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.
Please provide a list of scientists who have discovered why the Universe exists.Ok. Please provide a list of scientists who claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence.
Do you have evidence of what caused the Universe to begin exist, or filling the gap as all religions do with. The man in the sky theory?We have plenty of evidence that effects have causes and that the universe began to exist.
Because you are breaking the law of non-contradiction. Spaghetti cannot both me material and immaterial. Just like the eternal flame cannot both be material and immaterial. Do you just ignore logic when it's inconvenient?
...So physicists just make up the values and ranges of physical constants to prove the Bible?
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/introduction.htmlThat's it. You've seen through it. Physics and Cosmology is just a religious hoax. How could I have been so blind!?
I'm kidding.Here's some information on the topic to help you out.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/introduction.html
Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?
As a god, his achievements are small, as a man. They are second to none.Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?
eudaimonia,
Mark
As a god, his achievements are small, as a man. They are second to none.
Even easier, what does the law of noncontradiction say about a being who is its own father?
This also has interesting implications for the claim that things can't create themselves. Seem like a rock solid certainty when applied to universes. I wonder if it works for gods, too, or if they need special rules to operate.
So Jesus was mortal like all us. As we are sons or daughters of god.Jesus never claimed to be his own Father, he claimed to be a Son of the Father. All men and women are sons and daughters of God. Personality comes from the Father. In the case of Jesus he is a creator Son.
But Jesus was/is a creator Son incarnate, both human and divine in one personality. Jesus was truly a miraculous person. Man is the last link in a long line of descending Sons of God, mortal yes, potentially eternal-divine.So Jesus was mortal like all us. As we are sons or daughters of god.
Which is consistent with Jesus being of the House of David. As all Israelites then were in the house.
Good to know we can circumvent the law of non-contradiction by calling the contradiction "miraculous".But Jesus was/is a creator Son incarnate, both human and divine in one personality. Jesus was truly a miraculous person. Man is the last link in a long line of descending Sons of God, mortal yes, potentially eternal-divine.
Jesus never claimed to be his own Father, he claimed to be a Son of the Father. All men and women are sons and daughters of God. Personality comes from the Father. In the case of Jesus he is a creator Son.
The Law of Special Pleading is obeyed this way.Good to know we can circumvent the law of non-contradiction by calling the contradiction "miraculous".
To review:Please provide a list of scientists who have discovered why the Universe exists.
You are misrepresenting my argument...essentially an straw man response.Do you have evidence of what caused the Universe to begin exist, or filling the gap as all religions do with. The man in the sky theory?
The evidence isn't in Genesis, so where is it?
"Tuning" can only be done to things that can be tuned; this has not been established for our universe.
What would an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful deity need with tuning? Is it not powerful enough to make it work however it likes? We could be living on the surface of the Sun. Now, that would be evidence for all-knowing, all-powerful deity.
Nope. I haven't seen any actual science backing up fine tuning arguments, just handwaving and bluster such as this :
Is there anything in there which shows how these physical constants arose? If not, then it really adds nothing to the conversation.
Even easier, what does the law of noncontradiction say about a being who is its own father?
This also has interesting implications for the claim that things can't create themselves. Seem like a rock solid certainty when applied to universes. I wonder if it works for gods, too, or if they need special rules to operate.
Plainly incorrect. I never claimed that intelligence was immaterial. You have me confused with another poster who was using that term "intelligence".No, you claim that it is immaterial. Does intelligence "begin to exist"? Is it "uncaused"?
Your opinion. You asked me for my definition of "cause" and I answered it..."something which brings about or produces it's effects."As cjlr first noted in a separate debate, this definition is hopelessly vague: presumably you define effect as "something caused."
Things do not begin to exist (or come into being) without a cause, whether the cause is material or immaterial. P1 makes no distinction.In the first premise, are you referring to things "beginning to exist" ex materia or ex nihilo?
matter and energy ex nihilo.In the second premise, are you referring to the expansion of the universe or are you claiming that matter and energy were created ex nihilo?
You seem to be suggesting that I am special pleading. What some call the law of causality is not the same as physical laws. For example, F=ma is a tense-less description of how Force, mass, and acceleration relate to each other. These types of physical laws are thought to "break down" under certain extreme circumstances...in other words, F may not equal ma anymore, but that in no way relates to the "law of casualty" which is an axiom that tensed effects have tensed causes.Are you claiming that our causal intuitions are an exception to this; that it's possible for all physical laws to break down, but for our causal intuitions to somehow remain intact?
The point of p1 is things do not begin to exist (or come into being) without a cause, whether the cause is material or immaterial. P1 makes no distinction. So the question is why do you make the exception (special pleading) in the case of the universe and claim it does not have a cause, as in the following quote:The common experience is ex materia creation, not creatio ex nihilo. If the universe did indeed originate ex nihilo, which is far from certain, then it is an exception to our common experience and therefore our causal intuitions may no longer apply.
Maybe so, but then you would have to justify why not. Otherwise, you are special pleading.What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself.
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?