The Infinite Regress - The Poverty of the Design Inference

[Chalnoth]

Look at it this way: everything He did --- at the time --- was outside of the Bible (with the exception of fulfillment of prophecy). It didn't become part of the Bible until it was divinely inspired and written down.

For instance, when Jesus walked on water, it was done ex Scriptura, but when He arose from the grave, it was fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

See the difference?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if the nature of reality doesn't require it to be created, just as the nature of God doesn't require God to be created?

I believe Hawking asked that very question. If God can be self-existing, then why can't the universe have been self-existing?

Fact of the matter is though, a self-existing Creator of this universe, and this self-existing universe cannot co-exist.

 

[Chalnoth]

Fact of the matter is though, a self-existing Creator of this universe, and this self-existing universe cannot co-exist.

Right, but there is no inherent logical preference for one or the other, except if you're willing to apply Occam's razor, which states that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one, which seems to indicate a self-authoring or always-existing universe to be the more likely, as it eliminates a spurious explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, but there is no inherent logical preference for one or the other, except if you're willing to apply Occam's razor, which states that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one, which seems to indicate a self-authoring or always-existing universe to be the more likely, as it eliminates a spurious explanation.

But then that wouldn't explain how a book --- completed in 96AD --- could predict the restoration of a nation, that occurred in 1948 --- not to mention the preservation of the race; and not just any race, but a race of people so hated, that it's eradication was almost sure to come within a few years or so.

 

[Nooj]

Jules Verne predicted correctly in his book 'Parise in the 20th Century' that there would be calculators, a world-wide communications network, high speed trains, and gasoline-powered cars.

It's the fufillment of a prophecy! Lets start worshipping Jules Verne!

 

[AV1611VET]

Jules Verne predicted correctly in his book 'Parise in the 20th Century' that there would be calculators, a world-wide communications network, high speed trains, and gasoline-powered cars.

It's the fufillment of a prophecy! Lets start worshipping Jules Verne!

Go right ahead --- if you think it'll do you any good.

[bible]Joshua 24:15[/bible]

 

[Nooj]

Go right ahead --- if you think it'll do you any good.

How about you address Chalnoth's post without the Bible prophecies and quotes this time?

Right, but there is no inherent logical preference for one or the other, except if you're willing to apply Occam's razor, which states that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one, which seems to indicate a self-authoring or always-existing universe to be the more likely, as it eliminates a spurious explanation.

 

[WWFStern]

But then that wouldn't explain how a book --- completed in 96AD --- could predict the restoration of a nation, that occurred in 1948 --- not to mention the preservation of the race; and not just any race, but a race of people so hated, that it's eradication was almost sure to come within a few years or so.

This only would be amazing and miraculous IF that book completed in 96AD were locked away in a vault somewhere and not taken out again until 1950. Then, fulfillment of the prophecy would be remarkable indeed. As things are, with billions of people who read the book, you have to consider the fact that some people actively sought to fulfill it via political means.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about you address Chalnoth's post without the Bible prophecies and quotes this time?

Okay, in this rare instance, this sola scripturist will put his twoedged sword back in its sheath and address his post without it; but, mind you --- this is rare.

Right, but there is no inherent logical preference for one or the other, except if you're willing to apply Occam's razor, which states that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one, which seems to indicate a self-authoring or always-existing universe to be the more likely, as it eliminates a spurious explanation.

Occam's Razor supports Scripture hands down, as Scripture explains everything, whereas a self-existing universe explains nothing. All it does is gender questions, more questions, and many more questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

This only would be amazing and miraculous IF that book completed in 96AD were locked away in a vault somewhere and not taken out again until 1950. Then, fulfillment of the prophecy would be remarkable indeed. As things are, with billions of people who read the book, you have to consider the fact that some people actively sought to fulfill it via political means.

I find it hard to believe that every major nation on the face of the earth except America kicked the Jews out of their country because they thought they were fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Cannonflare]

But if a god can create himselfe why can't a universe do the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if a god can create himselfe why can't a universe do the same.

God isn't self-creating --- He is self-existing.

 

[c'mon sense]

God isn't self-creating --- He is self-existing.

If God is self-existing, why did it take an eternity of his self-existence to create this thing, the Universe, relatively recently - compared to forever, which is the time he spent doing what exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is self-existing, why did it take an eternity of his self-existence to create this thing, the Universe, relatively recently - compared to forever, which is the time he spent doing what exactly?

It took six days to create the universe. What He did in Eternity Past, and what He will do in Eternity Future was not revealed to us.

 

[Nooj]

God isn't self-creating --- He is self-existing.

If God is self-existing, why can't the Universe be self-existing?

 

[c'mon sense]

It took six days to create the universe. What He did in Eternity Past, and what He will do in Eternity Future was not revealed to us.

Uh-huh.

 

[Chalnoth]

Occam's Razor supports Scripture hands down, as Scripture explains everything, whereas a self-existing universe explains nothing. All it does is gender questions, more questions, and many more questions.

Does scripture explain why or how wood burns?
Does scripture explain how plastics are made?
Does scripture explain the hierarchy of similarities between species?
Does scripture explain genetic mutations?
Does scripture explain tectonic movement?
Does scripture explain nuclear fusion?
Does scripture explain how stars shine?
Does scripture explain the sizes and shapes of galaxies?
Does scripture explain the cosmic microwave background?
Does scripture explain radio waves?
Does scripture explain television?
Does scripture explain cars?
Does scripture explain computers?
Does scripture explain genetic engineering?
Does scripture explain agriculture?
Does scripture explain animal husbandry?

I could go on and on. Scripture doesn't explain anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is self-existing, why can't the Universe be self-existing?

See Post 22 on Page 3, please.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could go on and on. Scripture doesn't explain anything.

Chalnoth, I thought we were discussing how the universe came about in light of Occam's Razor.

Right, but there is no inherent logical preference for one or the other, except if you're willing to apply Occam's razor, which states that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one, which seems to indicate a self-authoring or always-existing universe to be the more likely, as it eliminates a spurious explanation.

What's with all the questions, now? A self-existing universe doesn't explain those, either.

 

[Nooj]

Fact of the matter is though, a self-existing Creator of this universe, and this self-existing universe cannot co-exist.

Okay, from post 22 onwards, I think I've pinpointed where the argument ends up.

Occam's Razor supports Scripture hands down, as Scripture explains everything, whereas a self-existing universe explains nothing. All it does is gender questions, more questions, and many more questions

You don't really have any argument against a self-existing universe aside from the point that a self-existing universe doesn't explain anything. My rebuttal is: A self-existing God doesn't explain anything either.