The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[redleghunter]

1. So?

2. Assuming "something" could be eternal and uncaused in the first place and the Universe is something we already know exists, without positing another unexplained thing for which we have no evidence.

but assuming an answer without sufficient evidence is the better way? You fail to grasp critical thinking.

Tell me, if you believed there was a refrigerator sized diamond in your back yard you could dig up at any time you liked without any evidence to support such a thing exists - would you be justified spending up big and ratcheting all your credit up to its limit in the mean time?

Are you rejecting the current and prevalent cosmology that the universe had a beginning? Just want to get that straight as you avoided answering that question.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you rejecting the current and prevalent cosmology that the universe had a beginning? Just want to get that straight as you avoided answering that question.

Thank you in advance.

It depends on what you specify as existing before that beginning. Current and prevalent cosmology does not advance any opinion on the subject.

 

[redleghunter]

It depends on what you specify as existing before that beginning. Current and prevalent cosmology does not advance any opinion on the subject.

I didn't say "before" but the prevalent view is the universe had a beginning.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Sorry I can't follow non sequitur. Computers perform based on conditional statements, not arguments. Do you debate your computer?

I and You's form the components of analytical statements which are critical to understanding the synthetic statement that is being made. No wonder you are having so many comprehension issues, you think I and You is inconsequential! You have a dire lack of logic and the semantic comprehension which composes that logic.

I am not complaining, I simply made a statement. You were the one who complained in your response to my statement. I don't need to flap my arms and make a lot of noise...I'm the one who knows what statement I submitted.

You still can't admit one of your claims was wrong. You really do need to start working on the character you present. You would be far more respectable by admitting to the mistakes you make rather then hiding from the fact you make them.

I look forward to your next contrived post. I truly ( not sarcasm) enjoy seeing what you will come up with next.

your statement was also an argument. I and others contested the premise you put forward in support of your position, which all on its own ought to tell you it qualifies as an argument.

lol!

 

[redleghunter]

Most importantly Christians have a basis in Scripture, direct Revelation from the First Causer of the universe, and it is firmly established in the already mentioned real history, real archaeology, real geological locations. There is no shortage of evidence for a rational person to investigate.

This is very true.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't say "before" but the prevalent view is the universe had a beginning.

When Einstein was doing his thing he projected that the universe was expanding, based solely on the equations he was working on. He got so much criticism that he decided to rework the equations, then Hubble discovered through observation that everything was moving away from everything else, he was completely humiliated. Based on projections backward we get the Big Bang, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was the Jesuit that came up with the model. The theory goes that the universe began with what he really don't know but it effectively exploded on the scene and has been expanding ever since. When people ask me if I believe in the Big Bang I simple respond, sure, God spoke and BANG! there it was.

The naturalistic assumptions behind Darwinian natural history isn't anything new, the eternity of the universe was a belief among the Epicureans:

In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. (On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius)
​

Cosmology is always trying to estimate the age of the universe, the earth being considerably younger. There is no question in the sciences that the universe had a beginning, opinions do vary with regards to when that was and what the actual cause had to be.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Are you rejecting the current and prevalent cosmology that the universe had a beginning? Just want to get that straight as you avoided answering that question.

Thank you in advance.

Not at all. I agree that this universe appears to have a beginning. Do you know what caused it? If so, do you have any evidence?

Thank you in advance.

 

[redleghunter]

So you deny the historicity of Jesus Christ? You actually do not believe in the historical man who lived and walked this earth and died on a Roman cross? You deny that he had a body and communicated among his people the Jews? That is funny, no historian worth his salt would ever make such an assertion, to deny the Christ of history, is to discredit all of history, it entails discrediting all historical sources of antiquity.

This above, the denial of a historical Jesus. Even former professed Christian and now agnostic Bart Ehrman is astonished at this notion in atheist circles. He even wrote an entire book on it (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)

Ehrman is no advocate for Christianity and constantly debates NT theologians on the Biblical account of Jesus vs. what external sources provide. Here's a video of him explaining this to a majority atheist audience:

Even Richard Dawkins concedes there was a historical Jesus but as would be expected he denies the Jesus of Deity:

it entails discrediting all historical sources of antiquity

Not only the historical evidence of Jesus but also the overwhelming manuscript evidence of the NT.

 

[redleghunter]

Do you know what caused it?

Yes.

If so, do you have any evidence?

"In the beginning God..."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes.

"In the beginning God..."

...well, that's the claim, but do you have any evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes.

"In the beginning God..."

So let us suppose that there was an historical Jesus. As you point out, there are few who would disagree, even among atheists.

What is the next premise in your argument?

 

[Ophiolite]

?? - Stay with me here, stay with me...

Computers are LOGIC bots! Arguments do come into play... but of course they aren't arguing now, are they? Just like you put forth an argument even though you weren't arguing. Do you understand?

Apart from "I"'s and "You"'s being inconsequential to the form of an argument, you made assertions about reality and your post still fits the form of an argument despite all your blather.

lol!

Flapping and complaining doesn't change the fact you put forth an argument - even if you had no intention of arguing...

Give up mate. It's not worth your time. Lurkers have more than enough evidence in place to see logic lies with your position. Leave him to bathe in complacency. Life for me has been much more peaceful since I activated Ignore.

 

[redleghunter]

So let us suppose that there was an historical Jesus. As you point out, there are few who would disagree, even among atheists.

What is the next premise in your argument?

Perhaps review your own 39 Articles if there is any confusion?

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps review your own 39 Articles if there is any confusion?

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

Those are articles of faith and, as such, are unfalsifiable propositions. I thought you were making a scientific argument.

 

[redleghunter]

Those are articles of faith and, as such, are unfalsifiable propositions. I thought you were making a scientific argument.

The conversation in general addressed two issues:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure

I asked #1 above as one poster seemed to offer there was alternative views or science supporting other than the universe having a beginning.

Another poster asked #2 in which I responded to. Beyond that we were trying to get clarification if said poster held to the extreme views or not.

That is all that was proposed and #1 was answered.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I asked #1 above as one poster seemed to offer there was alternative views or science supporting other than the universe having a beginning.

Hmmm, perhaps you misunderstood my post? This universe does indeed look like it has a beginning, but what did this universe come from? Did it come from another state (i.e. this universe might be eternal and the 'beginning' is just this universe changing states somehow)? Or is it the result of some process in some other universe (i.e. a black hole in some other universe causing a singularity in spacetime from which our universe is created)? I've already asked you for scientific evidence of any sort that your posited reason even exists, and you just reasserted your belief without any evidence.

If you read through the science these ideas are based on, you'll understand why these are far, far more plausible than an implausible eternally existing deity creating everything from nothing.

Eternal Universe info:

[1404.0535] Eternal Universe
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
The Origin of the Universe​

Black Hole Universe:

Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe​

I still agree though that this universe Appears to have a beginning.

 

[Sanoy]

your statement was also an argument. I and others contested the premise you put forward in support of your position, which all on its own ought to tell you it qualifies as an argument.

lol!

0 people have contested a premise or even identified a premise. My position has only ever been the state of my belief, which doesn't require a premise or an argument. Such things are merely transmitted by statements, to a normally behaving person anyway.

Lol? Did you find yourself funny? I was hoping for a better concoction from you but instead you withdrew from trying to make a factual claim to simply making an assertion. I hope to receive better from you next time - I know you have it in you for at least one more contrived attempt. If I were a betting man I'd say you could contrive all day to avoid admitting you are mistaken so why quit now?

 

[redleghunter]

Hmmm, perhaps you misunderstood my post? This universe does indeed look like it has a beginning, but what did this universe come from? Did it come from another state (i.e. this universe might be eternal and the 'beginning' is just this universe changing states somehow)? Or is it the result of some process in some other universe (i.e. a black hole in some other universe causing a singularity in spacetime from which our universe is created)? I've already asked you for scientific evidence of any sort that your posited reason even exists, and you just reasserted your belief without any evidence.

If you read through the science these ideas are based on, you'll understand why these are far, far more plausible than an implausible eternally existing deity creating everything from nothing.

Eternal Universe info:

[1404.0535] Eternal Universe
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
The Origin of the Universe​

Black Hole Universe:

Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe​

I still agree though that this universe Appears to have a beginning.

Eternal has no beginning. Beginning means just that...there was nothing physically before.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Eternal has no beginning. Beginning means just that...there was nothing physically before.

which is why most people speaking on the topic say it "appears" to have a beginning. Again, if something like the multiverse spawned our universe, then the multiverse could be eternal. Do you need me to link the scientific propositions for a multiverse too? There's so many ways for a universe to come about (or to be eternal, depending on your outlook) other than an enchanted ethereal mind - the God proposition is at a very distant bottom of that list.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

0 people have contested a premise or even identified a premise. My position has only ever been the state of my belief, which doesn't require a premise or an argument. Such things are merely transmitted by statements, to a normally behaving person anyway.

lol!

If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close. There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally. It's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication.

^^ There it is!! ^^ Argument from Ignorance - Highlights and italics free of charge.

Lol? Did you find yourself funny? I was hoping for a better concoction from you but instead you withdrew from trying to make a factual claim to simply making an assertion. I hope to receive better from you next time - I know you have it in you for at least one more contrived attempt. If I were a betting man I'd say you could contrive all day to avoid admitting you are mistaken so why quit now?

no, no - it's you, you are funny, not me - I'm laughing at you. As @Ophiolite mentioned, you're carving out a pithy defence in rock for all to see, my friend. It's an argument whether you intended to defend it vigorously or leave it rhetorical. Our work was done quite some time ago - everything else after is just entertainment now...