Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

b&wpac4 · May 8, 2009

allhart,

There are very, very few sources that even tell us that Jesus existed. No historical sources, outside of the New Testament, say he rose from the dead, claimed to be God, or performed any miracles. If you have evidence that would suggest otherwise, that was not written centuries later by Christian writers who were basing their books upon the New Testament, I'd be glad to read it.

In fact, there's more evidence to support the idea that Pilate was a brutal leader who was recalled to Rome for his brutality than there is to support the Pilate character shown in the New Testament.

mpok1519 · May 8, 2009

allhart said:
I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking
I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise. It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

lol the, "better be safe than sorry" strategy. I gotchya.

I'm not here to disprove god's existence. or prove god's existence, but essentially, thats what ID and IC theory tries to do, but they dont even use science as their standard. Writing your name in the snow doesn't mean God exists, logically, dont you agree?. lol

yes, it is a terrible notion, which is why its not a good notion to have, dont ya think? If its such a terrible notion, then it must be an asinine, ignorant, and/or malignant one. If you're so busy having these terrible notions, get rid of them! the power of positive thinking is more powerful than you know!

Matter was always here; never came from anywhere, never gonna go anywhere. Why do things need a beginning and an end? When you get from alpha to omega, the only thing left to do is to start over, right? Does time have an end? Why does it even need a beginning?

PhilosophicalBluster · May 8, 2009

corvus_corax said:
Yeah, you're correct so far, but you DID say-
Me: ... probability ...

Yes, you are correct in saying that a something that doesn't obey the laws of logic doesn't have to obey the concept of probability either. So lets move it down from: 'everything has to happen' to 'everything could happen'. So our universe would not be an inevitability were such a state of nothingness to exist, but a possibility. I believe it's still valid though, unless I'm missing something.

allhart · May 8, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
allhart,

There are very, very few sources that even tell us that Jesus existed. No historical sources, outside of the New Testament, say he rose from the dead, claimed to be God, or performed any miracles. If you have evidence that would suggest otherwise, that was not written centuries later by Christian writers who were basing their books upon the New Testament, I'd be glad to read it.

In fact, there's more evidence to support the idea that Pilate was a brutal leader who was recalled to Rome for his brutality than there is to supportthe Pilate character shown in the New Testament.

There more to be said by Hank Hanegraaff. In my Own words we have to go to the sources of information and that is scholars of the N.T.,O.T. and Historians
Is the New Testament canon Authoritative or Authoritarian?

N.T. canon and knows nothing of early competing canon. Secular historian-including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)-confirm the many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the N.T. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus,Tertullian,Julius Africanus and Clement of Rome-all writing before AD 250-also shed light on N.T. historical accuracy. From such sources, we piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the N.T. canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospel and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem,Antioch,Alexandria and Rome. As such,the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the of early believers based on principles on principles of canonicity.

Pick up the Bible answer book by Hank. He has more to reveal about time lines of 70AD, Mid 60s and AD 40. Just a few years after the events recorded by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John

b&wpac4 · May 8, 2009

allhart said:
There more to be said by Hank Hanegraaff. In my Own words we have to go to the sources of information and that is scholars of the N.T.,O.T. and Historians
Is the New Testament canon Authoritative or Authoritarian?

N.T. canon and knows nothing of early competing canon. Secular historian-including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)-confirm the many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the N.T. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus,Tertullian,Julius Africanus and Clement of Rome-all writing before AD 250-also shed light on N.T. historical accuracy. From such sources, we piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the N.T. canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospel and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem,Antioch,Alexandria and Rome. As such,the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the of early believers based on principles on principles of canonicity.

Pick up the Bible answer book by Hank. He has more to reveal about time lines of 70AD, Mid 60s and AD 40. Just a few years after the events recorded Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John

As I said, this may all be well and good to establish that Jesus existed, it doesn't confirm miracles, resurrection, etc.

allhart · May 8, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
As I said, this may all be well and good to establish that Jesus existed, it doesn't confirm miracles, resurrection, etc.

Historical scholars have made evidence of the witnesses recorded and available for you. Pray to God for him to help you to come to an understanding of Jesus Christ. If you are truly serious and sincere, God will open your heart, mind and Soul..... Seek and you shall find!

Wyzaard · May 8, 2009

allhart said:
N.T. canon and knows nothing of early competing canon. Secular historian-including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)-confirm the many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the N.T.

Actually, the most that was claimed by them was that there were Christian communities whose members claimed that Jesus did such things... not exactly good support.

Early church leaders such as Irenaeus,Tertullian,Julius Africanus and Clement of Rome-all writing before AD 250-also shed light on N.T. historical accuracy. From such sources, we piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the N.T. canon.

According to men writing hundreds of years later who had no reason to be antithetical to their beliefs, traditions, and institutions. Also not very good support.

Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospel and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem,Antioch,Alexandria and Rome.

Again, this only supports the existence of coherent Christian communities, not the accuracy of the NT texts themselves.

As such,the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the of early believers based on principles on principles of canonicity.

This doesn't logically follow.

Wiccan_Child · May 8, 2009

Wyzaard said:
But that's the rub: by assigning some manner of non-existence to nothingness, you've injected a form of existential inertia/stasis into it's attributes that seems to preclude dynamic creation.

Hmm, I disagree. It is, by definition, without attributes and properties. An electric hole doesn't have properties per se, but acts as if it does. Which might be where you're getting confused: it's useful to think of nothingness as some quantifiable object with properties (and our language is geared towards thinking like that), but that's ultimately not what's happening.

Wyzaard said:
Why not default to a state where neither existence nor non-existence are meaningful?

Because non-existence is the important concept here. Also, how can there be a state between existence and non-existence?

Wyzaard said:
How can there "Chaos" implies instability and endless flux; it's not a "something", but rather where stuff and non-stuff arises.

True, but 'chaos' has a very different meaning in science. Given the nature of our discussion, I don't think we need any more confusion .

Wyzaard · May 8, 2009

Wiccan_Child said:
Hmm, I disagree. It is, by definition, without attributes and properties. An electric hole doesn't have properties per se, but acts as if it does. Which might be where you're getting confused: it's useful to think of nothingness as some quantifiable object with properties (and our language is geared towards thinking like that), but that's ultimately not what's happening.

If it possesses no attributes and properties, then what reason is there to suppose that existence may spring from it?

Because non-existence is the important concept here. Also, how can there be a state between existence and non-existence?

Hindu and Buddhist thinkers supposed that such a quasi-state had to exist for existence and nonexistence to exist in the counterpoint manner that they do.

True, but 'chaos' has a very different meaning in science. Given the nature of our discussion, I don't think we need any more confusion .

But here, we've gone past scientific matters into metaphysical speculation. I mean, talk about Braines if you want, but go further and you're in shrug-dunno-perhaps-land.

Wiccan_Child · May 8, 2009

Wyzaard said:
If it possesses no attributes and properties, then what reason is there to suppose that existence may spring from it?

It doesn't spring from it, but it springs because of it. It possess no attributes and properties, so nothingness itself doesn't do anything, and no thing comes from it. Nevertheless, somethingness subsequently arises because nothingness existed before.

It's like... I didn't have a car crash because I had an accelerator, but because I didn't have brakes. The 'brakelessness' didn't cause the crash, and the crash didn't arise from it. But nevertheless, I only crashed because I was in a state of brakelessness.

That's the point of an absence: it's not that it does do something, but that it doesn't stop it.

Double negatives. Gotta love 'em .

Wyzaard said:
Hindu and Buddhist thinkers supposed that such a quasi-state had to exist for existence and nonexistence to exist in the counterpoint manner that they do.

Yes, I was going to mention the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism: they take Gautama's 'Middle Way' to the extreme, positing a Middle Way in everything, to the extent that they seem to reject the Law of Excluded Middle.

Suffice to say, rejecting fundamental laws of logic makes me uncomfortable!

Wyzaard said:
But here, we've gone past scientific matters into metaphysical speculation. I mean, talk about Braines if you want, but go further and you're in shrug-dunno-perhaps-land.

Agreed. But I was thinking more about the standard that has naturally developed on CF: if in doubt, assume everyone's using scientific vernacular.

That way, we don't have people jumping into a thread and turning it into a tired debate on semantics.

quatona · May 9, 2009

PhilosophicalBluster said:
ON TO THE SUBJECT:

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

Please explain what time is supposed to be in the absence of laws, physics, logic, in the absence of "literally anything".

daniel777 · May 9, 2009

Then please, explain how nothingness can be restricted, if there's nothing to do the restricting.

i think you just ended yourself.

but let me try to explain this another way.... why are you so intent on keeping this dogma?

there is "nothing" to do the restricting if nothing is nothing.

also, you're wrong about the restriction thing too.

everything (including everything that is real, possible, imaginable, in-imaginable and impossible) has no restrictions.

nothing is a term that signifies the ultimate restriction. in other words, nothing carries with it every restriction... if nothing were to cary no restrictions, it would be everything, or at least something.

Please explain what time is supposed to be in the absence of laws, physics, logic, in the absence of "literally anything".

right... in other words, something can't "begin" in or through nothing alone.

if something "begins" in or through nothing, it means that nothing was never nothing....

which brings us back to the original problem. you place restrictions on nothing by saying it has no physics, laws, or anything. and then you tell us it has no restrictions.

nothing is nothing.

nothing is not, not nothing.

Wyzaard · May 11, 2009

Wiccan_Child said:
It doesn't spring from it, but it springs because of it. It possess no attributes and properties, so nothingness itself doesn't do anything, and no thing comes from it. Nevertheless, somethingness subsequently arises because nothingness existed before.

I just see no logical progression here... nothingness certainly makes room for any and all somethingness, but I see no impetus for somethingness to occur, unless you're suggesting the absence of obstruction necessarily leads to existence... I think you need to go into more detail here.

It's like... I didn't have a car crash because I had an accelerator, but because I didn't have brakes. The 'brakelessness' didn't cause the crash, and the crash didn't arise from it. But nevertheless, I only crashed because I was in a state of brakelessness.

Well... you could be brakeless and not crash, given there's nothing to run into.

That's the point of an absence: it's not that it does do something, but that it doesn't stop it.

Doesn't stop what?

Yes, I was going to mention the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism: they take Gautama's 'Middle Way' to the extreme, positing a Middle Way in everything, to the extent that they seem to reject the Law of Excluded Middle.

Suffice to say, rejecting fundamental laws of logic makes me uncomfortable!

We're in the Western tradition(s)... T or F is as much as we can handle.

Agreed. But I was thinking more about the standard that has naturally developed on CF: if in doubt, assume everyone's using scientific vernacular.

That way, we don't have people jumping into a thread and turning it into a tired debate on semantics.

But isn't that what gets spoken more often than scientific vernacular?

PhilosophicalBluster · May 11, 2009

Wyzaard said:
but I see no impetus for somethingness to occur, unless you're suggesting the absence of obstruction necessarily leads to existence...

The point is that in the absence of the laws of logic, there is no impetus needed for the somethingness to occur.

mpok1519 · May 11, 2009

quatona said:
Please explain what time is supposed to be in the absence of laws, physics, logic, in the absence of "literally anything".

imo, time essentially is a human construct; we've created 'time' so we can have work schedules and mundane on-time oppointments. time didn't exist until people made the idea.

Time really doesnt exist at all, regardless of space, laws, physics, logic, etc. Logically, it only exists bc people think it does.

mpok1519 · May 11, 2009

daniel777 said:
i think you just ended yourself.

but let me try to explain this another way.... why are you so intent on keeping this dogma?

there is "nothing" to do the restricting if nothing is nothing.

also, you're wrong about the restriction thing too.

everything (including everything that is real, possible, imaginable, in-imaginable and impossible) has no restrictions.

nothing is a term that signifies the ultimate restriction. in other words, nothing carries with it every restriction... if nothing were to cary no restrictions, it would be everything, or at least something.

right... in other words, something can't "begin" in or through nothing alone.

if something "begins" in or through nothing, it means that nothing was never nothing....

which brings us back to the original problem. you place restrictions on nothing by saying it has no physics, laws, or anything. and then you tell us it has no restrictions.

nothing is nothing.

nothing is not, not nothing.

I think you just confused everyone. lol

My theory says there was never a beginning and there will never be an end.

Theres everything, and only, everything.

Wiccan_Child · May 11, 2009

Wyzaard said:
I just see no logical progression here... nothingness certainly makes room for any and all somethingness, but I see no impetus for somethingness to occur, unless you're suggesting the absence of obstruction necessarily leads to existence... I think you need to go into more detail here.

That's pretty much what I'm suggesting. Though, unlike PhilosophicalBluster, I'm not suggesting that the laws of logic themselves are absenthttp://www.christianforums.com/users/235764/ (that would be... silly ), but rather using the tendency in physics for something to occur if there is nothing to stop it (this is particularly evident in radioactive and metastable decays).

Wyzaard said:
Doesn't stop what?

Anything. But because we have nothingness (or rather, don't have any thing), the only possible outcomes are i) we continue to have no thing, or ii) we hereafter do have some thing. There exists some finite probability that the latter outcome will occur, and in the absence of time, all events occur simultaneously. Thus, somethingness results.

Moreover, we can extend this to create the many-world hypothesis: if anything can occur, then anything will occur. Every possible permutation comes into existence, and just so happen to live in the permutation that harbours life.

Though I thought up that latter point just now, so I'll need to ponder some more...

Wyzaard said:
We're in the Western tradition(s)... T or F is as much as we can handle.

I'm usually open-minded about other ways of looking at the world... but this one is just dead wrong . Plus it would play merry hell with my mathematics.

Wyzaard said:
But isn't that what gets spoken more often than scientific vernacular?

Yes, but it's more ambiguous and confusing. If we agree to use scientific vernacular, then when I use the word 'chaos', you know precisely what I'm talking about. If we're using colloquialisms, then my words are just as vague and ill-defined as they were before.

Our natural language is ill-equipped at handling just counter-intuitive concepts, which is why precise terminology stops us getting more confused than we already are!

Wiccan_Child · May 11, 2009

mpok1519 said:
imo, time essentially is a human construct; we've created 'time' so we can have work schedules and mundane on-time oppointments. time didn't exist until people made the idea.

Time really doesnt exist at all, regardless of space, laws, physics, logic, etc. Logically, it only exists bc people think it does.

Then why does my clock continue to tick, even when I'm not in the room?

Time is what has elapsed between one event and the next, and is why events that occur at the same point in space don't occur all at once. It is rather more objective than you make out, and is indeed as real as space itself (Einstein, anyone?).

daniel777 · May 11, 2009

I think you just confused everyone. lol

huh lol... um.

ok...

there are two types of restrictions.
1 those restrictions imposed on something by something else
2 and those restrictions present because of the nature of the thing itself.

to say that "nothing" lacks all restrictions is to say that it lacks both the restrictions imposed on it by something else, and those restrictions present because of the nature of nothing.

so, if a nature is present, meaning that if whatever you're talking about is itself, then restrictions are present.

problem 1.

the op described the nature of nothing, meaning he gave it restrictions.

since he gave nothing restrictions, he can not say that nothing lacks restrictions. he's talking about two different nothings, rendering all this as nonsense.

problem 2.

if nothing lacks all restrictions, then nothing also lacks itself (2). if nothing is not itself, then nothing is not nothing.

the argument was flawed to begin with.

better?

nothing is the ultimate restriction, and nothing is a restriction to itself.

My theory says there was never a beginning and there will never be an end.

Theres everything, and only, everything.

that is much better. mine too.

PhilosophicalBluster · May 11, 2009

daniel777 said:
...so, if a nature is present, meaning that if whatever you're talking about is itself, then restrictions are present...

This is true if the subject matter is under the laws of logic.

...the op described the nature of nothing, meaning he gave it restrictions...

I don't think that the ability to disobey the laws of logic would count as a restriction.

... if nothing lacks all restrictions, then nothing also lacks itself (2)...

There is no logical connection between these two statements.

Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

Trying to stay away

Veteran

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)

Messianic believer

Trying to stay away

Messianic believer

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)

Veteran

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency