Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
To extend time backwards into eternity is not illogical. It is counter intuitive, but there are no internal inconsistencies. If you look at time as segments of finite event, then you can mathematically get from one point to another. We need to be somewhere in time, he happen to be here.
Just a thought.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To extend time backwards into eternity is not illogical. It is counter intuitive, but there are no internal inconsistencies. If you look at time as segments of finite event, then you can mathematically get from one point to another. We need to be somewhere in time, he happen to be here.
Just a thought.
Hm....I'm still inclined to think that an infinite past is illogical. As I said, if an infinite number of events had to transpire before my birth, then my birth would still be pending. Maybe I'm missing something here?
Also, this thread in large part is about whether the atheists who regard religion as idiocy can show themselves internally consistent. Most of these guys, I'm guessing, probably postulate a finite history, with time beginning at the big bang. Correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
The most idiotic statement of all: "God doesn't exist." Not all atheists make this statement, I suppose, but some do.
The Bible seems to confirm the idiocy of this statement at Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "
There shouldn't be any hardcore atheists. They should rather be agnostics who say, "I doubt that God exists." That's a much wiser statement.
Now it's true that traditional definitions of God tend to be internally problemmatic. But that doesn't exempt the atheist from the charge of idiocy. He should at least admit the possibility that some kind of Creator exists.
On the other hand Christians are probably guilty too. I don't believe it's right to say, "God DEFINITELY exists" unless one is 100% certain. However, I think the Christian is less guilty than the atheist. Why so? Christianity says that belief is the result of an efficacious persusasion by the Holy Spirit who establishes a feeling of certainty that God exists (a certainty that we can't shake). We cannot in good conscience deny His existence. But we should admit that we don't yet have 100% certainty. We should rather say, "Of the two claims (God exists and doesn't exist) the first one is more certain in my mind."
Atheists don't have this excuse. They can't say their atheism was forced upon them. They claim to have REASONED their way to the conclusion, "God definitely doesn't exist." This claim is idiocy.
Again, if I'm missing something here, please apprise me.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
The most idiotic statement of all: "God doesn't exist." Not all atheists make this statement, I suppose, but some do.
The Bible seems to confirm the idiocy of this statement at Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "
As an aside, I think this is not a proper interpretation of this passage. At the time it was written, there were no philosophical atheists. Rather, I think it's talking about people who do evil and saying that they are implicitly denying God. Here's a larger snippet:
Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1, NRSV)
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But it’s core to your argument. If it when it started it was expanding, there is no impetus to shift from non-motion to motion, there always was motion, and before there was motion, well, with no time there was no before. Not nothing-nonmotion-IMPETUS MISSING-motion.
But the impetus question needs to be addressed.
Not if there isn’t an impetus or a need for one, which is possible.
Also, even tho I’m not a cosmological physicist, what about this idea? It could answer your question.
Diffusion.
The universe expanded. It is currently expanding. This is known. Spacetime is not matter or energy, it’s the ‘fabric’ of the universe. So all of a sudden, the universe got bigger. IIRC, we know what happened from like 10^-35 or something seconds after the universe started. So if we go back to the time the universe started, the exact first instant, spacetime and everything in the universe would all occupy the same space. But as the universe itself expanded, there would be vacuum. everywhere there was not matter, so the matter would diffuse into the vacuum, a well understood principle. And as the universe got bigger, it would diffuse more and more and more. And voila... you have your impetus.
Of course, I could be WAYYYYY off base, so you should ask the cosmological physicists :-p.
At the least, then, they need to provide a cosmogony that isn't self-contradictory and irrational.
So... because it has one question that you don’t know the answer to it’s self-contradictory and irrational? What other parts did this contradict? Are unknowns forbidden? Why are unknowns forbidden? I could go on for quite a while but I’ll start with those.
The atheistic system seems to imply that "inert matter moved itself" which seem to be a self-contradictory statement.
Not really. On the imply part, I mean. After all, who knows if it didn’t START in motion.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
As an aside, I think this is not a proper interpretation of this passage. At the time it was written, there were no philosophical atheists. Rather, I think it's talking about people who do evil and saying that they are implicitly denying God. Here's a larger snippet:
Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1, NRSV)
I guess I'm not understanding you. The translation you provide is close enough to the wording I gave. I see no difference of meaning. I quickly surveyed a few commentators who find atheism clearly implied here.
I can imagine a person who does evil justifying his behavior before men by telling them that no God exists (even though he believes it in his heart). But if he says even in his heart, "There is no God" he would seem to be an atheist.
You say there were no philosophical atheists at that time. Well, I'm not sure that we have enough publications from that time to be sure of that, and not all ideas are published. And sometimes people have things in their hearts which they never publish or proclaim aloud.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
I guess I'm not understanding you. The translation you provide is close enough to the wording I gave. I see no difference of meaning. I quickly surveyed a few commentators who find atheism clearly implied here.
I can imagine a person who does evil justifying his behavior before men by telling them that no God exists (even though he believes it in his heart). But if he says even in his heart, "There is no God" he would seem to be an atheist.
You say there were no philosophical atheists at that time. Well, I'm not sure that we have enough publications from that time to be sure of that, and not all ideas are published. And sometimes people have things in their hearts which they never publish or proclaim aloud.
My point is that it's the wrong emphasis. Today, we see the passage and we think "oh, yes. It's a passage about how atheists are immoral." But I think the original intention was to say that immoral people are atheists -- an insult rather than referencing a particular philosophy.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But it’s core to your argument. If when it started it was expanding, there is no impetus to shift from non-motion to motion, there always was motion, and before there was motion, well, with no time there was no before. Not nothing-nonmotion-IMPETUS MISSING-motion.
Time isn't an objective reality. Clocks and calendars only count movements (clock ticks). "Time" is just a term used to refer to movement (their sequence and total count). The first movement within our universe gives birth to time as we know it. Ultimately, the impetus for that movement must have been self-propelling.
The only way to fully clarify my view of time is to introduce my Doctrine of God. Imagine a mass of tangible substance much larger than our universe, in stasis. It is a soul-type substance (but still basically ignorant). Some of it self-propellingly begins to move. This first current of thought is God, and His first movement is, for Him, the begining of time (because "time" is just a term used to refer to the sequence and total count of movements).
Over innumerable aeons of time, He slowly ascended from ignorance to a state of consummate knowledge and understanding. But some of the Totality (this total mass of soul-type substance) never really "awoke" (at least not substantially). God formed the universe from this essentially dead substance still basically inert today. He awakened only a small portion of it (this sentient material is the source of our souls).
One might say, then, that God's Big Bang was the first, preceding the Big Bang of modern science (if there was one). Since this second Big Bang involved inert matter (at least atheists define it as inert), an impetus must be postulated. God is the likely impetus for that movement. This is the beginning of time AS WE KNOW IT (it was NOT the beginning of time as God knows it).
I produced this Doctrine of God to overcome several apparent contradictions in traditional theology. I can refer you to my audio lecture covering these charges of contradiction and my solutions.
Also, even tho I’m not a cosmological physicist, what about this idea? It could answer your question.
Diffusion.
The universe expanded. It is currently expanding. This is known. Spacetime is not matter or energy, it’s the ‘fabric’ of the universe. So all of a sudden, the universe got bigger. IIRC, we know what happened from like 10^-35 or something seconds after the universe started. So if we go back to the time the universe started, the exact first instant, spacetime and everything in the universe would all occupy the same space. But as the universe itself expanded, there would be vacuum. everywhere there was not matter, so the matter would diffuse into the vacuum, a well understood principle. And as the universe got bigger, it would diffuse more and more and more. And voila... you have your impetus.
Of course, I could be WAYYYYY off base, so you should ask the cosmological physicists :-p.
Matter rushes into a vacuum as a result of pressure. If there were no pressure, the matter would not rush into the vacuum. So what causes pressure? Motion must already be in progress for this kind of pressure to occur, as this article asserts. The writer gives the example of a bicycle tire filled with air. Why is the tire firm to the touch? The resistance is caused by particles bombarding the walls of tire.
If motion(s) were already occurring “from eternity”, an infinite number of events would have to transpire before my birth (it would still be pending). There must be a first motion.
Motion is, after all, a sequence of events. Until an object moves from point B to point C, no motion has actually occurred. If it moves from point B to point C because it was continuing a motion that began at point A, we have to ask, why did it move from point A to point B? Reply: Perhaps because it was already in a state of motion from point –A toward point +A? And then we keep going infinitely back? Where then the start?
An infinite sequence stretching back isn’t coherent. What IS coherent is a first movement, a transition from rest to motion, self-propellingly.
So... because it has one question that you don’t know the answer to it’s self-contradictory and irrational? What other parts did this contradict? Are unknowns forbidden? Why are unknowns forbidden? I could go on for quite a while but I’ll start with those.
It’s irrational to state that inert matter moved itself.
After all, who knows if it didn’t START in motion.
Motion isn’t a start. See above. Perhaps what you mean is that the particles already had a momentum? But momentum is understood as mass*velocity so motion must already be occurring. That’s not a start.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
As noted, this thread is a reaction to several atheists on YouTube who clearly insinuated
You shouldn't be taking Youtube seriously.
Originally Posted by JAL
Atheists often claim, “There is no observable evidence for the existence of a soul.”
That is completely correct.
Originally Posted by JAL
So what does free will suggest? It suggests a soul.
No, it implies intelligence and the cognitive capacity to methodically consider one's actions.
Originally Posted by JAL
Here’s why. I’m looking at a sandwich. This matter is inert. I eat the sandwich and my digestive system transforms it into human protoplasm. Is this sandwich (which is currently protoplasm) still inert? Yes. It was inert before it became part of the human body so therefore (unless a miracle occurred) it is still inert.
Correct.
Originally Posted by JAL
So what can we say about inert objects? Suppose a rock falls on your head. Do you get angry at the rock? No, because it has no free will. The laws of physics predetermine its motion. It didn’t CHOOSE to move in your direction.
Correct
Originally Posted by JAL
Now suppose I walk up and punch you in the face. Why do you get angry? Your anger betrays that, in your opinion, my hand is NOT acting (inertly) like the rock. In other words your anger implies that the power of choice self-propelled my hand. If ordinary physical impulses (viz. food combustion energy) were the chief impetus of my hand, you couldn’t rightly be angry at me. (You’d have to blame my metabolism). The movement of my hand isn’t “ordinary physics” at work, therefore. It’s a cognitively driven self-propulsion (a sort of telekinesis if you will).
Correct. You considered it, then your central nervous system sent electrical signals through the sympathetic nervous system to stimulate your musculature
Originally Posted by JAL
How?
If you take an Anatomy or Animal Biology class, you'll learn the answer to that question.
Originally Posted by JAL
Again, I punched you in the face. You got angry. Why? Isn’t my hand just like the rock that fell on your head? Totally inert? Isn’t my brain totally inert? Isn’t my whole body totally inert? Yes, because it’s made up of inert sandwiches that I ate. So why did you get angry? Isn’t all this just ordinary physics at work? Do you get angry at gravity? Magnetism? Climate? Tectonics?
No, because your brain has enough capacity to be self-referencing. Your neurons fire, and that is cognition. When someone is engaging in logical thinking there is increased neural activity in the frontal lobe of your Cerebrum, hence thought is physically based.
Originally Posted by JAL
But the Christian can explain the anger.
So can modern neurology and psychology. Emotions have a physical basis.
"State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression."
Harmon-Jones, Eddie and Sigelman, Johnathan. U Wisconsin, Dept of Psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80(5) May, 2001. pp. 797-803
Originally Posted by JAL
I have a soul (in my opinion, it’s a tangible substance). It moves by the power of choice. Thus when it freely chose to punch you in the face, this choice caused it to lunge toward you, dragging my inert hand toward your face. The body is inert, but the soul is self-propelling.
The concept of a soul is philosophy, it doesn't have a basis in actual science.
Originally Posted by JAL
“But I’ve never seen a soul.” True. And I’ve never seen an atom. I believe in the atom based on the evidence of the atom’s existence (its observable effects upon material objects).
But there isn't any evidence of the soul's existence. We have evidence of the atom's existence, however, because we can preform experiments that directly support the hypothesis of atomic theory.
Originally Posted by JAL
The observable evidence suggests that the human body has a soul inside it.
You have empirical data from a scientific study that concludes that human function and cognition cannot be entirely supported by the physical structure of the brain?
Originally Posted by JAL
The evidence suggests that the objects normally classified as non-living (such as sandwiches and rocks) do NOT have a self-propelling soul.
No. They aren't lifeforms, they don't have a nervous system. It is absurd to be comparing processed substances like sandwiches, which are nothing more then collections of organic molecules and rocks which are minerals in solid state to Biota.
Originally Posted by JAL
Why is that? Is it by chance that humans have souls and rocks do not?
No. It is:
1. we are living organisms
2. We have a nervous system
Originally Posted by JAL
Or is it perhaps because God put me in this human body.
No. It is because rock's are not alive. We are alive because of ongoing biochemical processes that perpetuate themselves. Rocks do not have those
Originally Posted by JAL
And given that I am self-propelling, why can’t I leave my body at will?
It could possibly be because your personality is based entirely within your physical brain.
Originally Posted by JAL
Is it perhaps that God forcibly confines me in this tent until a judgment day of His choosing?
Or because your personality and mind arise from the brain.
Originally Posted by JAL
In sum, just as free will is the chief impetus in my bodily movements, so too the impetus launching the Big Bang was the power of God’s free will. At least that’s my position.
In summary, your philosophy is quite Platonic, but not scientific.
I said that motion is not a start. Maybe I could have explained it better like this. Infinity is not a discrete number. Therefore to say that an infinite number of events, or an infinite amount of time already passed is not even humanly intelligible and therefore doesn’t qualify as a theory about reality (although unintelligible theories often have pragmatic value in applied science).
Therefore we are looking for the beginning of time, a state of affairs where the concept of time doesn’t even apply. The only state of affairs where this can be true is a state of motionlessness. To transition from such to motion requires an external impetus or self-propelling substance. Inert substance cannot make this transition on its own.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Linear Mode
