If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[WoundedDeep]

It sounds superfluous. Why posit a supernatural explanation for something that already has a natural explanation? Do you believe that seizures are caused by demons?

It isn't if you yourself begin to understand that there is a cause for everything. Seizures are either caused by demons or by a neurological condition. Either way, there is a cause for seizures, it doesn't just happen without reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That, unfortunately, still doesn't prove that there are events in the universe without any cause.

What about 'events' outside the universe (if such 'events' are even possible)?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It isn't if you yourself begin to understand that there is a cause for everything. Seizures are either caused by demons or by a neurological condition. Either way, there is a cause for seizures, it doesn't just happen without reason.

I'm not suggesting that it happens without reason or doesn't require explanation. I am suggesting, however, that a supernatural explanation for seizures is both superfluous and practically useless. We have a good understanding of what causes seizures, and no neurologist worth their degree would seriously entertain the demonic hypothesis of epileptogenesis.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What about 'events' outside the universe?

There are certainly events outside the universe, and we Christians call it events in the spiritual realm. In fact, much of the events that occur within the material universe is tied to events in the spiritual realm, they are interrelated, just that you cannot see with your mortal eyes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are certainly events outside the universe, and we Christians call it events in the spiritual realm. In fact, much of the events that occur within the material universe is tied to events in the spiritual realm, they are interrelated, just that you cannot see with your mortal eyes.

So are you conceding that it is possible for some events or things to be uncaused?

 

[WoundedDeep]

I'm not suggesting that it happens without reason or doesn't require explanation. I am suggesting, however, that a supernatural explanation for seizures is both superfluous and practically useless. We have a good understanding of what causes seizures, and no neurologist worth their degree would seriously entertain the demonic hypothesis of epileptogenesis.

Yes, that is because they don't know that things in the spiritual realm can impact the physical realm. If not, why all the exorcisms by a Christian evangelist or Catholic priest? Exorcisms aren't superfluous, they are real events.

 

[WoundedDeep]

So are you conceding that it is possible for some events or things to be uncaused?

No, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Only God is uncaused, everything else, spiritual or physical, has a cause.

 

[bhsmte]

It isn't if you yourself begin to understand that there is a cause for everything. Seizures are either caused by demons or by a neurological condition. Either way, there is a cause for seizures, it doesn't just happen without reason.

And what do you think causes seizures and why?

 

[WoundedDeep]

First off I made no claims to what initiated the big bang since we do not know if the expansion of the quantum singularity had an initiating event or what it would be if it did. Secondly the reason the universe is not being created on earth is likely because the universe already exists.

So you believe the universe existed out of nothing? Yet, isn't it commonly believed that ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing)?

Why would you think that it should? Exactly what events do you think the physics calls for? The only event I can think of that fits the bill of particulars for mass energy transference is the nuclear weapons we have created.

Yah so you agree that mass energy is created, so if we create the mass energy that destroys or changes our planet, what creates the mass energy accumulated in the Sun or stars or supernovas? Do you think it makes sense to say they self-existed?

 

[TillICollapse]

Does anyone else have issues with the site and logging in? I feel like I login to my email once a week, but I login to this site multiple times per visit.

Type out responses in some other text editor and then copy/paste.

 

[Belk]

The argument of uncaused event "does not claim certain knowledge that some event do not have causes, which would be difficult to establish scientifically". Therefore, in the absence of evidence as it admits, I can have the liberty to not believe in its validity.

I see. So "We can not conclusively show a negative but we have good evidence" is now an out for you. Very well. The complete and utter lack of any empirical evidence is why I do not find God likely so I guess we are even on that score.

About radioactive decay it says:

"Radioactive decay is determined by quantum mechanics – which is inherently probabilistic. So it’s impossible to work out when any particular atom will decay, but we can make predictions based on the statistical behaviour of large numbers of atoms."

Quantum mechanics is in itself limited, so its not surprising that it cannot predict everything. But the fact that there is statistical behaviour of atoms, it means there is at least something measurable, and that cannot occur unless statistical data is written into the atoms. And we know any form of measurable data is created, data doesn't pop out by itself.

What? That is nonsensical. The data simply shows how likely the atom is decay in a certain time frame. How is that "Written into the atoms"?

Therefore, much of the without cause arguments are essentially "maybe" arguments, which it itself admits.

No, they are "It is impossible to evidence a negative" arguments.

That, unfortunately, still doesn't prove that there are events in the universe without any cause.

That is because proof is impossible in everything except math and alcohol. In any event this demonstrates why you are a believer and I am not. Later.

 

[Belk]

So you believe the universe existed out of nothing? Yet, isn't it commonly believed that ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing)?

No, I do not believe that.

Yah so you agree that mass energy is created, so if we create the mass energy that destroys or changes our planet, what creates the mass energy accumulated in the Sun or stars or supernovas? Do you think it makes sense to say they self-existed?

No, I do not agree with that. Mass and Energy, as far as we can tell, are never created or destroyed. It simply changes form. We have pretty good evidence that all the mass and energy in the universe equals out to zero. What is "self-existed"? Things either exist or they do not.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What? That is nonsensical. The data simply shows how likely the atom is decay in a certain time frame. How is that "Written into the atoms"?

How can someone extract data from something unless information is coded into that thing? How then, can statistical data be extracted from atoms if measurable information is not encoded in them? And where does the information in atoms come from? Did information exist out of nothingness?

No, they are "It is impossible to evidence a negative" arguments.

Then I see no reason why they should argue for something that is impossible to evidence.

 

[WoundedDeep]

No, I do not believe that.

So you don't believe universe existed out of nothing. Yet you believe that the universe already/always existed. Out of what then? Contradictions much?

No, I do not agree with that. Mass and Energy, as far as we can tell, are never created or destroyed. It simply changes form. We have pretty good evidence that all the mass and energy in the universe equals out to zero. What is "self-existed"? Things either exist or they do not.

Yeah, but for energy to accumulate into mass energy, something must cause them to accumulate, yes or no?

 

[Belk]

So you don't believe universe existed out of nothing. Yet you believe that the universe already/always existed. Out of what then? Contradictions much?

No. There is no contradiction in believing the universe was at one point a singularity that contained all the energy that eventually became the universe. As to how that happened I do not claim to know.

Yeah, but for energy to accumulate into mass energy, something must cause them to accumulate, yes or no?

As far as we are aware the physical properties of the universe result in energy and mass existing as two separate states of the same coin. So sure, the "cause" are the physical laws.

 

[WoundedDeep]

No. There is no contradiction in believing the universe was at one point a singularity that contained all the energy that eventually became the universe. As to how that happened I do not claim to know.

Yeah and we call that singularity God Himself (though the description doesn't fit 100%, but still its worth acknowledging), so what's the disagreement? Or is it just offensive that we call something God?

 

[Belk]

How can someone extract data from something unless information is coded into that thing? How then, can statistical data be extracted from atoms if measurable information is not encoded in them? And where does the information in atoms come from? Did information exist out of nothingness?

Do you think lottery numbers are encoded into the lottery balls? Is financial data encoded into money? Data is simply a measurement of what happens. It is no more encoded into the atom then the length of a room is encoded into the walls.

Then I see no reason why they should argue for something that is impossible to evidence.

They are not. They are arguing against something that is impossible to evidence. The lack of elephants in a room is generally good evidence that points to no elephants being in a given room.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Do you think lottery numbers are encoded into the lottery balls? Is financial data encoded into money? Data is simply a measurement of what happens. It is no more encoded into the atom then the length of a room is encoded into the walls.

I can only say we are not on the same wavelength of logic. Never mind.

 

[Belk]

Yeah and we call that singularity God Himself (though the description doesn't fit 100%, but still its worth acknowledging), so what's the disagreement? Or is it just offensive that we call something God?

So the universe is God? Because that is what you are claiming. Personally I find nothing offensive about that but you might wish to consult with your fellow Christians since they tend to give God properties like sentience and omnipotence that the Universe does not really posses. Most Christians I have talked to look at the Big Bang as something God set in motion, not something that God is.

 

[Belk]

I can only say we are not on the same wavelength of logic. Never mind.

Likely so. No worries.