There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

To be blunt the word above look like a perfect example of
"If you can't blind them with brilliance baffle them with ************

You read it all

 

[Serenity7855]

My intention was not ad hominem, but you were using arguments from authority, with yourself being the authority, and it is this assertion I'm contesting.

And I wrote:



To this you answered:



I do not think you lied about your knowledge of scripture, which makes it even more suspicious that you chose to claim that "the eye plucking bit does not say you will go to hell". Yes it does say so, and your claim is simply false.

So either you do not know the Bible (or more correctly the Sermon on the Mount which is one of the best-known bits of the Bible) as well as you think you do, or you must have known that it does indeed say that your body will go to hell. And you did quote from the correct part of the Bible, indicating that your knowledge of scripture is not at fault, but you chose to quote Matthew 5 chapters 27 and 28 but not 29, in your attempt to claim that Jesus didn't say that your body would go to hell if you didn't pluck out your eye after committing thought crime.

I did make a spelling error though that changed the meaning of the sentence. The word "jail" should have been "hell". I don't know where I got the jail from.

The Sermon on the Mount is the Beatitude. It is the point at which Jesus introduced the Abrahamic Covenant and fulfilled the Mosaic Law. I am very familiar with it.

It is my personal belief that every word that the Scriptures contain has been selected by God.

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

It is better to do "this" than to receive "that" . He is saying that it is better for you to lose an eye then it is to lose your whole body, not that by gouging out your eye will you lose your body. The offending eye I the bigging of you ending up in hell That, to me, states that if you continue committing sins of the flesh you will end up in hell, whatever you believe hell is. It is a deterrent.

 

[outhouse]

The Sermon on the Mount is the Beatitude. It is the point at which Jesus introduced the Abrahamic Covenant and fulfilled the Mosaic Law. I am very familiar with it.

Most scholars claim it as a later compilation of collected sayings.

Both books contradict each other on location, as well as content.


I think one has to be intellectually daft to think the size of people claimed is accurate, as well as to think that a Galilean woul dbe screaming so all could hear. On top of that his parables all loose meaning if read as written. They make much more sense read one by one, so that the audience would have time to digest them. They were supposed to be thought about. Not heard and moved on to the next one as written.


In other words, historians think it never happened, and there is no evidence backing up that it did. Only large amounts of evidence it could not, or did not take place.

 

[Bunyip]

Hmmm, I prove you right? Are you concerned about being proven wrong then?

I denied it because it was a false accusation.

No, in reality I did not. It was a grammatical error that you sniffed out and used against me rather then debate the topic of the thread.



You are being silly.

cause

1.
. . a. The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
. . b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.


The cause could have taken place simultaneously with the BB, at t=0. But we have done all that. Even if it was not caused it can still be attributed to a God.

Nope, if they are simultaneous - they are not cause and effect. Effect must follow cause - they are time dependant.

Metaphysics

1. cosmology - the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe
2. a branch of philosophy concerned with being, first principles, and often including aspects of cosmology and epistemology.
3. abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning
4. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
5. concerned primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical considerations; "theoretical science"

Intuition - a hunch or a guess.

You are again trying to refute my points by inadvertently confirming them - extraordinary.
Yes, as you say metaphysical intuiti8ns are guesses, not axioms as you falsely claimed.

In my opinion it does. A metaphysical intuition is no more than a guess, therefore, it is the starting block for all scientific phenomenon. But let's not be to picky with words. We all understand what is being said even if you do not like how it is being said, chill out man.

Yes, the STARTING POINT, you seem to forget what must follow after the starting point.

As to chiling out - you Sir have flung a great many more insults than any all other participants in this thread put together.
I do.



Synonymous

2. (foll by: with) closely associated (with) or suggestive (of): his name was synonymous with greed. Or the guess/hunch was synonymous with the axiom

Yes, I think that I can use that word in this context. You might not like it but I am not here to Please you.




You think, even with your pernickety and fastidious punctiliousness[/QUOTE]

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

In an earlier comment I pointed out that the Kalam as you have presented it is neither sound nor valid, to which you responded; 'What?'

Do I then take it that you are not aware of what soundness and validity mean in the context of a logical argument such as the Kalam?

If, like the Kalam and argument is neither sound nor valid, then it is fallacious - as is the case here.

I do think it interesting that you presented the Kalam first of all as a scientific argument of fact, which is of course not the case. When challenged you have conceded that it is a philosophical argument, not a scienctific one - but now have demonstrated that you do not in fact understand how philisophical arguments work either.

The bottom line is that the Kalam is not evidence at all, philosophical arguments are not evidence - and if they are neother sound nor valid, they are not even informative.

 

[ruffen]

Kalam, while logically coherent:
P1. what starts to exist must have a cause for its existence
P2. the Universe started to exist
C. the Universe must have a cause for its existence

is definitely not evidence for anything, because the assertions P1 and P2 are taken without evidence for them.

Applying our experience of millimetre-to-kilometre-sized objects to quantum mechanics, relativity, and the origin of our Universe is a leap of faith, not evidence. What is true for rocks and elephants and coins (rearrangement from preexisting material within preexisting spacetime), is not necessarily true for a Universe (material and spacetime coming into existence, possibly from nothing).

Therefore, the Kalam cosmological argument really tells us nothing.

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity

In an earlier comment I pointed out that the Kalam as you have presented it is neither sound nor valid, to which you responded; 'What?'

Do I then take it that you are not aware of what soundness and validity mean in the context of a logical argument such as the Kalam?

If, like the Kalam and argument is neither sound nor valid, then it is fallacious - as is the case here.

I do think it interesting that you presented the Kalam first of all as a scientific argument of fact, which is of course not the case. When challenged you have conceded that it is a philosophical argument, not a scienctific one - but now have demonstrated that you do not in fact understand how philisophical arguments work either.

The bottom line is that the Kalam is not evidence at all, philosophical arguments are not evidence - and if they are neother sound nor valid, they are not even informative.

My intellectual abilities are not the subject of debate here. What is up for debate is evidence that suggests that a reasonable man might conclude that a God is responsible for the existence of the universe, in which we all reside. A scientific argument of fact, as you put it, is a contradiction in terms. How can a argument for an events causation be a fact, or visa versa? I ether put it forward as a possible argument for an event or I state the actuality of that event as a fact, therefore, I have either stated a fact or I am giving my opinion. If the reader believes it is a fact, then I apologize for being misleading, as it is an argument for the existence of God, that when put together with the other arguments produces a theory. A theory that God exists.

Abiogenesis is not dissimilar to the big bang. We do not know how it happened, yet we except the results of it in the form of evolution. We can speculate all we like but we cannot replicate, which is an essential ingredient in the scientific method. We can, however, replicate the Big Bang in the large Hadron Collider to see what happened a millionth of a second after the big bang. Those condition demonstrate that a big bang took place some 13.7 billion years ago. So what caused it?

That is where Kalam comes in. He is speculating that if everything was nothing, then what caused it to change from nothing into something. Kalam does not present the postulation as evidence, neither do I, though those are the words that you are fastidiously placing in my mouth. He puts it forward as an argument. That is why it is called the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. If we agree that the big bang took place, simultaneously with the cause, at t=0, then the question of causation must be asked. If the conclusion to that question results in the prognosis that it was caused, then we need to ask, what caused it, could it have been a God? Couple that with all of the other evidences and a reasonable man would conclude that a God is indeed a reasonable assumption. To believe that it just appeared would present the dilemma of asking, if the universe can just appear then why not a white rabbit, a car, a apple.

 

[ruffen]

What if the Universe didn't start existing?
What if the Big Bang had no cause?
Or if the Big Bang had a natural cause occuring outside of time and space, but not an intelligent one?

Has anyone really observed something beginning to exist? When building a chair or giving birth, every atom was there from before the chair or child "came into existence" because the point when it became a chair or a child is a matter of definition. It was rearrangement of pre-existing material.

Yes, photons can create matter, matter can create photons, energy can create particles (accelerator action) etc. But the total sum of mass/energy (which is the same thing) is constant.

So, has anyone ever witnessed something coming into existence that didn't come from pre-existing material or energy?

The only example I can think of is particles popping in and out of existence at quantum physics scales. And those do indeed seem uncaused, and at least not a result of a carefully thought-out master plan by an intelligent being.

 

[outhouse]

What is up for debate is evidence that suggests that a reasonable man might conclude that a God is responsible for the existence of the universe,


.

By reasonable you mean someone with no knowledge what so ever?


Someone would have a choice.


Natural unknown explanation, OR what many claim as a mythological character who snapped his fingers and the universe formed.

When there is NO scientific evidence such a concept even exist, and appears to be an ancient mans creation in literature in mythology in religion that carries zero credibility as a real explanation due to the many serious errors in scripture that go directly against what we know of how people and the earth came into existence.

 

[outhouse]

What if the Universe didn't start existing?
.

It did.

Space and time did start to exist. Not up for debate.


Could have been a super massive black hole exploding. I tend to follow that as a guess.


It sure beats what ancient people thought! You know, the earth was flat and some mythological Canaanite warrior and his father were compiled into one god and he did it all.

 

[ruffen]

It did.

Space and time did start to exist. Not up for debate.


Could have been a super massive black hole exploding. I tend to follow that as a guess.


It sure beats what ancient people thought! You know, the earth was flat and some mythological Canaanite warrior and his father were compiled into one god and he did it all.

Are you sure it started to exist? If "starting to exist" means "going from a state of non-existence to existence", and spacetime itself is a property of the Universe and therefore came into existence along with the Universe, this means that there was never a time when the Universe did not exist. Therefore it never transitioned from non-existence to existence.

 

[outhouse]

If "starting to exist" means "going from a state of non-existence to existence",

Yes and No

The material existed. The space and material expanded during the BB.


Its like an egg hatching, and saying the chicken did not exist before it hatched.


Comprehend now

this means that there was never a time when the Universe did not exist.

Yes and no. Again,,,,, did the chicken exist, before it hatched?

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about stages here.

And one person who belongs to a known biased group that would rather "keep making" ancient men's mistakes, and attribute what is not known, to ancient mythology.

 

[Serenity7855]

What if the Universe didn't start existing?
What if the Big Bang had no cause?
Or if the Big Bang had a natural cause occuring outside of time and space, but not an intelligent one?

It is not possible for a "natural" cause to occur outside of space and time because without space and time they are not natural.

Has anyone really observed something beginning to exist? When building a chair or giving birth, every atom was there from before the chair or child "came into existence" because the point when it became a chair or a child is a matter of definition. It was rearrangement of pre-existing material.

I must admit that these word really exit me. Isn't it miraculous. It means that we are only children of the universe constructed using elements that are eternal and even when conscious life disappears we will continue to exist in another form. It is marvellous to contemplate at what time that chair began to exist and will ever cease to exist. You have to admit that it feels quite miraculous? As an answer to your question, in my experience, the answer is no. Even in quantum physics such a phenomenon is treated with a degree of scepticism to outright denial of such an event occurring.

Yes, photons can create matter, matter can create photons, energy can create particles (accelerator action) etc. But the total sum of mass/energy (which is the same thing) is constant

I know, how fascinating that is. I will be born and I will create life and die but the total mass of everything will remain constant. How relevant am I to that constant. I think know but in the type of existence where God live I think that things are very much different.

So, has anyone ever witnessed something coming into existence that didn't come from pre-existing material or energy?

I do not believe it is possible in the natural world. It is a supernatural event. If it were possible for a universe to pop into existence from nothing then why not anything. Why not a horse, a cathedral, or even a human being. If popping into existence is a naturalistic event then you would expect it to happen more then once, wouldn't you?

The only example I can think of is particles popping in and out of existence at quantum physics scales. And those do indeed seem uncaused, and at least not a result of a carefully thought-out master plan by an intelligent being.

I have to admit that like most people, quantum physics baffles me because of its complexity. I honestly believe that I do not have the capacity to think that deep. I have tried and I end up having migraines. What I do know is that many of those blessed with a deeper knowledge then I say that it does not happen. It is illusory.

 

[Serenity7855]

Are you sure it started to exist? If "starting to exist" means "going from a state of non-existence to existence", and spacetime itself is a property of the Universe and therefore came into existence along with the Universe, this means that there was never a time when the Universe did not exist. Therefore it never transitioned from non-existence to existence.

That is very true. There never was a "time" when the universe did not exist. You cannot argue with that.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes and No

The material existed. The space and material expanded during the BB.


Its like an egg hatching, and saying the chicken did not exist before it hatched.


Comprehend now




Yes and no. Again,,,,, did the chicken exist, before it hatched?

Matter did not exist. No matter, space, time and energy. Mass is created by the higgs boson so had a beginning as well but it couldn't have existed in its present form prior to the big bang. It must have been created when matter and anti matter were created.

 

[outhouse]

Matter did not exist. No matter, space, time and energy. Mass is created by the higgs boson so had a beginning as well but it couldn't have existed in its present form prior to the big bang. .

:biglaugh:

Good Grief

It must have been created when matter and anti matter were created

 

[ruffen]

The point is that we don't know much about any of the premises for the Kalam argument, and can therefore say very little about its correctness.

But anyways, if the Universe did begin to exist, and had a cause, so that the Kalam argument is correct, in no way does this point toward the likelyhood that an intelligent being was that cause.

 

[outhouse]

Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment


Science is about learning, and advancement of knowledge.


And should not even be applied to ancient mythology.


Its like doing biblical archeology with a spade in one hand and a bible in the other to try and prove the bible correct. It is an epic fail.

 

[Serenity7855]

The point is that we don't know much about any of the premises for the Kalam argument, and can therefore say very little about its correctness.

But anyways, if the Universe did begin to exist, and had a cause, so that the Kalam argument is correct, in no way does this point toward the likelyhood that an intelligent being was that cause.

Why doesn't it?