American Standard Bible
The earth is broken asunder, The earth is split through, The earth is shaken violently.

King James Bible
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The earth is completely devastated; the earth is split open; the earth is violently shaken.

International Standard Version
The earth is utterly shattered, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken.

NET Bible
The earth is broken in pieces, the earth is ripped to shreds, the earth shakes violently.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The earth will be completely broken. The earth will shake back and forth violently. The earth will stagger.

Jubilee Bible 2000
The earth shall be utterly broken down; the earth is clean dissolved; the earth is moved exceedingly.

King James 2000 Bible
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is shaken exceedingly.

American King James Version
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

American Standard Version
The earth is utterly broken, the earth is rent asunder, the earth is shaken violently.

Douay-Rheims Bible
With breaking shall the earth be broken, with crushing shall the earth be crushed, with trembling shall the earth be moved.

Darby Bible Translation
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is completely dissolved, the earth is violently moved.

English Revised Version
The earth is utterly broken, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

Webster's Bible Translation
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is entirely dissolved, the earth is exceedingly moved.

World English Bible
The earth is utterly broken. The earth is torn apart. The earth is shaken violently.

Young's Literal Translation
Utterly broken down hath been the land, Utterly broken hath been the land, Utterly moved hath been the land.

Regardless the implications here have never been the earth ceasing to exist. God was not mad at the dirt. He was mad at men. That is the object of what was cleansed. The earth was rid of that evil generation.

So I see no value in your initial claim but lets check out the next one. II Peter says:

New International Version
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

New Living Translation
Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood.

English Standard Version
and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

New American Standard Bible
through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

King James Bible
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Through these waters the world of that time perished when it was flooded.

International Standard Version
by which the world at that time was deluged with water and destroyed.

NET Bible
Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
By which the world which then was, lay in water and was destroyed.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Water also flooded and destroyed that world.

Jubilee Bible 2000
by which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished;

King James 2000 Bible
By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

American King James Version
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

American Standard Version
by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

Darby Bible Translation
through which [waters] the then world, deluged with water, perished.

English Revised Version
by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Webster's Bible Translation
By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Weymouth New Testament
and that, by means of these, the then existing race of men was overwhelmed with water and perished.

World English Bible
by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

Young's Literal Translation
through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed;

In this case I was in a hurry but did not spot your translation anywhere. I believe your trying to read into something what you wish to see there. These verses are simply about the original creation being cleansed of the evil generation that existed at the flood.

Your last point is about two verses probably referring to the same place but not at the same time. The earth and it's atmosphere are burned but not destroyed. Just as in the flood all it's evil is destroyed but unlike the flood this time God remakes the earth in perfection. Now all three version of heaven are united. God is in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is on the earth and is the capitol of heaven. The reason the two heaven cannot currently interact normally with the third is that God cannot dwell with sin indefinitely. What is sinful separates it's self from what is perfect but in the end this world is made perfect and nothing separates it any longer from heaven.

As far as I know no major Christian denomination teaches your view as I understand it beyond the LDS. Are you LDS? I however think I still lack clarity on your views. Do you have any creeds or accepted doctrine that amplify what your suggesting? I am not sure if we have real differences or semantic ones.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is an assumption. One which runs against a lot of evidence and even theoretical physics. Besides that it is not even a challenge. It matters what is true of the concept not what it's source is. Even if the brain alone produces the concept it would not invalidate the concept anyway. When people with all the blood drained from there brains sand even brain specialists themselves have all types and kinds of experiences while dead your speculation has problems beyond being speculative.

What evidence?

 

[1robin]

What evidence?

Hello ST, I gave several. What about the libraries full of NDE claims. Are they to be added to the 2 billion Christians as the group that all have to be wrong for you to be right?

 

[Sapiens]

Are they to be added to the 2 billion Christians as the group that all have to be wrong for you to be right?

I can live with that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hello ST, I gave several. What about the libraries full of NDE claims. Are they to be added to the 2 billion Christians as the group that all have to be wrong for you to be right?

Hello 1Robin.

Why do you consider NDE claims evidence that minds can exist without brains?