Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hypothetically anything could be responsible, we just don’t know. And I’m ok with that. Until such time as there appears a good reason to believe it’s God behind it all, I shall remain unconvinced.you are the one who said a multiverse that had no beginning was responsible, so you tell me.
I challenged it because that was what you invited him to do.
Remember, this is what you said:
Then you tell him:
You issued a challenge, but you're not actually challenging him? Why are you putting "challenge" in quotes anyways? It's your word, you don't have to "" yourself, you know.
And you can't challenge a Gish Gallup as a whole, it has to be challenged point by point because all it is is a collection of points. It isn't one cohesive piece, that's why it's shoddy argumentation. If you think it's odd that I would challenge the points individually, you still don't know what's going on.
Are you now saying that you don't believe the multiverse created the universe? Then my question is, what caused the universe? So far the only options are it created itself, which is impossible or something intelligent created it.Hypothetically anything could be responsible, we just don’t know. And I’m ok with that. Until such time as there appears a good reason to believe it’s God behind it all, I shall remain unconvinced.
No, there are plenty of other options. The universe could be causeless, it could be eternal, it could be in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, it could be made by pixies, it could be a simulation, etc. etc. etc. You’re not going to logic your way to intelligent design.Are you now saying that you don't believe the multiverse created the universe? Then my question is, what caused the universe? So far the only options are it created itself, which is impossible or something intelligent created it.
so then where did the universe come from? no where? I ask this too prod a question of you. Did the universe self create itself, or did the universe get created by a multiverse that never had a beginning and has intelligence to create another universe (fatally similiar to theism)? or what?
I don't know of many scientists that still hold to an uncaused eternal universe. Do you have evidence of any of that or are you going off faith?No, there are plenty of other options. The universe could be causeless, it could be eternal, it could be in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, it could be made by pixies, it could be a simulation, etc. etc. etc. You’re not going to logic your way to intelligent design.
No, there are plenty of other options. The universe could be causeless, it could be eternal, it could be in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, it could be made by pixies, it could be a simulation, etc. etc. etc. You’re not going to logic your way to intelligent design.
As I, and others here have already stated, 'I don't know.' But to instead fallaciously assert your conclusion, by way of the argument from ignorance, appears specious, at best.
And by the way, if it turns out that the 'universe' is eternal, then to even ask such a question of 'creation', is equally absurd.
Nonsense, plus bald assertions without evidence.The universe is space-time. It doesn't traverse time. That's nonsense.
There are also no scientists with evidence of an uncaused god. You’re starting to get it.I don't know of many scientists that still hold to an uncaused eternal universe. Do you have evidence of any of that or are you going off faith?
Next, you should read A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss.This should put to rest this argument:
The universe can't be eternal:
If it was, it would have to cross an infinite number of time-moments to reach the present moment. This is an infinite regress (back into the past) which is impossible/illogical. This is also an enumeration through an infinity of time moments.
It is impossible to enumerate through an infinity (it is impossible to cross an infinity of time-moments by counting sequentially through them).
Therefore, the universe could not have always existed.
---
The universe is not an adequate cause for its own formation (it would have to pre-exist itself to create itself; this is illogical).
“Nothing” is not an adequate cause for the creation/formation of the Universe.
Natural Laws by themselves are not an adequate cause for the actualization (creation/formation) of the Universe out of Nothing.
---
The Multiverse necessarily invokes either an infinite regress (which is illogical/impossible) or creation of something by itself (the multiverse) out of nothing (which is illogical/impossible).
And therefore the Multiverse is not an adequate cause for the existence of the universe (or the multiverse itself).
There is no other logical option: God created the universe.
Posted from a book I am reading written by a former atheist that's a well recognized scientist. ( will put full source when I get to a computer)
Gish Galloppost 197
I'd still like to see you explain this in your own words. For starters, why is an infinite regress of causes impossible/illogical?This should put to rest this argument:
The universe can't be eternal:
If it was, it would have to cross an infinite number of time-moments to reach the present moment. This is an infinite regress (back into the past) which is impossible/illogical. This is also an enumeration through an infinity of time moments.
It is impossible to enumerate through an infinity (it is impossible to cross an infinity of time-moments by counting sequentially through them).
Therefore, the universe could not have always existed.
---
The universe is not an adequate cause for its own formation (it would have to pre-exist itself to create itself; this is illogical).
“Nothing” is not an adequate cause for the creation/formation of the Universe.
Natural Laws by themselves are not an adequate cause for the actualization (creation/formation) of the Universe out of Nothing.
---
The Multiverse necessarily invokes either an infinite regress (which is illogical/impossible) or creation of something by itself (the multiverse) out of nothing (which is illogical/impossible).
And therefore the Multiverse is not an adequate cause for the existence of the universe (or the multiverse itself).
There is no other logical option: God created the universe.
Posted from a book I am reading written by a former atheist that's a well recognized scientist. ( will put full source when I get to a computer)
And by the way, why is it totally illogical for something to have created itself, but perfectly sensible for something intelligent to have existed outside of existence to create all existence? Neither of these propositions sound coherent to me.Are you now saying that you don't believe the multiverse created the universe? Then my question is, what caused the universe? So far the only options are it created itself, which is impossible or something intelligent created it.
if a universe created itself, it's subject to infinite regress. IF a multiverse is eternal it's subject to eternal regress, which is impossible.The universe is space-time. It doesn't traverse time. That's nonsense.
if a universe created itself, it's subject to infinite regress.
IF a multiverse is eternal it's subject to eternal regress, which is impossible.
If you acknowledge that humans are susceptible to all kinds of illusions, misapprehensions, and delusions, how do you know your god isn’t one of them? You’re already rejecting empirical means of detecting him, so what else should we look for?I was talking to someone else who said they can't see, hear, or feel God therefore He does not exist.
eyes can be deceiving. When you are walking on a hot street, and you see water on the road in a distance, it's a mirage. In a deep canyon, you can hear echo's of loud noises. But it's only one noise. So senses can be deceiving, and are not proof. Proof is something that is not possible. By the time you saw it with your eyes, journaled it in peer review, all the readers would have to trust your eye witness testimony that the tests came out accurate. Thats not proof.
In conclusion, the senses are not reliable. And even if they are reliable (and they aren't), why should someone else believe your senses? When communicating this truth to someone else, what may be a proof for you, all of a sudden is not proof. Because the other person needs to trust someone else's senses second hand. This is where all science fails. Even the hardest of sciences using the scientific method perfectly, is not proof. Most scientists realize this. Yet they ask for proof of christians viewpoints. it's hypocritical. The point is that nothing is provable. So basically faith is all there is. Some recognize that they live by faith, like Christians but most atheists don't realize they live by faith. Not just in some areas, but in everything they view as facts. (the only thing provable is math)
I never said empirical means are not valuable, I said they can't be used as proof. I mean prove one non mathematical fact to us. You can't. Ultimately we trust in the study, or someones testimony, etc or trust the views of those who write the peer review. We have faith in them. It's no different in having faith in God. I admit I have faith. I am empowered by the spirit daily, the Bible is spiritually discerned. And foolishness to those who operate in the natural realm. So I don't expect the Bible to make sense to you. But do you at least acknowledge you are using faith on a daily basis? It is only after acknowledging that fact, that you can truly understand empirical evidences. And at this point a skeptic who says I can't believe in God I am a scientist fails to see his contradiction. As a scientist, he uses faith every single day, just faith in the procedures, faith in other people's senses and observations, etc. Even faith in His own senses. As I said, your senses can give false readings. When you have a headache you can hear ringing in your ears. If you rub your eyes hard you can see spots and flashes of light.If you acknowledge that humans are susceptible to all kinds of illusions, misapprehensions, and delusions, how do you know your god isn’t one of them? You’re already rejecting empirical means of detecting him, so what else should we look for?
No one asked for proof. I’ve asked for evidence, or at the very least a reason to believe. I can provide evidence or practical necessity for every belief I have. Can you provide anything at all for yours?I never said empirical means are not valuable, I said they can't be used as proof. I mean prove one non mathematical fact to us. You can't. Ultimately we trust in the study, or someones testimony, etc or trust the views of those who write the peer review. We have faith in them. It's no different in having faith in God. I admit I have faith. I am empowered by the spirit daily, the Bible is spiritually discerned. And foolishness to those who operate in the natural realm. So I don't expect the Bible to make sense to you. But do you at least acknowledge you are using faith on a daily basis? It is only after acknowledging that fact, that you can truly understand empirical evidences. And at this point a skeptic who says I can't believe in God I am a scientist fails to see his contradiction. As a scientist, he uses faith every single day, just faith in the procedures, faith in other people's senses and observations, etc. Even faith in His own senses. As I said, your senses can give false readings. When you have a headache you can hear ringing in your ears. If you rub your eyes hard you can see spots and flashes of light.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?