The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[PursueTheTruth]

I suggest you do some research on the Standard Model of the universe which is the model based on Einstein's research in General Relativity. It is also the standard model that has been verified by the scientific community for the past half century through various means of observation and corroborative research.

The Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy has nothing to do with the age or origin of the universe.

The law states the both mass and energy cannot be destroyed. They can only change state from one to the other. If something cannot be destroyed it is then enternal and may have even always existed. If it is eternal, why do we need a god to create it?

 

[PursueTheTruth]

LOL. Ok, if you say so. I see you are more concerned about winning an argument than discovering what truth is. So I shall leave you to the task of validating your "proclamation". Best wishes to you.

Isn't the more logical argument the more truthfull arguement, or is truth found only in faith, the belief in something without evidence?

 

[Davian]

With regards to the discussions of the beginning of the universe and the origin of life, I know the truth, so no, I am not here to discover it.

So when do you collect your Nobel prize on these subjects?

With regards to proselytizing, no. I am not here to win any converts by argumentation. People do not become Christians solely by being convinced by a philosophical/scientific argument.

Is this your abandonment of the 'first cause' argument?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

With regards to the discussions of the beginning of the universe and the origin of life, I know the truth, so no, I am not here to discover it.

With regards to proselytizing, no. I am not here to win any converts by argumentation. People do not become Christians solely by being convinced by a philosophical/scientific argument.

Cosmologists who have studied questions surrounding the universe's origins for years are sceptical of how much they do know. But you "know". Perhaps you could demonstrate how you know what they have apparently missed.

 

[The Engineer]

With regards to the discussions of the beginning of the universe and the origin of life, I know the truth, so no, I am not here to discover it.

You know the truth, yet you have to rely upon plagiarizing to formulate it? Sounds perfectly reasonable!

I am also here to dialogue with non-theists to better understand their positions and why they believe the things they do.

No, you're certainly not. If you wanted to have a serious dialogue, you wouldn't ignore what we have to say. Yes, I mean ignore. You still haven't commented on the counter-evidence I presented to your brain-mind-dualism hypothesis.

Your statement is riddled with unsubstantiated presumptions.

No, it isn't, unless you can name those unsubstantiated presumptions.

Honestly, maybe we should just ignore Elioenai26 and let this thread die. He's incredibly rude, incapable of posting anything useful that he actually wrote himself, and flat-out ignores or dodges any argument that he can't respond to. We're not debating, anyway. We post reasonable, logical arguments that are instantly dismissed or ignored by Elioenai26. That's not a debate. That's fighting windmills.

 

[Danyc]

Honestly, maybewe should just ignore Elioenai26 and let this thread die. He's incredibly rude, incapable of posting anything useful that he actually wrote himself, and flat-out ignores or dodges any argument that he can't respond to. We're not debating, anyway. We post reasonable, logical arguments that are instantly dismissed or ignored by Elioenai26. That's not a debate. That's fighting windmills.

My thoughts as well, actually. At least he's not as bad as dad and AVET over in the Creo/Evo board...ugh.

 

[Elioenai26]

So when do you collect your Nobel prize on these subjects?

Is this your abandonment of the 'first cause' argument?

I have done absolutely nothing to earn a Nobel Prize, nor do I desire to receive one.

I have abandoned nothing. I simply have stated that people do not become Christians by reading or listening to an argument or debate.

 

[Elioenai26]

Cosmologists who have studied questions surrounding the universe's origins for years are sceptical of how much they do know. But you "know". Perhaps you could demonstrate how you know what they have apparently missed.

Yes I know. I know Jesus Christ who created the heavens and the earth. Therefore I know the truth regarding the universe and the origin of life.

 

[Elioenai26]

You know the truth, yet you have to rely upon plagiarizing to formulate it? Sounds perfectly reasonable!


No, you're certainly not. If you wanted to have a serious dialogue, you wouldn't ignore what we have to say. Yes, I mean ignore. You still haven't commented on the counter-evidence I presented to your brain-mind-dualism hypothesis.


Not, it isn't, unless you can name those unsubstantiated presumptions.

Honestly, maybewe should just ignore Elioenai26 and let this thread die. He's incredibly rude, incapable of posting anything useful that he actually wrote himself, and flat-out ignores or dodges any argument that he can't respond to. We're not debating, anyway. We post reasonable, logical arguments that are instantly dismissed or ignored by Elioenai26. That's not a debate. That's fighting windmills.

I do not know you personally, but I pray for you and your family, that you may turn to the Lord and repent of your sins and ask for forgiveness so that you may receive eternal life.

There is no peace unto the wicked and as long as you refuse to honor God, you shall always be filled with hate.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

 

[Elioenai26]

My thoughts as well, actually. At least he's not as bad as dad and AVET over in the Creo/Evo board...ugh.

You've been ignoring me since I have began posting here, because the things that I have posted have challenged your closely held beliefs.

It is your prerogative to ignore me, but you also must remember this one thing, you are in a Christian forum and our aim is to ultimately spread the gospel to all who will hear.

Have a nice day.

 

[Davian]

I have done absolutely nothing to earn a Nobel Prize, nor do I desire to receive one.

So you do not *actually* know the truth. You just made one of those throwaway religious claims to be thrown on the heap.

If you did have the truth, get the prize, and donate the money. Just think of what you could do with it.

I have abandoned nothing. I simply have stated that people do not become Christians by reading or listening to an argument or debate.

That is quite the change of tone from the OP. Perhaps you could try the stuff from the wayofthemaster web site. Kirk Cameron has this "bypass the intellect" principle that they claim is sure to work. No money back guarantee, however.

 

[PursueTheTruth]

I do not know you personally, but I pray for you and your family, that you may turn to the Lord and repent of your sins and ask for forgiveness so that you may receive eternal life.

There is no peace unto the wicked and as long as you refuse to honor God, you shall always be filled with hate.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

Do you have evidence of his wickedness and hatefullness or is this an assumption meant to insult him?

 

[Elioenai26]

So you do not *actually* know the truth. You just made one of those throwaway religious claims to be thrown on the heap.

If you did have the truth, get the prize, and donate the money. Just think of what you could do with it.

I actually do know the truth, and I do not need the money you speak of. God provides for me according to His will, not according to the materialistic reasonings of a man; for the world is His and the fullness therein.

That is quite the change of tone from the OP. Perhaps you could try the stuff from the wayofthemaster web site. Kirk Cameron has this "bypass the intellect" principle that they claim is sure to work. No money back guarantee, however.

That is because you assume that what I wrote I wrote for you and the other non-theists that spend their time trying to disprove and argue against something they do not even believe exists.

I wrote what I wrote for the majority of those who read these posts. They read but never actually write replies. They are the silent witnesses that shall judge the evidence provided.

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you have evidence of his wickedness and hatefullness or is this an assumption meant to insult him?

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and again, sweet and bitter water cannot come from the same well, and again, a tree is known by the fruit it bears.

For it is what comes out of a man from within his heart that defiles him.

 

[Elioenai26]

Isn't the more logical argument the more truthfull arguement, or is truth found only in faith, the belief in something without evidence?

What do you believe in? Tell us so that we may know.

 

[Elioenai26]

Cosmologists who have studied questions surrounding the universe's origins for years are sceptical of how much they do know. But you "know". Perhaps you could demonstrate how you know what they have apparently missed.

You are familiar with the Scriptures. Have you not read where Christ said:

"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." Matthew 11:25

 

[The Engineer]

I have done absolutely nothing to earn a Nobel Prize

I agree.

Yes I know. I know Jesus Christ who created the heavens and the earth. Therefore I know the truth regarding the universe and the origin of life.

Doesn't change the fact that you have no idea about neurology, logic or about having a fruitful debate.

I do not know you personally, but I pray for you and your family, that you may turn to the Lord and repent of your sins and ask for forgiveness so that you may receive eternal life.

Yeah, I think I'll go to church now and repent for relying on logic in my arguments.

There is no peace unto the wicked and as long as you refuse to honor God, you shall always be filled with hate.

Didn't know you're also a psychologist. Oh, wait. You aren't.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

Actually, no, I don't. But I'm sure posting The Lord of the Rings will change that.

You've been ignoring me since I have began posting here, because the things that I have posted have challenged your closely held beliefs.

No, we didn't. That was your job.

By the way, I feel like you have plagiarized this comment. From me. But at least you had the decency to write it in your own words. For once.

I wrote what I wrote for the majority of those who read these posts. They read but never actually write replies. They are the silent witnesses that shall judge the evidence provided.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure they'll notice how much you ignored everything we said.

 

[Elioenai26]

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure they'll notice how much you ignored everything we said.

I challenge you to furnish one example of where I have ignored anything an atheist has said here.

 

[Elioenai26]

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. Peter Kreeft

An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building "America's first deconstructionist building." It's white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the "capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world." When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias

 

[The Engineer]

I challenge you to furnish one example of where I have ignored anything an atheist has said here.

No problem.

You plagiarized this statement:

After reading The Mystery of the Mind and The Self and Its Brain and many similar books and puzzling over questions about the mind-brain relationship, I have come to the conclusion that neuroscience provides no evidence whatsoever that the mind is identical with its brain.

I gave counter-evidence for this statement:

Does Phineas Gage tell you something? Got an iron rod driven through his face, changed his character. Lifelong meth addicts? Get depressed even two years after getting clean, because the reward system of their brain got burned out. Oxytocin? Neuroscientists figured out this neurotransmitter makes people loyal to each other. Turns out it really does that.
How come changes to the brain always go along with changes to the mind, if the two things are separate?

The claim, neuroscientists had no evidence, is factually wrong.

You quoted my whole post (which was much longer than the excerpt I posted) and replied the following:

I suggest you address your concerns with Dr. Goetz, who is Professor of Philosophy at Ursinus College and a specialist in philosophy of mind if you want an answer from someone knowledgeable on the subject.

Yeah, you responded to it. Doesn't mean you didn't ignore the evidence I presented you.