Sapiens
Polymathematician
That lines is almost too good to pass on.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The "something can't come from nothing" argument
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I submit evidence that the planet will turn into a vegas resort in a couple weeks cause I prophetically saw it in an OBE I had when sleeping.
Scripture says NOTHING about the world of today being REMADE. The THIRD Heaven is already there, and is where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. The first world was totally destroyed because it was filled with the sin of mankind. The present Cosmos is the world which Crucified our LORD Jesus. Do you really think that God is going to melt the elements of our Cosmos, and then rebuild it? Instantly?
I am a Baptist Bible Believer. I support what I write with the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and HIstory since there is but ONE Truth and God's Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth, or we have NOT yet found God's Truth. Adam's world was clean dissolved in the Flood. Isaian 24:19 It could NOT have been our Earth since our world is covered with water but the third Rock, from the Sun, does not dissolve in water. Does it? God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
Wow you really gotta twist that story to make it fit any resemblance of reality. Why cant you just accept adam as the first human on earth like the story alludes to? Well rest assured that whatever point we wanna say that an animal diverged to human, that the animal had parents and didnt pop out of the ground or some other mini planet. We trace all the changes right here on this planet.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I am certain you can. What you can't do is hold that belief as valid.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I will give you one of countless examples. For now I will give it to you from memory but it is well documented and easily found. I will find it for you if you want but I am on my way out currently.
A women had to have a surgery that required her brain not only be non-functional but free of blood. She was technically brain dead for a time period I cannot recall. She recovered and had many stories about not only what had occurred in the operating room but also at other off site locations. In many cases I find the evidence sketchy but in this one there was great interest because of her being so without the capacity to know anything. They recorded her stories (including her doctors that did the procedure) and studied them in depth. Every single one (at least that I had heard of) was exactly accurate. They even matched nurses notes.
Another was actually from a brain specialist who was technically brain dead and is a very famous and modern case.
I even gave you articles from journals about the minds primacy to matter. Everything seems to be trending in the direction I suggested. I have to bolt but let me know if you want links.
There is even a prestigious study group which studies these events from a secular perspective. The lead researcher said he would hesitate to validate life after death but would testify that the mind can survive for at least a short period after brain death.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Sure I can, none of you have any empirical data to support your stance. Believe what you want, you have that right, but don't pretend it's naught but a fairy tale or that voting establishes truth.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It is a conclusion based upon the evidence. You have mentioned many times later in this thread about how you have evidence of our brains somehow working without our brains. I would like a link to a credible source. Otherwise it amounts to hogwash.
You misunderstand the phrase then.
If non-existence is a state of existence then we have found the long lost "actual infinity" that you keep denying. An infinite number of things don't exist right now. So they are existing in a state of non-existence?
This I think is the core problem. You are asserting that there must have been something before spacetime and I'm saying we don't know because by every measure of the sentence its nonsensical. When we get our circled squares inside the outside of the inside.
1. Their theistic stance did nothing to further their scientific cause or discovories.
2. Mainly because naturalistic discipline usually rule out supernatural as they are not verified, nay not even justified from a scholarly standpoint.
Exactly. If your theological concept was different beforehand you might have come to a different conclusion. You find an argument appealing because it matches your world view.
I'm not asking you to defend it. I'm asking you if you know what it is?
How would one derive this kind of conclusion? Based upon what? Necessity is not enough to make that leap.
And the brilliant scholars who disagree with the cosmological argument would agree with me. There is not an authority appeal here.
Because we have evidence for abiogensis based upon experimentation. We understand how it "could" have happened and no one is claiming that it DID happen that way. Much like your claim it is simply the best explanation. However unlike your claim it does have evidence and research behind it.
Didn't say it was "proof" just that intelligence can arise from mindless processes.
First off there is no single way to measure intelligence. Chimpanzees are capable of learning simple sign language and of using tools. Chimpanzees are even able to hurl rocks as weapons which was something done by some of our earliest ancestors just after the split from the common ancestor between us and chimpanzees.
A force would not be intelligent and would not have intent. At best it would be a process that we know nothing about. It still amounts to "I don't know" but it would be more intellectually honest than stating a Deity. Mainly because you feel that what started the universe must contain A, B and C but the implications of a Deity would contain A,B,C,D,E,G,X,Y and Z. Even if we narrowed it down to something that required A, B and C it would not imply it had D,E,G,X,Y or Z.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If this is not a re-making then nothing ever has been:
New International Version
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
Sounds far worse than the flood. Yes the earth minus it's populations will be burned but not destroyed. It will be made new and perfect. Both God and Christ will dwell with man on the new earth with the new Israel currently being prepared will be it's capitol.
As for the third heaven being made. That is debatable, the bible says.
New International Version
My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?
That certainly says heaven was not finished when Christ was on earth and it never indicates it was complete there after. But it does not matter. My comment was that Heaven will eventually have the new Israel as it's capitol and Earth as it's focus point which is not currently the case. The first second and third heaven will be in the exact same dimension as at least the first two are currently.
I did not see any scripture above.
I showed you that:
1. Dissolved was never written by a single biblical author and is only used as a translation by the King James version. Every other version uses words similar to destroyed. Why are you going with the extreme minority interpretation.
2. Adam had no world except the earth. I have no idea what your talking about. The earth was covered by water but not when Adam lived. It was it's most primitive state. It went through many states before Adam shows up whether you grant ages or days as concerns creation. Those claims were so bizarre I am not even sure I understood them.
3. No interpretation or commentary I have ever seen equates dissolve or destroy with total annihilation. We do not even do that in every day language use. That verse is unanimously interpreted to mean the sinful agents of the world were destroyed not the planet. The societies, influences and moral agents of Adams world angered God. The planet did not sin. The bible even lists exactly what was destroyed and the planet is not among them.
I am also a Baptist and have never heard what it at least appears you believe in any sermon or creed. I have also belonged to Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and visited many others and did not hear it there either.
I tell you what find me any commentator accepted by most Christians which explains your views. They appear so strange I suspect I misunderstand them.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is pretty much what personal testimony is by necessity. It is a primary tool, in many cases virtually the only tool, by which matters of life and death in every court room in history has accepted as sufficient.
You literally have to sit in the jury box hear billions of claims to be eyewitnesses to the same event, compare that with billions who have no access to the event and choose to believe the latter instead of the former. You can't justify that unless you have an overwhelming empirical case which does not exist and has not even been mentioned in this context. Even then it would be questionable. Atheism is simply not on the table and even agnosticism would be ridiculous in the event described above.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Links do not determine whatever my claims are "hogwash" or not. Truth does. Links to what, the specific examples I gave or the physics/philosophy I mentioned?
This will have to be a casualty of time constraints.
Non-existence is a state of existence but it does not have magnitude.
I have agreed with we have no certainty every time you mention it. We do however have theories about what could have existed prior to this universe. Among them mine is the best.
I have never understood this response. Answers are not true or false dependent on how much science can be done with them. Reality does not exist to serve anyone in a lab coat. Science is such a dogmatic and narrow world view, I would feel cheated to have only it.
This again is like asking why a thermometer does not measure distance. The study of the nature necessarily has no application to the super-natural EXCEPT for corollary results. In that field science and theology are almost wedded. That is if you consider history and the like a science.
That is somewhat true I guess. But is not true that base appeal on convenience. I at one time believed evolution was very inconvenient yet adopted it in part long before it lost it's inconvenience. The order is off as well. I found a general claim to be fact long before I looked at any scientific correlation with it. Only after proven did I investigate it's secondary claims about historical events. I find marvelous correlation but convenience followed proof (subjective proof) it did not cause it.
No one knows what it is. It is not detectable by any instrument or faculty. It is assumed to be a mass like substance that explains the source for all the gravity that seems to exist without traditional mass. You assumed it existed so you should easily be able to tell me exactly what it is.
Why not? If I have good reason to believe a bat is necessary to explain why a baseball flew over the outfield fence during a game what more do I need for faith in the existence of bats?
I do not depend on fallacies so I agree with your statement. There are brilliant men who disagree. I find their arguments not your sources to be flawed.
I can sit around and invent a thousand ways the pyramids could have been built. That is not evidence that any one of them is correct. It is kind of ironic that the answers you mention only produce more questions. That is also generally true. Most scientists I have heard say that every discovery increase what we realize we don't know. It is sort of like discovering America. We answered the question about another continent but now we have a million about what is on it. Kind of paradoxical and maybe alluded to by the incompleteness theorem.
Crap! I got technological meltdown number 7 occurring. If I suddenly stop without finishing I had to go fix it.
How is an experiment prepared by brilliant men mindless? Actually I am just pointing out the irony here.
I do not disagree but how can you know the rock part about our possible earliest ancestors. Behavior leaves few fossils.
I did not say I would agree with you or that I think your term justifiable. I just meant I do not care about labels. If your making a technical claim about force like it being Newton's or PSI or something then your term is incoherent. If you being general like a mysterious star wars kind of force I can at least not object. Forces technically have relations to things you would lack pre-universe. Forces also do not chose to act but are brute facts. If one pre-exited the universe it would have either created a universe from eternity past or never have. WE should not expect it to have created a finite universe. Actually that last one may require more thought.
Your use of variables is I think correct. A,B, and see do not prove X, Y, and Z. But this is just one argument in thousands. Others do get X, Y, and Z. The point was nothing else had A, B, and C prior to this universe existing and evidence it it's self exists. So I can still get God but not certain attributes by that single argument. Anyway I have to get back to making science work. Have a good one.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Since you bring up a courtroom analogy ... the test is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim ... that's you. Let's see some proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. One the other side, If you don't have a "reasonable doubt" about all this foolishness, then you're crazy as a loon.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I will have to accept the reasonable doubt thing using my analogy but it is a subjective criteria which has no objective reference. I remember being given those instruction and the first question we asked in the jury is what the heck reasonable doubt is. I think it is simply a term that implies an attempt to be reasonable.
Having said that it would not apply in the analogies context because only an analogies similarities apply. The bible certainty suggests we test everything but does not make any demands about reasonable doubts. I think in this case our criteria is best conclusion not reasonable doubt.
My analogy is also dissimilar because Christians have subjective proof about God but empirical doubts about specific events.
BTW are you a pirate? I like the eye patch look. Is that you or just an avatar?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
You haven't given a physics example of a soul existing outside of a brain. Philisophically it exists as a concept but concepts do not "exist" except within the mind. And yeah I would like a link to a credible source about someone having out of body experiences with accurate identification of events.
Make a case that non-existence is a state of existence. You can say that a concept of something is in a state of non-existence such as something not being where it should be ect, but you have not made a case of physical non-existence being existent.
And I wholeheartedly think you are full of it when you say that.
If by "narrow" you mean methodologically the only successful way to obtain what is "true" about our universe rather than fluff and baseless assertions...then yeah.
One must first make the case that the supernatural exists and has any kind of merit.
Exactly. We do not know what it is. But based about our knowledge of the universe and its calculations some force or matter must exist in order to create this effect. We have no idea what it is or its properties but we know it exists. This is an example of the correct way to have inductive reasoning bring you to a logical conclusion and make accurate predictions.
If you had no idea what a ball was or that there was anything on the other side of the fence and the ball warps and stands in direct contradition to everything you know to be true by every scientific standpoint... I doubt you would be able to know it was a bat. You have knowledge of bats and of balls and their function as well as the field and all these other factors. We don't know any of these factors. We live in that ball with no knowledge of what is outside. We wouldn't have the concept of the bat.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The Bible suggests that you test everything? Horse pucky! Against what standard, some joke like: "subjective proof?" You don't begin to cross the line of reasonable doubt. Subjective proof: now there's an oxymoron for you.
I am not a pirate, that is me, the patch is not a permanent feature.
Brilliant! I agree.
Intent isnt what is necessary but action is, and action doesnt necessarily mean intended.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So you are an accident?...(trick question)
Yes and no. Wanted but could not be predicted.