Matter comes from energy and energy cannot be destroyed nor created. So yes! Matter can appear since energy exists. like the formula says: E=mc2.You start with presuppositions that are not supported by observation.
You believe that matter spontaneously came to be and has since become spontaneously arranged in more and more complex ways, spontaneously increasing available information and energy.
I'm just being honest here, I think that's absurd.
You start with presuppositions that are not supported by observation.
You believe that matter spontaneously came to be
and has since become spontaneously arranged in more and more complex ways, spontaneously increasing available information and energy.
I'm just being honest here, I think that's absurd.
Do religious believers trust in their God? Do religious believers commit to their God? Do religious believers believe their God is real? Is there any sound, objective evidence their God is real? If not then their belief is the result of credulity.No, I did not say that religious believers trust in something they don't believe is real. They (some of them) trust in something about which they have insufficient data to know for certain whether it's real.
Do you believe your God is real? I suspect you do. Is there any sound, objective evidence your God is real? No, there isn’t. Your belief is the result of credulity.Yet here you are, expressing beliefs without any sound, objective evidence (your impression of internet posters' motives is neither sound nor objective evidence), and in fact rejecting evidence when it's offered (I'm a religious believer, and I see no way of determining to what extent my religious commitments are to something real).
It isn’t credulity because there is plenty of sound, objective evidence to show that the universe is real. I don’t think atheists believe the universe was uncaused. We don’t know the cause and we certainly don’t credulously believe that “God did it” without a single shred of sound, objective evidence to support that belief.And as I said, the core belief of many atheists is that an uncaused universe is real, despite a complete lack of sound, objective evidence supporting that belief. Why is that not credulity?
So you don’t know whether your God is real or not? I suspect you do believe your God is real despite there being a complete lack of sound, objective evidence supporting that belief. That belief is the result of credulity.The only justified position is "I don't know." And that is in fact my position. What's credulous about it?
Religious believers tend to be driven by their emotions, particularly fear and anxiety. Religions pander to those fears and exploit them. Christianity seems to have refined this quite well.Sure, I think it's likely that fear of death drives much religious belief. But I'm not going to draw that conclusion until I have some sound, objective evidence, since that would be credulous of me. So present some sound, objective evidence, please.
Are religious believers sceptical about the notion that their God is real? Have they withheld their belief until they have multiple, independent lines of sound, objective evidence to support it? Of course they haven’t. They are non-sceptics and hence more credulous than sceptics.Not until you present the evidence. I'm willing to accept "non-skeptics are more credulous than skeptics", but that's pretty much a matter of definition.
So you don’t consider yourself credulous? Tell me, do you have any sound, objective evidence at all that your God is real? No? But you believe it anyway, don’t you? If so then you are credulous.Not a chance. Both because you haven't begun to present any evidence to support it, and because I'm a believer and I don't consider myself credulous.
The examples that I’ve given here support the assertion that religious believers tend to be driven by their emotions, particularly fear and anxiety.So in support of your bald assertions about religious believers, you post a link to another post in which you make the same bald assertions?
Spontaneous increase in available information, energy and complexity is absurd. It has never been observed. Absolutely everything we can observe operates in exactly the opposite manner.
The universe did not start out with necessarily existing energy somehow spontaneously evolving into complex matter/energy systems.
Would you agree that in a hydrogen bomb explosion; Helium is spontaneously created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms? Proto-stars had a short life (Due to their size) and I think you know what goes on in a large star about to go supernova? It all depends on how you look at time! Creationists believe that from the genesis of the universe to the first human being created; took just 6 days! They obviously have no idea of the time scales involved in a universe coming into being and up to the time higher life forms appear!The universe did not start out with necessarily existing energy somehow spontaneously evolving into complex matter/energy systems.
Energy existing necessarily is as absurd as matter existing necessarily.
Spontaneous increase in available information, energy and complexity is absurd.
The universe did not start out with necessarily existing energy somehow spontaneously evolving into complex matter/energy systems.
What happens in a bomb hardly happens spontaneously.
What you believe happens in stars is based on presuppositions that beg the answer you seek.
It is obvious, to me, that this is a universe going from maximum available complextity, information and energy to minimum. Mutation and extinction are evidenced, but I have no reason to believe that, on some niether-scale, it is all magically going the other way. I have no reason to doubt that this is a universe "winding down", "playing out". Absolutely everything I see confirms Max. to Min. flow to things. The popular idea that things are getting spontaneously more complex seems wildly ridiculous, to me.
'Coldness' does happen spontaneously all over the universe and rather frequently I might add.Refrigeration does not happen spontaneously.
The alignment of ice crystals hardly quailies as an increase in complexity.
But honest people will modify those presuppositions when presented with evidence that contradicts them.We all start with presuppositions that ultimately determine what we find.
I do not start with the same presuppositions you do, either. Yet we can probably agree on what an apple is because reality always trumps beliefs or ideas.I do not start with the same presuppositions as most ie. material-spacial-energenic necessity.
Why?I am left to believe that the God of the bible exists necessarily and that everything else is contingent.
It is strange indeed.It is very strange to live among people who see things so very differently.
Ditto. Makes me grateful that I at least try to see things for what they most likely are, not what I wish them to be.It makes me very greatful.
No. You believe that because you wish to believe that. Simple.Knowledge of God is a gift from God and cannot be achived by human effort. I am left to believe what I am left to believe, because I too am a contingent being.
Refrigeration does not happen spontaneously.
The alignment of ice crystals hardly quailies as an increase in complexity.
We all start with presuppositions that ultimately determine what we find.
I do not start with the same presuppositions as most ie. material-spacial-energenic necessity.
I am left to believe that the God of the bible exists necessarily and that everything else is contingent.
It is very strange to live among people who see things so very differently.
It makes me very greatful.
Knowledge of God is a gift from God and cannot be achived by human effort. I am left to believe what I am left to believe, because I too am a contingent being.
So you dont know whether your God is real or not? I suspect you do believe your God is real despite there being a complete lack of sound, objective evidence supporting that belief. That belief is the result of credulity.
This is one of the many things you keep repeating that's blatantly wrong. Some scientists presuppose that the physical world is necessary. Some scientists firmly believe the physical world is contingent (and in fact created by God). Lots of scientists neither know nor care whether the world is necessary or contingent. And the funny thing is, they all do the same science regardless of their presuppositions, and they all (with vanishingly few exceptions) reach similar conclusions. Among those conclusions is that life has evolved from a common ancestor over long periods of time.We all start with presuppositions that ultimately determine what we find.
I do not start with the same presuppositions as most ie. material-spacial-energenic necessity.
I have to say that, even when I disagree with you, it's always a pleasure reading your posts. They're always insightful, composed, and clear.This is one of the many things you keep repeating that's blatantly wrong. Some scientists presuppose that the physical world is necessary. Some scientists firmly believe the physical world is contingent (and in fact created by God). Lots of scientists neither know nor care whether the world is necessary or contingent. And the funny thing is, they all do the same science regardless of their presuppositions, and they all (with vanishingly few exceptions) reach similar conclusions. Among those conclusions is that life has evolved from a common ancestor over long periods of time.
They reach that conclusion because that's where the evidence points. You reject that conclusion, but not because of any presuppositions you have about the necessity or contingency of physical things -- those presuppositions are irrelevant to this conclusion. You seem to have just decided at some point that you didn't like evolution, without knowing anything about it, and so you reject it.
One must employ presuppositional reasoning to deny presuppositional reasoning.
Any attempt to explictly deny presuppositional reasoning implicitly affirms it.
It is literally undeniable.
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?