The universe with no need of God

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Isaiah was not celibate. Also he was mentally ill.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

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

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

False premises reach false conclusions, I don't know the Kalam Argument, I just Know that The Big Bang Theory is the theory of Father Georges Lemaitre who was at the same time Priest and Scientist and who took science out of the Darkness of Atheistic Dogma of a Uncreated Universe which was postulated basically to deny the need of a Creator. Once the Big Bang was Proven, the Scientific Atheism was defeated.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Isaiah was not celibate. Also he was mentally ill.

Ok if you say so.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

False premises reach false conclusions, I don't know the Kalam Argument,

You don't know my argument or even the argument I'm rebutting, but yet you claim I'm using false premises?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

s

You don't know my argument or even the argument I'm rebutting, but yet you claim I'm using false premises?

I refuted the premises you used for your refutation, I showed them to be ab originem false since you were assuming that somehow God came into being and either he assigned himself properties or has random properties. I showed your premises to be false because God never came into being and Almightiness is opposed to randomness.

Any conclusion you arrived with those premises thus was mistaken, and you tried to refute the case of A Created Universe needing a Creator.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

On the other Hand you seem not at all to understand or accept Transcendence. That is also a dogmatic position of atheism. You show yourself, then, as a simple Materialist. but Big Bang shows that Materialism is crippled thought since it denies what Big Bang States, Transcendence .

You seem wanting to force God to fit into a created existence as God being part of Creation. and that is also a fallacy since Creator can't create himself without existing, and since everything came into existence it has to be created by a uncreated Creator, an ever existing, transcendent, timeless, immaterial, intelligent Being.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

s

I refuted the premises you used for your refutation, I showed them to be ab originem false since you were assuming that somehow God came into being and either he assigned himself properties or has random properties. I showed your premises to be false because God never came into being and Almightiness is opposed to randomness.

Any conclusion you arrived with those premises thus was mistaken, and you tried to refute the case of A Created Universe needing a Creator.

You're wasting my time. Until you demonstrate that you've read the OP, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You're wasting my time. Until you demonstrate that you've read the OP, there's nothing to discuss.

I read the tittle of the Thread and read the Opening post which I showed to assume mistaken premises.

 

[devolved]

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.

Sure, when defined from a standpoint of methodology that rests with certain unfalsifiable assumptions. We don't do that anymore though, hence our definitions changed.

Do I have to point to other things that were clearly wrong which we had to improve on?

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.....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.

You are talking about different concepts. Possibility in the scope of the exactly same variable only boils down to one result, hence that's what causal determinism is.

Every other "possibility" in such scenario is an imaginary construct that didn't and doesn't exist.

If you pick up a rock and let it go on a surface of a planet Earth, absent of some other variables it will fall to the surface. Hence you have a very deterministic relationship.

What breaks the deterministic pattern, at least in the illusory manner, is when we introduce some unknown factors and hence these become unexpected. We drop the rock and a bird catches it and flies away. Just because an event is more complex, it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the same causal determinism as in the case of a rock.

Hence, "chance" is not something real. It's a concept that we use to communicate likelyhood in scope of observed consistencies mixed with other unknown factors. The more we can explain and predict, then less there's room for any chance.

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.

Nah. Atheism is our default state until someone teaches us religion. Science is largely a study of our environment that, in the way you describe God, can't answer the question conclusively.

The reason why many point to science is not to show you that God doesn't exist. Science doesn't deny a possibility of God. It merely doesn't see any consistent evidence to make such a claim.

Hence, saying that it's means to avoid God is not an intellectually honest thing to do, especially when a lot of scientists are religious believers.

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

In the same category of "unexaminable" and "unfalsifiable" ... i.e. a philosophical "may be"

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?

If we go by unconstrained imagination that you propose, then we can assume all sorts of scenarios without any need to justify these in accordance from what we actually observe.

We don't observe minds apart from brains of some sort. That's all. You can point to possibility, but possibility is an imaginary construct from perspective of perception. You need to demonstrate that it's the case somehow... otherwise why would it matter?

A possibility of something that we can't tell a difference from non-existing version of such possibility ... doesn't matter.

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....

How did science and Philosophy drove anything to Creation point?

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

How does God is foundation for consistency? You merely imagine something and then ascribe it as a cause. I can do the same thing. Milk carton in my fridge has magical powers, because there's an invisible Genie inside of it. So, everything good that happened to you today is because the invisible Genie was watching over you and made it so.

How would such be any helpful explanation when you can't tell a difference between ordinary events and those caused by the Genie?

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

You don't think that people don't genuinely seek God an still don't get an answer? You think these people are lying then?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I'll answer a bit latter

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I read the tittle of the Thread and read the Opening post which I showed to assume mistaken premises.

You didn't read the bottom half of the OP. You go on to say it's fallacious because of a previous, unrelated argument in the top half of the post. There is no excuse for you here.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I read the tittle of the Thread and read the Opening post which I showed to assume mistaken premises.

I've made a mistake. I said,

You didn't read the bottom half of the OP. You go on to say it's fallacious because of a previous, unrelated argument in the top half of the post. There is no excuse for you here.

However, in post #224 on page 12 you said ,

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

and

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

Therefore you did read the bottom of my post, and in fact you commented on it. So you could say there's no excuse for me. I accept that. But you still need to explain how an event can be independent of time. That makes no sense to me. I understand an event to be a snapshot of the universe, or in other words a specific moment in time.

Now, with regards to the common complaint that God's properties are not random since God's properties always existed and hence were never randomly selected, I would merely need to counter that the properties were not intelligently assigned and are therefore random. It becomes an issue of whether something must be selected in order to be possibly categorized as random. If you want to avoid God being random by saying that random things are necessarily things that are selected, then God's properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned, making him the lone exception to what is otherwise a dichotomy. Theories that have to appeal to many exceptions generally are poor theories.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Sure, when defined from a standpoint of methodology that rests with certain unfalsifiable assumptions. We don't do that anymore though, hence our definitions changed.

Do I have to point to other things that were clearly wrong which we had to improve on?

You just defended Materialistic deffinitions, but that doesn't change history nor philosophy.

You are talking about different concepts. Possibility in the scope of the exactly same variable only boils down to one result, hence that's what causal determinism is.

Every other "possibility" in such scenario is an imaginary construct that didn't and doesn't exist.

If you pick up a rock and let it go on a surface of a planet Earth, absent of some other variables it will fall to the surface. Hence you have a very deterministic relationship.

What breaks the deterministic pattern, at least in the illusory manner, is when we introduce some unknown factors and hence these become unexpected. We drop the rock and a bird catches it and flies away. Just because an event is more complex, it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the same causal determinism as in the case of a rock.

Hence, "chance" is not something real. It's a concept that we use to communicate likelyhood in scope of observed consistencies mixed with other unknown factors. The more we can explain and predict, then less there's room for any chance.

Ok, So the Big bang happened by Pure Chance?

Nah. Atheism is our default state until someone teaches us religion. Science is largely a study of our environment that, in the way you describe God, can't answer the question conclusively.

Hey you are right, somehow all nations in the earth are atheist and lost tribe in inaccessible geographies are not believers... ....Wait.

The reason why many point to science is not to show you that God doesn't exist. Science doesn't deny a possibility of God. It merely doesn't see any consistent evidence to make such a claim.

Right, That is why Scientific Atheism is not any longer necessary and can't make any negative assessment on God.

Hence, saying that it's means to avoid God is not an intellectually honest thing to do, especially when a lot of scientists are religious believers.

This was not always that way.

In the same category of "unexaminable" and "unfalsifiable" ... i.e. a philosophical "may be"

As I said, Now at the edges of knowledge whoch atheist tried to destroy for centuries, atheist are willing to believe whatever thing except God. But atheist who denied any origin of the Word tried to abolish whatever possibility of a Created Universe happening.

Things change.

If we go by unconstrained imagination that you propose, then we can assume all sorts of scenarios without any need to justify these in accordance from what we actually observe.

Like Multiverses?

We don't observe minds apart from brains of some sort. That's all. You can point to possibility, but possibility is an imaginary construct from perspective of perception. You need to demonstrate that it's the case somehow... otherwise why would it matter?

again definitions, ¿What would be an intelligently made thing?

A possibility of something that we can't tell a difference from non-existing version of such possibility ... doesn't matter.

Hey that makes sense, since we know everything there is to know, then we can deny that something we don't know means it doesn't exists... ...Wait.

How did science and Philosophy drove anything to Creation point?

the atheistic Uncreated Universe happened to be created.

How does God is foundation for consistency? You merely imagine something and then ascribe it as a cause. I can do the same thing. Milk carton in my fridge has magical powers, because there's an invisible Genie inside of it. So, everything good that happened to you today is because the invisible Genie was watching over you and made it so.

Milk Cartoon Genius of your fridge ¿Needs milk, cartoon and Fridge to exist? ¿Yes? then he is not eternal. ¿No? so perhaps he is God and you don't know it.

Somehow The pure act of existence needs an explanation.

How would such be any helpful explanation when you can't tell a difference between ordinary events and those caused by the Genie?

How can you deny the other events as not to be in fact acts of the genie?
how can you deny that the pure act of existence is not an Act of free will?

You don't think that people don't genuinely seek God an still don't get an answer? You think these people are lying then?

If they want to hear the answer and see a materialization, they would hardly have it. But somehow their perseverance in Prayer will take them to the conviction of being heard, and yes, God does answer through his word that is why we call it The Sacres Scripture. not because of infallibility of the semantics or because we believe that those are inventory acts of events, but because we know that the Spirit of the teaching is divine.

However no one of the scriptures can be interpreted alone, it needs to be studied and learned in community, in an assembly, in the Church.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I've made a mistake. I said,

You didn't read the bottom half of the OP. You go on to say it's fallacious because of a previous, unrelated argument in the top half of the post. There is no excuse for you here.

However, in post #224 on page 12 you said ,

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

and

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

Therefore you did read the bottom of my post, and in fact you commented on it. So you could say there's no excuse for me. I accept that. But you still need to explain how an event can be independent of time. That makes no sense to me. I understand an event to be a snapshot of the universe, or in other words a specific moment in time.

Now, with regards to the common complaint that God's properties are not random since God's properties always existed and hence were never randomly selected, I would merely need to counter that the properties were not intelligently assigned and are therefore random. It becomes an issue of whether something must be selected in order to be possibly categorized as random. If you want to avoid God being random by saying that random things are necessarily things that are selected, then God's properties are neither random nor intelligently assigned, making him the lone exception to what is otherwise a dichotomy. Theories that have to appeal to many exceptions generally are poor theories.

About time dependency,

Time as you have the concept only exists in this universe. The one created. and thus time dimension is limited to this universe, but in transcendent issues, there is not need of Created Time, perhaps there is a Celestial Time, a Celestial way of succession of events happening, but those events require no space, no time and no matter or energy as we know them. They Are Transcendent to our knowledge.

About Gods randomness.

If you think that Almightiness is equal to Randomness, that is your will.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

About time dependency,

Time as you have the concept only exists in this universe. The one created. and thus time dimension is limited to this universe,

Correct so far, aside from your assertion that the universe was created. This is part of my reasoning that the t=0 event cannot have been caused by some prime mover.

but in transcendent issues, there is not need of Created Time, perhaps there is a Celestial Time, a Celestial way of succession of events happening, but those events require no space, no time and no matter or energy as we know them. They Are Transcendent to our knowledge.

Everything here is wildly speculative. It is completely based on nothing. These notions you describe cannot even be derived from your Bible. Furthermore, I do not think these notions are well defined. I'd love to hear you define what you're talking about and explain how celestial time is different from cosmic time.

In summary, you are not only positing something for which there is no evidence (scientific, Biblical, or otherwise), but you are in fact positing the existence of something that you cannot even describe or show a use for.

About Gods randomness.

If you think that Almightiness is equal to Randomness, that is your will.

Nonsensical. That is like saying 7 is equal to randomness. That's not what I said. Rolling a 7 with two dice might be random, but 7 is not equal to randomness. God's properties, including his omnipotence, are necessarily random, but that does not mean I'm saying omnipotence is equal to randomness.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

As I said, Science is now at the point where Universe was created.

You as a Materialist can deny to believe it. That is only a personal denial. But your denial doesn't change reality.

About randomness, Let us said that the conjunction of all numbers, imaginary and real, is one conjunction, and randomn selection of numbers either real or imaginary, would be a picking of those numbers in a random way. But when I say that God belongs the entire conjunction of Numbers either real or imaginary, it is abject to say that he belongs a Random conjunction of numbers... ... He belongs all.

The same way God Almightiness implies Randomnes = 0

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As I said, Science is now at the point where Universe was created.

False. Science is at the point where there was a t=0 event. Whether that occurred spontaneously ex nihilo, or from pre-existing membranes which may or may not be eternal, or from a deity, is an open question.

You could characterize time as a general increase in entropy, in which case the t=0 event marks the moment where entropy was at its theoretical or practical minimum.

You as a Materialist can deny to believe it.

I am a nihilist. I have tagged myself as "atheist" because the choice for "nihilist" is not available. I do not recall tagging myself as a materialist. If you are disinterested in serious discussion, then please, by all means, continue to invent my point of view for me.

That is only a personal denial. But your denial doesn't change reality.

You are making an interpersonal assertion, but that doesn't change reality either.

About randomness, Let us said that the conjunction of all numbers, imaginary and real, is one conjunction, and randomn selection of numbers either real or imaginary, would be a picking of those numbers in a random way. But when I say that God belongs the entire conjunction of Numbers either real or imaginary, it is abject to say that he belongs a Random conjunction of numbers... ... He belongs all.

The same way God Almightiness implies Randomnes = 0

I cannot discern any meaning from this. I do not know what a conjunction of numbers is. I assume you are referring to what is known as a set. I do not know why you are saying that the [set] of imaginary and real numbers constitutes all numbers, for it most certainly does not.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Lets read Alexander Vilenkin:
True scientist

....
In the Beginning Was the Beginning


http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
...

...

So how do you think the universe began?

I cannot really claim that I understand the beginning of the universe. We have a picture which kind of makes sense, which I think is an achievement. Because, if you think about it, you say, “OK, what happened before the Big Bang, before inflation?” It seems you can keep asking these questions and the answer is impossible.

But this quantum creation from “nothing” seems to avoid these questions. It has a nice mathematical description, not just words. There’s an interesting thing, though; the description of the creation of the universe from nothing is given in terms of the laws of physics. That makes you wonder, where are these laws? If the laws describe the creation of the universe, that suggests they existed prior to the universe. The question that nobody has any idea how to address is where these laws come from and why these laws in particular? So there are a lot of mysteries to keep us working. ....

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So scientist do speak of Creation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Lets read Alexander Vilenkin:
True scientist

....
In the Beginning Was the Beginning


http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
...

...

So how do you think the universe began?

I cannot really claim that I understand the beginning of the universe. We have a picture which kind of makes sense, which I think is an achievement. Because, if you think about it, you say, “OK, what happened before the Big Bang, before inflation?” It seems you can keep asking these questions and the answer is impossible.

But this quantum creation from “nothing” seems to avoid these questions. It has a nice mathematical description, not just words. There’s an interesting thing, though; the description of the creation of the universe from nothing is given in terms of the laws of physics. That makes you wonder, where are these laws? If the laws describe the creation of the universe, that suggests they existed prior to the universe. The question that nobody has any idea how to address is where these laws come from and why these laws in particular? So there are a lot of mysteries to keep us working. ....

So scientist do speak of Creation.

And what do you think they mean when they use that word?