The universe with no need of God

[devolved]

I explained that premise earlier in this thread, IIRC. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, ie it has a beginning and it is changing.

And that would be the only conclusion you could lead to. How do you get from Universe had a beginning to God?

 

[Ed1wolf]

And that would be the only conclusion you could lead to. How do you get from Universe had a beginning to God?

See post number 375 in the thread "Can morality exist without God? Continued.

 

[devolved]

See post number 375 in the thread "Can morality exist without God? Continued.

I think that the subsequent reply is fairly good, but I'll go ahead and weigh in on that and supplement it:

It is really quite simple, it is the law of causality combined with the BB theory. Also, His Word taught things such as the BB 3500 years before science confirmed it.

First of all, let's make it clear. Genesis account doesn't reflect BB. Actually nowhere near it, otherwise it would have shown up much earlier in Christian literature, and there wouldn't be misconceptions about Earth-centric Universe.

All BB theory states that since the Universe is seemingly expanding, then it must follow that at some point of time it was condensed. That's the core of the theory. The details as to what was prior or where it's derived from are largely speculative and don't naturally flow from the BB theory.

Secondly, the law of causality only makes sense in a scope of time and entities that are not monolithic in nature. Neither would be true about speculated pre-BB state of the Universe. Causality only works when one entity can impact other. When everything that supposed to exist is monolithic in nature the paradigm of causality doesn't work in colloquial manner that we accustomed it to work.

But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it. So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural. And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

You have to understand that Universe is a concept, and we apply it to mean a current paradigm of everything that exists in reality.

The theory states that Universe didn't exist, just like you didn't exist in 1800s. It doesn't matter that the pre-requisites that eventually constitute and actualize as you didn't exist in 1800s. You simply didn't exist in a conceptual form that we would mean by "human person".

Hence to say that Universe had a beginning, doesn't mean that nothing at all existed, which would indeed be absurd.

Hence you erroneously assume that the stipulation that "Universe had a beginning" means that nothing at all existed before the Universe, thus we need God there as a cause.

But that's not the case. I've asked you a specific question - how do you make a jump between "something caused" and "that cause must be a cosmic and immaterial mind", and so far you haven't answered that question.

But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it. So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural. And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

First of all, Universe is a conceptual word that essentially means "everything in existence" or the totality of the existing things. That's what the concept of the Universe means. If God is "outside of the Universe"... it would essentially mean that God doesn't exist.

You are using the term Universe in a way that's something "local" and exclusive, and it's not. Universe is the opposite of the term nothing. So, outside of the Universe is nothing, because for it to exist, it has to be something... and thus a part of the Universe and reality.

We don't understand the totality and locality of "Universal laws" enough to say exactly how reality works in all "corners" of the Universe. Our perception is localized and derivative. So, what you are doing is proposing an even bigger mystery to explain the mystery that we currently have.

It's not an explanation. You are merely re-defining semantics and injecting something that doesn't explain anything at all. If Universe didn't exist, then how did God cause it into existence? You realize that in order for cause-effect relationship to PHYSICALLY work, both the cause and effect has to exist, right?

No, the founders of modern science knew that the universe operated according to orderly laws and those laws require a law giver. They knew that if there was no orderly and Law giving God then science would be impossible. They also knew about the subject-object problem. Without a correlation between subject and object then we could not know whether there was an objective reality and without an objective reality science would also be impossible. So without God, you just have to hope that random chance produced that correlation but that is for all practical matters impossible. Because at the origin of the universe there were only objects if there was no God. But since there was a God (a subject) then at the act of creation of objects that correlation was established.

The founders of modern science also knew that the Earth is a center of the universe, and that diseases are caused by imbalance of the 4 types of liquid in our body that needs to be drained in order to re-gain that balance... among other things that were not true.

Keep in mind that they grew up in a world that was dominated by state-driven religions that claimed that God set them in charge and that people should obey them... while it didn't seem like that at all.

God doesn't solve the "subject-object" problem either, because there's no way for God to cause or impact anything if only God exists initially. If you stipulate that God can create the matter into existence, but you don't explain how ... they you are essentially contradicting your own claims. You say that X is a must, BUT X isn't a must for God and you seemingly make up an exception without providing any evidence for it. It's not an explanation.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

In a godless model of the universe, there are four potential explanations for the Big Bang, which I will refer to as the t=0 event so that those who believe in a 6000 year old universe will be more inclined to participate.

I. The t=0 event occurred for no reason and with no cause.
II. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) came into existence for no reason and with no cause.
III. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
IV. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes resulted from previously existing things, which resulted from previously existing things, and etcetera ad infinitum.

I'll admit that none of these seem to be very satisfying, and what's more, there's no actual evidence to favor one over another. To compound problems further, we see that even if you grant any of them that the atheist chooses (say, choice I.), we are still left with this troublesome conclusion:

1. The universe has properties.
2. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
3. The properties of the universe were not intelligently assigned.
4. The properties of the universe are random.

Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.

All the theist must do now is remark that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe as it is came to be by chance, and therefore its properties must be intelligently assigned.

Chance is a contradiction to Cause. Chance is an statement of ignorance of Cause.

Have I dug my own grave?

You have to die to live. John 12:25

To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.

Observe:

1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*

Properties are only assignable when something come into existence, but when something already exists it need no assignation but recognition, The Properties of the Divine nature of God were not assigned since he never began to exist, We who began to exist are only able to recognize the properties that He, who has always existed, has.

2. God has properties.

Yes we can recognize them

3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.

Because He is Uncreated Creator. Ultimate cause of All existence.

4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.

His properties were not assigned, not by him not by nothing since he never came into existence since he has existed Per Se.

His properties are recognizable only by those who began to exist.

5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.

No one assigned to God his properties since no one Created him.

6a. God's properties are random.

God properties are only recognizable not accountable for qualification. but he is the Supreme Intelligence.

4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.

He never came into existence, and no property can surpass his Almightiness.

5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.

No, I don't Agree, He never assigned himself his properties since he never Created himself.

6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.

No.

7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.

there is not Before to God.

8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.

No he Didn't there was never a process of creation of God.

9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.

God Properties are Recognizable by Intelligent Created Beings, as a way to compare Mortal Beings Limitations to Eternal God Almightiness'.

Therefore, God's properties are random. If God created the universe, he created its properties. God's random properties are responsible for the creation of the universe's properties. Therefore, the properties of the universe are random.

Random properties is not an accurate description of Unlimited Properties.
Nothing is Hotter than God
Nothing is Cooler than God
Nothing is Smaller than God
Nothing is Bigger than God
Nothing is Brighter than God
Nothing is more invisible Than God
Nothing if Mor Powerful Than God.

Etc..

God Properties are far beyond any created description. God Limits and boundaries are not in properties. Not even Moral properties but only in human comparative standards made by human needs of Dissertation.

The assertion of God as the answer does not solve the problem of the universe's properties being random. Furthermore, it is the assertion of something as fact which is both unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that God more likely exists than doesn't, and it is irrational to suggest that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

You departed from a False Premise thus you arrive to a False Conclusion

If you want to say that we cannot logically dissect God, or that we cannot even discuss matters of the divine, then you refuse to subject your own worldview to the same level of logical scrutiny to which you subject the atheist worldview. This is taken as a withdraw from debate, or in other words, an admission of defeat.

I don't say that you cannot Describe God, I simply say that You have to assume that Since God Never began to Exist you can never imply Him to be randomly designed.

*(There can be a mixture of intelligent assigning and random assigning.

If God had to assign himself his attributes he would have to began to exist, there is your fallacy.

For example, with sleight of hand I might give myself a better chance of drawing the ace of spades from 1 chance in 52 to, say, one chance in 10. In this case, it can be said that the card I draw is random to some degree and intelligently assigned to some degree.

Almightiness is as much as Randomness as dies being loaded and having only one single number in all their 6 facets.

For the purposes of this thread, I will ignore this possibility because either there is no God, in which case there is no intelligent agent to stack the odds of a certain thing to occur, or else there is a God, in which case said God does not need to rely on chance as he is omnipotent. I assume we can agree to ignore the possibility of a God that has limited power; God is either unlimited in power or else maximally powerful, that is, he can perform any action which is not logically absurd.)

bingo.

Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

Time began to exist as an integral part of the Universe, the same time was created.
Thus we sustain that The Original Cause of Existence of this Universe is Outside this Universe, including its time. That is Transcendence.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Causality is not time dependant but Event Dependant, Transcendent Events escape Created Time.

Earlier, I entertained the possibility of membranes causing the universe to exist. This does not solve the problem of causality but rather pushes it back one step; the membranes cause the t=0 event in a temporal, physical sense, making the t=0 event the result of causality, but it follows here that the membranes (or the thing from which the membranes ultimately arose) must have come about without cause.

Seems Your membranes resemble Transcendent Properties of God.

Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

Causality is not Time dependent but Event dependent. And Events can be Transcendent or Temporal.

 

[devolved]

Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.

Existence has to imply some attributes, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

How does God solve the above issue?

Chance is a contradiction to Cause. Chance is an statement of ignorance of Cause.

No. Chance is an abstract concept that merely denotes possible unmaterialized variations of any given pattern. It very well may be just that, an illusion of our ability to compare from memory.

His properties were not assigned, not by him not by nothing since he never came into existence since he has existed Per Se.

His properties are recognizable only by those who began to exist.

Then, why would you have problem with matter that always existed with certain properties that always existed? What's the difference?

Time began to exist as an integral part of the Universe, the same time was created.
Thus we sustain that The Original Cause of Existence of this Universe is Outside this Universe, including its time. That is Transcendence.

Nah. Time is a necessary precondition for spatial relationship. It's a byproduct rather than a thing of itself. There's nothing you can point to and say "that's time". All you can point to is a moving hand of the clock that measures it's own movement. In a monolithic reality where nothing moves, there's no time.

If God thinks and creates, he would create and think in time. Time is a concept of change and not some "thing" out there that needs to be created.

Causality is not time dependant but Event Dependant, Transcendent Events escape Created Time.

Any change is time-dependent. That's what time is. Calling it a "transcendance" is merely appealing to bigger mystery to solve the one we have.

Seems Your membranes resemble Transcendent Properties of God.

Seems like your transcendent properties of God resemble features of these membranes

Causality is not Time dependent but Event dependent. And Events can be Transcendent or Temporal.

Again, you seem to be just making stuff up as explanation without actually explaining how it works, or can possibly work.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.



Chance is a contradiction to Cause. Chance is an statement of ignorance of Cause.



You have to die to live. John 12:25



Properties are only assignable when something come into existence, but when something already exists it need no assignation but recognition, The Properties of the Divine nature of God were not assigned since he never began to exist, We who began to exist are only able to recognize the properties that He, who has always existed, has.



Yes we can recognize them



Because He is Uncreated Creator. Ultimate cause of All existence.



His properties were not assigned, not by him not by nothing since he never came into existence since he has existed Per Se.

His properties are recognizable only by those who began to exist.



No one assigned to God his properties since no one Created him.



God properties are only recognizable not accountable for qualification. but he is the Supreme Intelligence.



He never came into existence, and no property can surpass his Almightiness.



No, I don't Agree, He never assigned himself his properties since he never Created himself.



No.



there is not Before to God.



No he Didn't there was never a process of creation of God.



God Properties are Recognizable by Intelligent Created Beings, as a way to compare Mortal Beings Limitations to Eternal God Almightiness'.



Random properties is not an accurate description of Unlimited Properties.
Nothing is Hotter than God
Nothing is Cooler than God
Nothing is Smaller than God
Nothing is Bigger than God
Nothing is Brighter than God
Nothing is more invisible Than God
Nothing if Mor Powerful Than God.

Etc..

God Properties are far beyond any created description. God Limits and boundaries are not in properties. Not even Moral properties but only in human comparative standards made by human needs of Dissertation.



You departed from a False Premise thus you arrive to a False Conclusion



I don't say that you cannot Describe God, I simply say that You have to assume that Since God Never began to Exist you can never imply Him to be randomly designed.



If God had to assign himself his attributes he would have to began to exist, there is your fallacy.



Almightiness is as much as Randomness as dies being loaded and having only one single number in all their 6 facets.



bingo.



Time began to exist as an integral part of the Universe, the same time was created.
Thus we sustain that The Original Cause of Existence of this Universe is Outside this Universe, including its time. That is Transcendence.



Causality is not time dependant but Event Dependant, Transcendent Events escape Created Time.



Seems Your membranes resemble Transcendent Properties of God.



Causality is not Time dependent but Event dependent. And Events can be Transcendent or Temporal.

I proposed,

The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.


You replied to the text block containing that quote with the following:


Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.


Of course, your God has properties as well. You go to great pains to say that God exists without having been assigned properties. Do you deny this possibility to membranes?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Existence has to imply some attributes, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Transcendence implies abstract substances

How does God solve the above issue?

Abstract objects like Ideas and Numbers are not senseless despite being immaterial. Spirit is immaterial but not senseless, The substance of God is Spirit.

No. Chance is an abstract concept that merely denotes possible unmaterialized variations of any given pattern. It very well may be just that, an illusion of our ability to compare from memory.

Unmaterialized Variations are caused by ignored, blind or obviated variables which disenabled those variations to happen and lead to the final option which actually happen. Nothing is Pure Chance but rather there are process which are fairly manageable in a range of variations with the prevision of blind variable not to be enough to break the control.

Then, why would you have problem with matter that always existed with certain properties that always existed? What's the difference?

The difference is that science is inventing a Alternative-Godlike-Causative substance which by nature is outside of it boundaries of knowledge since by principle we are making experiments in an already created Space and Time, but this membranes are rather deviating the Atheists to believe whatever thing with the only purpose to avoid the Fact that this Universe requires an Intelligent CREATOR.

It was said that Science had to walk apart of God and Religion to avoid scientists to believe whatever thing when making science, and now that science has arrived to the point where numbers and evidence screams the need of a CREATOR, now Scientist are willing to BELIEVE WHATEVER THING to avoid GOD. I call that as Dogmatic Atheism.

Nah. Time is a necessary precondition for spatial relationship. It's a byproduct rather than a thing of itself. There's nothing you can point to and say "that's time". All you can point to is a moving hand of the clock that measures it's own movement. In a monolithic reality where nothing moves, there's no time.

Time is Creation and thus not Transcendent.

If God thinks and creates, he would create and think in time. Time is a concept of change and not some "thing" out there that needs to be created.

¿Do you think that Synapse happens in God's mind and thus neurochemicals need taime to migrate from neuron to neuron? ¿Does God need Brain Cells?

Any change is time-dependent.

in our universe.

That's what time is. Calling it a "transcendance" is merely appealing to bigger mystery to solve the one we have.

Right, Transcendence means that it Escapes to our Universe. Let us use the example of the Cartoon, a artificially intelligent Cartoon may believe that since inside the cartoon there is no Creator of Cartoon-Land, thus there is not any creator to believe in, and he denies the cartoonist based on the evidence inside the book of cartoons....

Seems like your transcendent properties of God resemble features of these membranes

Right but since God Properties were described like 4000 years before to your membranes then First in Time is First in Right.

Again, you seem to be just making stuff up as explanation without actually explaining how it works, or can possibly work.

No, I am Saying that your conclusions are mistaken since your premises are mistaken. Here around you there are a large amount of people who believe and most of them have a personal relationship with God. To God you Know him by means of the ADORATION. PRAISE THE LORD and he will find you.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I proposed,

The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.


You replied to the text block containing that quote with the following:


Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.


Of course, your God has properties as well. You go to great pains to say that God exists without having been assigned properties. Do you deny this possibility to membranes?

The Spiritual Evidences are not Proof of Existence of God since they are dependent on the Thoughts and emotions of the one who Claims to God.

Now, Membranes mathematical simulations imply rules made by those who play with membranes... But since we are in an already created Universe any experiment inside this universe will be discredited for the fact that we live in an already existing space and time under a Magnetic field created by the Earth.

Whatever experiment we do here is already made in a Existing reality and thus very unlikely to reflect the moment of Creation out of nihilo.

 

[devolved]

Transcendence implies abstract substances

There are not abstract substances. Only abstract concepts.

Abstract objects like Ideas and Numbers are not senseless despite being immaterial. Spirit is immaterial but not senseless, The substance of God is Spirit.

Abstract objects are "immaterial" because these point to material actions and objects. You can't point to anything else and explain what it's like.

Unmaterialized Variations are caused by ignored, blind or obviated variables which disenabled those variations to happen and lead to the final option which actually happen. Nothing is Pure Chance but rather there are process which are fairly manageable in a range of variations with the prevision of blind variable not to be enough to break the control.

You are trying too hard. Just because something happens, it doesn't physically "disenable" anything in reality. Enabling or otherwise communicates some cause-effect relationship. You seem to imply that because something happens, it physically effects all of the other possibilities, and such is not the case.

In reality there's only one thing that happens. That's it. Everything else is imaginary construct that doesn't and didn't exist. Possibility is not something exists in reality except for a single state of such reality.

Hence, chance is merely a hindsight of "if this happened, then this would follow" type of description in the scope of all possible explanation of the kind. It's not what you think it is.

The difference is that science is inventing a Alternative-Godlike-Causative substance which by nature is outside of it boundaries of knowledge since by principle we are making experiments in an already created Space and Time, but this membranes are rather deviating the Atheists to believe whatever thing with the only purpose to avoid the Fact that this Universe requires an Intelligent CREATOR.

ANY of such explanations would be hypothetical, and thus extremely uncertain. That would include multiverses, brane hypothesis, QM Many-World, eternal universe, and God as a causal agent.

All of these sit in the same exact category of "unknown pending more evidence". Hence you are mistakenly thinking that scientists invent explanations as a reason not to believe in God, when God is among many possible explanations... and we generally try to explain causes by making minimal assumptions, before we run to the biggest assumption of them all.

Time is Creation and thus not Transcendent.

That's your unjustified definition of time. But that's not how we generally define time. You can't create something that's necessary for sequence of events to proceed. Hence you can't create a prerequisite that's required for creation of something to begin with.

¿Do you think that Synapse happens in God's mind and thus neurochemicals need taime to migrate from neuron to neuron? ¿Does God need Brain Cells?

I don't know. You are postulating and claiming what God is like. Does God need a mind? If he does, then the only example of a mind we have is a brain-like mechanism that facilitates a logical process. What would be such a mechanism in God's reality?

in our universe.

Sure, and in Superman's universe things are different too, but there are very little reasons to believe that such universe is possible or logically coherent.

Right, Transcendence means that it Escapes to our Universe. Let us use the example of the Cartoon, a artificially intelligent Cartoon may believe that since inside the cartoon there is no Creator of Cartoon-Land, thus there is not any creator to believe in, and he denies the cartoonist based on the evidence inside the book of cartoons....

Because it's a case in the imaginary scenario of yours, then it must be the case for our reality? If there's no way to tell the difference between a God that exist and the God that doesn't... is there any difference?

Right but since God Properties were described like 4000 years before to your membranes then First in Time is First in Right.

So, you think that we should throw away 4000 years of scientific development, philosophy and through, and go with the first uninformed thing that people described? I'd think it would be very poor and irresponsible decision on our part.

No, I am Saying that your conclusions are mistaken since your premises are mistaken. Here around you there are a large amount of people who believe and most of them have a personal relationship with God. To God you Know him by means of the ADORATION. PRAISE THE LORD and he will find you.

You can't adore something you don't know, hence you again define your experience in inconsistent terms. To know something one first actually experience it consistently. That's how we define knowledge. We don't define knowledge through "Adoring things that we know" and then praising everything.

Hence, you are stipulating relationships between imaginary concepts that you can't demonstrate to exist in reality, and hence you have to frame prerequisites like "You know God by praising God", which makes zero sense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Spiritual Evidences are not Proof of Existence of God since they are dependent on the Thoughts and emotions of the one who Claims to God.

Now, Membranes mathematical simulations imply rules made by those who play with membranes... But since we are in an already created Universe any experiment inside this universe will be discredited for the fact that we live in an already existing space and time under a Magnetic field created by the Earth.

Whatever experiment we do here is already made in a Existing reality and thus very unlikely to reflect the moment of Creation out of nihilo.

It sounds like you're saying that the properties and existence of these membranes are unknown and untestable. I agree. Now please acknowledge that your God can be described in the same way.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

It sounds like you're saying that the properties and existence of these membranes are unknown and untestable. I agree. Now please acknowledge that your God can be described in the same way.

In exchange to membranes, You can try to enter in contact with God Through ADORATION. and Yes, Billions of people have proven and tested how Good is The Lord.

Can we say the same of the Membranes?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

nobody seemed to answer next quote I wonder why?

It was said that Science had to walk apart of God and Religion to avoid scientists to believe whatever thing when making science, and now that science has arrived to the point where numbers and evidence screams the need of a CREATOR, now Scientist are willing to BELIEVE WHATEVER THING to avoid GOD. I call that as Dogmatic Atheism.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

There are not abstract substances. Only abstract concepts.

That depend in your definition of Substance. if it is Chemical substance or material substance then you are right. but then it happens that substance was firstly employed in Phillosophy and Theology for Both Material and immaterial Natures. and thus your attempt to impose a Materialistic definition is just that, your attempt to impose it.

Abstract objects are "immaterial" because these point to material actions and objects. You can't point to anything else and explain what it's like.

again you attempting to impose a Materialistic deffinition of terms.

You are trying too hard. Just because something happens, it doesn't physically "disenable" anything in reality.

wrong something happening actualydisenable any other option which you think might have happen and in fact a secundary trial with a different result will not be an equal option to the first trial which got its result. it is mostly a matter of Blinf Variable interacting in unkown ways.

Enabling or otherwise communicates some cause-effect relationship. You seem to imply that because something happens, it physically effects all of the other possibilities, and such is not the case.

I imply that if something happens is because that had to happen according to the circumstances surrounding the event at the moment in which it happen. it was not chance. whoever call it chance is because has a soberb mind thinking that things may vary according to randomness rather than accepting that randomnes is the ignorance of ultrasensitive pretentious people.

In reality there's only one thing that happens. That's it. Everything else is imaginary construct that doesn't and didn't exist. Possibility is not something exists in reality except for a single state of such reality.

I agree.

Hence, chance is merely a hindsight of "if this happened, then this would follow" type of description in the scope of all possible explanation of the kind. It's not what you think it is.

chances properly managed are options of development of events under controlable variations of surrounding parameters.

ANY of such explanations would be hypothetical, and thus extremely uncertain. That would include multiverses, brane hypothesis, QM Many-World, eternal universe, and God as a causal agent.

As I said:

It was said that Science had to walk apart of God and Religion to avoid scientists to believe whatever thing when making science, and now that science has arrived to the point where numbers and evidence screams the need of a CREATOR, now Scientist are willing to BELIEVE WHATEVER THING to avoid GOD. I call that as Dogmatic Atheism.

All of these sit in the same exact category of "unknown pending more evidence". Hence you are mistakenly thinking that scientists invent explanations as a reason not to believe in God, when God is among many possible explanations... and we generally try to explain causes by making minimal assumptions, before we run to the biggest assumption of them all.

Not in the same category. since membranes are neither self explainable nor intelligent a priori. ¿Are they?

That's your unjustified definition of time. But that's not how we generally define time. You can't create something that's necessary for sequence of events to proceed. Hence you can't create a prerequisite that's required for creation of something to begin with.

So now we move to Definition problems.

I don't know. You are postulating and claiming what God is like. Does God need a mind? If he does, then the only example of a mind we have is a brain-like mechanism that facilitates a logical process. What would be such a mechanism in God's reality?

again only what the catoon book describes is what is everywhere in existence... only in brain can be thought in this universe. and thus only brains can generate thought in whatever universe.... Really?

Sure, and in Superman's universe things are different too, but there are very little reasons to believe that such universe is possible or logically coherent.

Am I postulating Multiverses?

Because it's a case in the imaginary scenario of yours, then it must be the case for our reality? If there's no way to tell the difference between a God that exist and the God that doesn't... is there any difference?

Transcendent acts which effects are visible in present reality. Miracles.

So, you think that we should throw away 4000 years of scientific development, philosophy and through, and go with the first uninformed thing that people described? I'd think it would be very poor and irresponsible decision on our part.

Well your 4000 Years of developed strayed everywhere to attempt to invent and explain an Eternal and godless universe until Reason reached Science and Phillosophy to drive them to Creation point....

You can't adore something you don't know,

Even less when denying to know it.

hence you again define your experience in inconsistent terms. To know something one first actually experience it consistently. That's how we define knowledge. We don't define knowledge through "Adoring things that we know" and then praising everything.

consistency is what you search for this universe, Don't you? The Key and fundation of Consistency of existence is God. Is That a Creator Created everything and thus next point is to search for reasons of him to create everything

Hence, you are stipulating relationships between imaginary concepts that you can't demonstrate to exist in reality, and hence you have to frame prerequisites like "You know God by praising God", which makes zero sense.

You can Ask in your room. "God, I know I don't know you, but if you are there let me know you..."

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can try to enter in contact with God Through ADORATION. and Yes, Billions of people have proven and tested how Good is The Lord.

That's an interesting claim. Care to substantiate that? Why haven't millions or billions of people proven and tested how Good Allah is? Or Vishnu?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

That's an interesting claim. Care to substantiate that? Why haven't millions or billions of people proven and tested how Good Allah is? Or Vishnu?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Allah is presented as the same God of Christianism but denying Divinity of Christ, is then a misrepresentation of God, a heresy promoted by Arrians who were expelled from Roman empire in the East and particularly in Egypt who went to arabia, outside the Roman empire, and there they taught Their heresy until Mohamad took it to new levels of Blood and war.

Vishnu is a warrior an animal, a king, a trasgender, a promiscuous sex offender.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Allah is presented as the same God of Christianism but denying Divinity of Christ, is then a misrepresentation of God

They could say that your God is a misrepresentation of Allah. Christianity just doesn't have the whole Truth, as reported by Muhammad with the direction of the archangel Gabriel. So, if they can get details wrong, why not Christians?

If it is so easy to get God wrong, even attributing sex offenses to God, why should I believe that Christians have things right? That they have actually proven anything at all through their worship?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

They could say that your God is a misrepresentation of Allah. Christianity just doesn't have the whole Truth, as reported by Muhammad with the direction of the archangel Gabriel. So, if they can get details wrong, why not Christians?

Yes they do, But all you have to do is to show them all the Bibles written and preserved since times before Mohamad to show them that mohamad was a lier and a bloody impenitent, promiscuous pedophile.

If it is so easy to get God wrong, even attributing sex offenses to God, why should I believe that Christians have things right? That they have actually proven anything at all through their worship? eudaimonia,

You should believe for your salvation, but to believe you should be told about Christ, and must difficult for you, you should be a man of good will, a man who is e ager to know God. Else would be futile.

 

[Eudaimonist]

mohamad was a lier and a bloody impenitent, promiscuous pedophile.

If marrying young girls was normal and accepted in his culture, he wasn't necessarily a pedophile.

But tell me, is there mentioned in the Bible a minimum age for marriage? How old must a girl be to marry?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

If marrying young girls was normal and accepted in his culture, he wasn't necessarily a pedophile.

But tell me, is there mentioned in the Bible a minimum age for marriage? How old must a girl be to marry?


eudaimonia,

Mark

No there is not a minimum age for marrying in the Bible.

And the point with Mohamed is that he in exchange to The Prophets to whom he claimed to be successor of, most of them were celibates and were completely devoted to their mission of proclaiming the Word of God, without engaging in harems of multiple wives or wars.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Elijah, etc. are examples of prophets whom Mohamed didn't match to.

And in exchange to Christianity, Islam does not add Qur'an to Tanakh and The Gospels so Muslims could read the whole version, because Muslims are people and people is intelligent, and they will find that Mohamed's Book do not Match with the True Sacred Scripture, while the Gospel and the Tanakh do.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In exchange to membranes, You can try to enter in contact with God Through ADORATION. and Yes, Billions of people have proven and tested how Good is The Lord.

Can we say the same of the Membranes?

Yes, we can. What prevents a person from adoring membranes and having one-way conversations with them?

nobody seemed to answer next quote I wonder why?

It was said that Science had to walk apart of God and Religion to avoid scientists to believe whatever thing when making science, and now that science has arrived to the point where numbers and evidence screams the need of a CREATOR, now Scientist are willing to BELIEVE WHATEVER THING to avoid GOD. I call that as Dogmatic Atheism.

Are you saying that the Big Bang required a creator? Re-read the OP please, I debunked the Kalam Cosmological Argument at the bottom.