The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[KCfromNC]

Einstein's work on General Relativity among other scientific evidences. I shall refer you to the first six posts of this thread.

I was hoping for actual scientific references backing up your specific claims. I understand if none are available.

If you are unaware of the veracity of the Causal Principle, thats ok. You presuppose it whenever you mention the word science, or scientific!

Please do me the favor of allowing me to think my own thoughts and speak for them. As your consistent failure to accurately read my mind shows, it's the more accurate way to know what I think.

Now, can you answer my question?

You statement is self-contradictory. There is no "pre-big bang non-universe"!

I guess this means that it's a stretch taking something which is sometimes true here in our universe and asserting that it must work in a totally foreign environment we've never observed.

Secondly, the Causal Principle simply states that whatever comes into existence has a cause for it's existence.The universe came to be

Nah, it was just a state change, just like you label all of the examples of violations of this alleged universal principle which happen here in our universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Therefore, a non-human caused something personal (myself) to exist.

No, your parents caused you to exist. Therefore god didn't create the universe.

Hey, if you're going to cut out and ignore half my post and distract with irrelevancies I might as well do the same.

 

[KCfromNC]

No. No human has ever seen something coming into existance out of nothing.

Seems strange then that we have developed an absolutely unbreakable scientific law of nature which describes an event we've never seen. But as you're about to post copious references to the scientific literature proving this law of causality is real I guess we'll be able to look through them and see how scientists came up with the idea.

 

[KCfromNC]

This statement would actually be humorous if it was'nt so juvenile.

How long after the ball was placed on the cushion did the depression form?

The statement: "forces are'nt transmitted infinitely quickly is supported by whom or what law?" Seems to me like you just pulled that one out of the hat!

Just to be clear, you're proposing to use a bowling ball and living room furniture as a method to transmit information faster than the speed of light?

 

[Beechwell]

Who said that the Cause of the universe was bound by time or dependent upon time for it's existence?

It doesn't matter. If time starts with the beginning of the (known) universe, then no cause can exist "before" that. It may possibly exist "out of time", which would probably mean that it experiences all points of time at once, but that time is bound by the existance of the universe.

This is something you have made up. And in fact it is self-defeating. If the Cause did not exist prior to time, then the Cause could not have created time! The Cause would not have existed to effect any cause, let alone all time, all matter, and all space.

Indeed. And since there is no "before time", it does not make sense to discuss a cause of time, because causality requires time (as far as I can see, but maybe can convince me otherwise?).
Unless time isn't linear and can "loop" around, so a point in time can be both before and after the beginning of time. But then you don't need an entity to exist outside of time to be a first cause.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, your parents caused you to exist. Therefore god didn't create the universe.

Hey, if you're going to cut out and ignore half my post and distract with irrelevancies I might as well do the same.

And who caused the first person to exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, your parents caused you to exist. Therefore god didn't create the universe.

Hey, if you're going to cut out and ignore half my post and distract with irrelevancies I might as well do the same.

And who created the first human?

 

[Elioenai26]

Seems strange then that we have developed an absolutely unbreakable scientific law of nature which describes an event we've never seen. But as you're about to post copious references to the scientific literature proving this law of causality is real I guess we'll be able to look through them and see how scientists came up with the idea.

Please answer this simple question if you will: Does an infinite number of days have an end, yes or no?

 

[Elioenai26]

I was hoping for actual scientific references backing up your specific claims. I understand if none are available.

Please do me the favor of allowing me to think my own thoughts and speak for them. As your consistent failure to accurately read my mind shows, it's the more accurate way to know what I think.

Now, can you answer my question?

I guess this means that it's a stretch taking something which is sometimes true here in our universe and asserting that it must work in a totally foreign environment we've never observed.

Nah, it was just a state change, just like you label all of the examples of violations of this alleged universal principle which happen here in our universe.

Theory Of Relativity

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And who caused the first person to exist.

God Father and God Mother. Silly.

 

[Belk]

And who caused the first person to exist.

Their parents. And then it goes all the way back to the common ancestor. How that started we do not know.

 

[Elioenai26]

Their parents. And then it goes all the way back to the common ancestor. How that started we do not know.

If you do not know, then why not logically conclude that a timeless Creator created the universe and the earth and the people in it.

It is the simplest, most logical, most sound conclusion from the data we have.

Do you have a theory that takes all the evidence and explains it in a consistent, logical, coherent manner?

If you do, remember to apply Ockhams Razor to it. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

If not, then why not accept the statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."?

 

[Elioenai26]

It doesn't matter. If time starts with the beginning of the (known) universe, then no cause can exist "before" that.

I totally agree with you. No cause could exist in time before the universe began.

It may possibly exist "out of time", which would probably mean that it experiences all points of time at once, but that time is bound by the existance of the universe.

"Out of time" is timeless. The two must be seen as synonomous due to the "nature of time itself".

Indeed. And since there is no "before time", it does not make sense to discuss a cause of time, because causality requires time (as far as I can see, but maybe can convince me otherwise?).

It makes perfect sense to discuss a "cause of time", because time was caused to be! It therefore must have a cause. Now what could cause time to be? Could something in time cause time to be? Obviously not. If that was the case, then time would have already existed.

So logically, logically, rationally, it follows that something exists outside of time or is timeless.

Time is a concept known to those who exist in it and are contingent upon it for their existence.

Time can be looked at as a bookshelf with two bookends on it. One bookend on the far left, one on the far right. On that bookshelf, in between the two bookends, there are books, representing time i.e. days, months, years. Now, what is on the outside of the bookends in either direction, left or right? Eternity past on the left, eternity future on the right.

God existed from all eternity on the left before the left bookend and is therefore timeless.

 

[Davian]

If you do not know, then why not logically conclude that a timeless Creator created the universe and the earth and the people in it.

For starters, your inability to show that this is demonstrably true.

It is the simplest, most logical, most sound conclusion from the data we have.

Show your data in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Do you have a theory that takes all the evidence and explains it in a consistent, logical, coherent manner?

Irrelevant.

If you do, remember to apply Ockhams Razor to it. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

When invoking Ockham's razor, deities are the first thing to go. I am sure that was not your intent.

If not, then why not accept the statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."?

It does not reconcile with the evidence?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

For starters, your inability to show that this is demonstrably true.

I would be happy if it could actually be qualified. I mean, we probably all know how human reproduction works and maybe even a little bit something about how a baby grows inside the womb. But "timeless Creator created the universe and" ... uh-huh.

And then, maybe, it could be attempted to be shown to be even just possible.

 

[Elioenai26]

For starters, your inability to show that this is demonstrably true.

Of course it is not demonstrably true, none of us were there when it happened!

So which is more reasonable to accept, that someone created the universe, or that nothing created the universe?

Show your data in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

It has been stated several times, I recommend you avail yourself of the data, and draw your conclusions from it.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant indeed, since the naturalistic theories of evolution and the origin of life are rife with assumptions and unscientific assertions that multiply causes, events, circumstances and chances unnecessarily, it is far more reasonable to believe that God created this marvelous universe and us in it.

Unless of course you don't like the idea that God made you and that you are accountable to Him.

When invoking Ockham's razor, deities are the first thing to go. I am sure that was not your intent.

According to Davian.

Nor do I equate God with your average garden variety deity who exists only in the minds of the uninformed or ignorant.

 

[Elioenai26]

I would be happy if it could actually be qualified. I mean, we probably all know how human reproduction works and maybe even a little bit something about how a baby grows inside the womb. But "timeless Creator created the universe and" ... uh-huh.

And then, maybe, it could be attempted to be shown to be even just possible.

Once again, much talk, but little support for your words.

In light of the evidence, if you maintain that a naturalistic explanation for the universe and the origin of life is preferrable, you do so on great faith.

More so than what us theists require.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Once again, much talk, but little support for your words.

In light of the evidence, if you maintain that a naturalistic explanation for the universe and the origin of life is preferrable, you do so on great faith.

More so than what us theists require.

I am not a naturalist*.

And which of my "much talk" would you want to have supported? That I would be already be happy with just some qualification? I am afraid you have to take my word for that. Or what exactly do you want supported?




* Methodological naturalism is OK and called for in science, lest there be any misundestanding.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am not a naturalist*.

And which of my "much talk" would you want to have supported? That I would be already be happy with just some qualification? I am afraid you have to take my word for that. Or what exactly do you want supported?




* Methodological naturalism is OK and called for in science, lest there be any misundestanding.

Point taken. I will be sure to never neglect the necessary qualifier which you call "methodological".

Tell me, what are some of your methodological naturalistic views regarding the origin of life, and of the universe?

Im anxious to hear and learn from you.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Point taken. I will be sure to never neglect the necessary qualifier which you call "methodological".

Have you never heard of the distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism?

Tell me, what are some of your methodological naturalistic views regarding the origin of life, and of the universe?

Im anxious to hear and learn from you.

I think that if anything at all, it is rather your time to speak. As I said, I would be happy if it (= the conclusion "that a timeless Creator created the universe and the earth and the people in it") could be qualified.

And previously I have indicated an interest in, or rather bemoaned the lack of actually pertinent issues. Here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-4/#post61036954

No, I think if anything at all it is rather your time to speak. Leave out the empty talk and there is plenty of room.



(And me, I have to explain Jack about the "the origin of life, and of the universe". )