Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[Simonline]

Actually, I see the problem. I very carefully, and correctly said "any thing" space included, it's important. And you changed it to "anything" which means something different. You assume that things need a point of origin, except for God, and I believe that things don't need a point of origin.

OK. Let me spell it out to you so that it is completely idiot-proof.

Only God Himself is both Eternal and Immutable such that He does not (nor can He) have a definite point of origin. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS MUST HAVE HAD A DEFINITE POINT OF ORIGIN SINCE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (GOD INCLUDED) CAN BRING ITSELF INTO EXISTENCE EX NIHILO.

With respect what you believe about created things not needing a definite point of origin is just a philosophical presupposition with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Simonline.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't have to explain from where God came because He didn't come from anywhere, but you have to explain from where the universe came if not from God creating it (and your explanation has to be metaphysically coherent and internally consistent)?!

 

[Moral Orel]

OK. Let me spell it out to you so that it is completely idiot-proof.

Only God Himself is both Eternal and Immutable such that He does not (nor can He) have a definite point of origin. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS MUST HAVE HAD A DEFINITE POINT OF ORIGIN SINCE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (GOD INCLUDED) CAN BRING ITSELF INTO EXISTENCE EX NIHILO.

With respect what you believe about created things not needing a definite point of origin is just a philosophical presupposition with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Simonline.

You know, you say "with respect" but you also imply I'm an idiot, and also claim my belief has no basis in reality, which implies I am insane. Not very nice.

You have your belief, I have mine. I have scientific and mathematical evidence that my belief is right, and you have your faith. There's no proving for absolutely certain which one of us is right, so I guess we'll just have to disagree on the value of the evidence presented to each of us.

 

[brinny]

What does that mean, exactly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What does that mean, exactly?

What does it mean to say that something "just exists"? Is that your question?

 

[brinny]

What does it mean to say that something "just exists"? Is that your question?

Yes.

 

[Simonline]

You know, you say "with respect" but you also imply I'm an idiot, and also claim my belief has no basis in reality, which implies I am insane. Not very nice.

Your belief doesn't have any basis in reality and one could argue that you are insane for holding to such a belief?

You have your belief, I have mine.

But the absolute nature of reality, such as it is, insists that our beliefs cannot both be true. One of our beliefs is wrong. Either the Infinite Personal God brought the Creation into existence ex nihilo or the Universe is eternal? http://www.gotquestions.org/universe-eternal.html

I have scientific and mathematical evidence that my belief is right, and you have your faith.

The implication being that faith is blind and in direct opposition to science and mathematics? Nothing could be further from the truth. Without Judeo-Christianity there would be no science. Scientific study is predicated on an ordered universe brought about by a personal and intelligent Divine Creator. Were the universe chaotic then there would be no science (and probably no-one to do scientific study either)?

There's no proving for absolutely certain which one of us is right, so I guess we'll just have to disagree on the value of the evidence presented to each of us.

Food for thought?!

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate272573

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate840299

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate945637

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate670133

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate996093

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate3716

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate840457

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate653651

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

What does that mean, exactly?

The way it is being used it is an attempt to cut God and the supernatural out of the equasion predicated as it is on a militant secular humanistic/materialistc worldview.

Simonline

 

[Simonline]

Yes.

It means that it is self-existent without any assistance from any other quarter. In reality, only God Himself (being both Eternal (Isa.48:12; Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17)) can possibly be Self-Existant and Self-sustaining. Everything else that exists does so because it was brought into a contingent existence by God as the Creator (Gen.1-2; Col.1:15-16; Rev.4:11) and, since the Creation is utterly incapable of sustaining itself, is maintained in that existence on a millisecond by millisecond basis by the Creator Himself (Col.1:15-16). It is for this reason that God has the absolute right to do whatsoever He wishes with any part of His Creation or indeed His entire Creation and it is this of which sinful man is so utterly resentful and against which he is so completely rebellious (Gen.3).

However, the time is coming when God's gracious forebearance and mercy toward sinful man will cease and His Holy and Righteous Judgement against sinful and rebellious man will begin (2Pet.3).

Simonline.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The way it is being used it is an attempt to cut God and the supernatural out of the equasion predicated as it is on a secular humanistic worldview.

Simonline

Is there any reason that we should be including supernatural entities in the equation? Has invoking the supernatural ever furthered our understanding of anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It means that it is self-existent without any assistance from any other quarter. In reality, only God Himself (being both Eternal (Isa.48:12; Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17)) can possibly be Self-Existant and Self-sustaining. Everything else that exists does so because it was brought into a contingent existence by God as the Creator (Gen.1-2; Col.1:15-16; Rev.4:11) and, since the Creation is utterly incapable of sustaining itself, is maintained in that existence on a millisecond by millisecond basis by the Creator Himself (Col.1:15-16).

Evidence please.

 

[Simonline]

Is there any reason that we should be including supernatural entities in the equation? Has invoking the supernatural ever furthered our understanding of anything?

Yes. Without God as Creator nothing else can exist. Absolute reality dictates that the Universe is neither self-existent nor self-sustaining and the only reasonable explanation is that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Personal Creator. If this is not the case then how does one explain all the infinite compexity within the Universe itself (especially Man)?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Evidence please.

Look around you. The problem is not a lack of evidence but the intransigence of your will in refusing to acknowledge that the Creation is evidence of the Creator.

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of wasting my time and effort presenting evidence in support of the Truth simply for you to a priori sumarily dismiss it?!

Simonline.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes. Without God as Creator nothing else can exist.

Evidence please.

Absolute reality dictates that the Universe is neither self-existent nor self-sustaining and the only reasonable explanation is that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Personal Creator.

Evidence please.

If this is not the case then how does one explain all the infinite compexity within the Universe itself (especially Man)?!

Argument from ignorance.

Look around you. The problem is not a lack of evidence but the intransigence of your will in refusing to acknowledge that the Creation is evidence of the Creator.

No, the problem really is lack of evidence.

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of wasting my time and effort presenting evidence in support of the Truth simply for you to a priori sumarily dismiss it?!

You haven't presented any evidence to begin with. You made assertions and quoted scripture, that's all.

 

[True Scotsman]

I don't have to explain from where God came because He didn't come from anywhere, but you have to explain from where the universe came if not from God creating it (and your explanation has to be metaphysically coherent and internally consistent)?!

Says who? Your explanation is not metaphysically coherent. It violates the primacy of existence and the axioms of philosophy. It is contradictory to every valid metaphysical principle that we can actually observe.

Saying that existence, as a whole, has always existed is metaphysically coherent because does not violate the primacy of existence, the axioms of philosophy and commits no fallacies. The universe may change form but it does not come into or out of existence. It is an absolute.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the absolute nature of reality, such as it is, insists that our beliefs cannot both be true. One of our beliefs is wrong. Either the Infinite Personal God brought the Creation into existence ex nihilo or the Universe is eternal? http://www.gotquestions.org/universe-eternal.html

I agree, one of us is wrong. And since there are a lot of facts wrong with that source, it doesn't help your case.
First is defines the big bang incorrectly "first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being".
Then it gets the story wrong on Einstein's biggest blunder. He had essentially discovered dark matter and had put in a constant variable to account for its effect on orbits, but couldn't explain it. It wasn't this "divisible by zero" nonsense.
It states as a fact that the Universe is running down, but that isn't necessarily true. People don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.
And then it ends on this weird philosophical note that "every effect must resemble its cause" which is not true, and we see nature do the opposite of this claim all the time.

Food for thought?!

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate272573

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate840299

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate945637

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate670133

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate996093

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate3716

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate840457

http://www.revelationtv.com/programmes/episode/the-god-debate653651

Here's a question, why would you call it a debate if it is a discussion between like-minded individuals? You're never going to learn anything new if you only talk to people that already agree with you.

The implication being that faith is blind and in direct opposition to science and mathematics? Nothing could be further from the truth. Without Judeo-Christianity there would be no science. Scientific study is predicated on an ordered universe brought about by a personal and intelligent Divine Creator. Were the universe chaotic then there would be no science (and probably no-one to do scientific study either)?

Another belief you hold for no reason. The universe doesn't need a creator to have math govern parts of it.

 

[mnorian]

When I was in high school; a group of us boys would walk around a lake in the middle of our small town in Minnesota, in the springtime; and debate different philosophical subjects; thinking we were all very intellectual, as none of the adults we knew; talked about these things.
I had been in and out of different Churches since I was a child; but had quit going cause we moved to a new town. One of the other students was a regular Church goer; and me and him got into a debate; wither God was real or not. We argued/debated for probably a week that one warm spring; with him saying God existed; and I was on the other side of the debate; the other guys didn't have an opinion one way or the other; but thought it was amusing to listen to us. All the time I wanted him to prove that God was real; and the arguments I would think up; I had as good or better arguments for God's existence in my mind; that I thought he should have stated. God in latter years let me know, in no uncertain terms, that He was real. That's what will happen to some of you guy's; He will let you know. Then you will have to decide wither to live for God/Jesus...or not. That's the hard part.

 

[OzSpen]

I see no reason to believe that such a being exists, much less that he did what was claimed in Genesis 1:1-3.

And you'll meet Him one day, one second after your last breath. He has revealed what will happen then, according to Romans 1:18-32 (ESV). God's language is that you will be 'without excuse' when you face him (Rom 1:20 ESV).

Oz

​

 

[Davian]

And you'll meet Him one day, one second after your last breath. He has revealed what will happen then, according to Romans 1:18-32 (ESV).

This is laughable. What other subjects can we apply this to? You won't believe in extraterrestrial aliens until you die. You won't believe in Bigfoot until you take your final breath. You will receive knowledge of the Loch Ness Monster as you cross to the other side...

God's language is that you will be 'without excuse' when you face him (Rom 1:20 ESV).

Seriously? How hard would it have been for a bible writer to simply jot that down?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you'll meet Him one day, one second after your last breath. He has revealed what will happen then, according to Romans 1:18-32 (ESV). God's language is that you will be 'without excuse' when you face him (Rom 1:20 ESV).

Oz

Did you know that the Quran also says that you are without excuse for not accepting the doctrines of Islam?