WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Fraid so. It has all the characteristics of an effect. It has a beginning and it is changing, these are both basic characteristics of an effect.

eud: You are talking about a type of causation that takes place within the context of the universe. A car "has a beginning" in the sense that it didn't exist as a car at one time, but only as a set of materials with which to make a car. Note, that the materials existed just as much as the car does, simply not as a car. It is not something that comes from nothing. It is a transformation of something existing to something else existing.

The universe did not come from absolutely nothing. It came from a Creator.

eud: The "beginning" of the universe is not analogous. There is no reason to think that it involved such causation, especially since the universe itself is the context for change/time and causation. This is why your argument runs into the fallacy of composition. You are confusing properties that make sense within the context of the universe to the universe as a whole. That's invalid reasoning.

You have not proven that causation does not occur "outside" the universe. At one time it was thought that outer space had different laws of physics than earth. Yet when we began space travel we assumed that the laws discovered on earth applied to space and we turned out to be correct. So it is rational to assume the laws of logic apply to "outside" the universe until proven otherwise. Also see my other post about another dimension of time and how it is not the fallacy composition.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The universe did not come from absolutely nothing. It came from a Creator.

You missed an important part of what I had written: "It is a transformation of something existing to something else existing."

So, tell me. Is the universe God, or a part of God, that had transformed into something material? IOWs, are we made of transformed God-stuff?

Or is the universe something that exists in addition to God? IOWs, is it something other than God that God had created without any prior existing resources?

You have not proven that causation does not occur "outside" the universe.

I don't have to, any more than I have to prove that Zeus doesn't exist outside of the universe, or that it even makes sense to talk about anything outside of the universe. That's not my burden in this discussion.

At one time it was thought that outer space had different laws of physics than earth. Yet when we began space travel we assumed that the laws discovered on earth applied to space and we turned out to be correct.

We knew that there was such a place as outer space. We don't know that there is anything outside of the universe.

So it is rational to assume the laws of logic apply to "outside" the universe until proven otherwise.

Of course, and I had argued earlier that laws of logic must apply to any physical reality. However, it is not rational to assume that there is any such place as "outside" of the universe. Some evidence is definitely needed.

Also see my other post about another dimension of time.

Please explain this other dimension of time.

and how it is not the fallacy composition.

Which post number?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just stated some in the post you are responding to.

What you gave there were actually just a bunch of claims, which I have shown to be invalid as a result of our current understanding of physics....

First how do you know this?

Simply by what causality means....
Causes happen before effects.
Effects follow after causes.

Causality is a temporal phenomena which points to a sequential flow of events, one happening after the other.

When time does not exist, so in an atemporal context, the concept of "causality" is invalid.

Causality, you need to understand, is a phenomena of physics. Physics, as it applies in the universe.

You can't use properties OF the universe and pretend they also apply/exist without the universe.

Second, there is evidence for another time dimension besides the one in our universe.

Citation required.

Not if He is not an effect.

Special pleading.
Then we can just as easily say that the space-time continuum isn't an effect.

Which, btw, doesn't require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities.

Things that are not effects do not need causes.

And without time, there can be no sequence of events or causality.
And time is an inherent property of the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That time dimension may be a characteristic of the eternal Cause/Creator and therefore eternal and not need a cause.

Or it "may not be" and you're back to square one.
So it seems that you have your work cut out for you....

Fraid so, see above.

Baseless claims, aren't evidence.

Of course, I would expect you to say that.

And I would expect you to pretend that claims are evidence and that you'll end up using special pleading in an attempt to escape your burden of proof while closing your circular argument up neatly.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Science can not exist without a personal creator. Especially a lawgiving creator.

eud: I have no good reason to think that. See below.

ed: Without the laws of logic and physics science would be impossible.

eud; Yes, but all you need is some physical universe in order for there to be logic and physics.

Physics is the study of a physic-al universe, however it may happen to behave. Its "laws" are simply conceptually-recognized similarities that can be understood through abstract thought -- that is, through generalizing from specific instances. It's not clear why a physical universe wouldn't have at least some similar entities with similar behaviors that one could generalize. I'm not even sure what a physical universe that did not have anything that one could generalize from would (or could) even look like.

No, there could be a chaotic physical universe, in such a universe without orderliness and laws, science would not be possible. And as Einstein said, the existence of laws means there is a lawgiver. Only intelligent personal beings can create laws.

eud: Logic is simply keeping your ideas from contradicting each other. Logic is easy in a physical universe, because physical stuff can only be what it is, and not what it is not. It can't contradict itself, because then we wouldn't be talking about anything physical.[/qutoe]

But there are non-physical things in the physical universe such as the laws of physics, numbers, and the laws of logic themselves.

ed: No, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

dm: I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about what human beings actually know. It isn't assuming anything, because what I am doing is pointing out your burden in the discussion.

Perhaps you actually wanted some justification for human purposes existing within nature? Here it is.

- I have purposes. (This post is the result of personal activities that were performed for the sake of achieving that purpose.)
- I exist within nature.
- Therefore, my purposes exists within nature.

- Human beings have purposes like myself (such as posting at message boards, or else conversations would be very one-sided.)
- Human beings exist within nature.
- Therefore, human purposes exist within nature.

I don't know of the existence of any other purposes in nature, and Christian apologists haven't demonstrated the existence of any.

Yes, there are other purposes as I have stated. Eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, Legs are for walking and etc. You deny that these things have these purposes?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, there could be a chaotic physical universe, in such a universe without orderliness and laws

Which would be like what? Don't tell me what it is not. What would a "chaotic" physical universe actually be like?

My view is that a "chaotic" physical universe in which there are no identifiable regularities whatsoever is impossible. The only way that one wouldn't be able to reason about such a universe and to form abstractions about regularities in that universe would be if it contradicted itself in some way. IOWs, if, say, a dog could be a cat at the same time and in the same respect. But this can't happen in any physical universe. Everything can only be what it is, and to change according to what it is. Photons act like photons because that's what they are -- photons. So, there is no "chaotic" universe that isn't simply a universe that operates with some sort of identifiable nature, even if it might have a different nature to ours (it might not have photons, but there would be other physical entities with their own natures).

Perhaps you imagine that "chaotic" matter has no nature at all until "laws" are imposed on them. But this makes no sense whatsoever. To exist is to exist as something. Existing at all means having a nature -- having some identifiable characteristics. So, any existing thing already has a nature, and physics can investigate such an entity and how it behaves.

There are no "laws" imposed upon nature like traffic cops patrolling a "chaotic" highway. Laws are simply what emerge from the entities that exist. They are descriptions how existing things change and interact.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Please provide this evidence it sounds fascinating.

Gravity and QM cannot co-exist, therefore most likely there is a second time dimension.

 

[Larniavc]

Gravity and QM cannot co-exist, therefore most likely there is a second time dimension.

That's a assertion. One (or both are probably wrong).

Please provide some evidence that I can review: a second time dimension would be fascinating.

 

[Khalliqa]

Why do those who see belief/faith as superior to evidence/logical based reasoning attempt to use evidence/logical based reasoning to support their claims to those who do not see belief/faith as superior to evidence/logical based reasoning? Doesn't that fundamentally undermine your position?

To answer the question... I am atheist because there is no reason to not be..

Also.. I tried the Christian way for years and could not lie.. I did not feel.. experience.. sense.. etc.. something outside my own mind guiding me... sincere prayer was never answered and I did not see a reason to be like Job or spend my entire life trying something that did not improve my life and while parts of scripture is fascinating to read.. and some very beautiful stories/poems none of it was compelling enough to be the sole unquestioned guide for my life ethically. In addition, it was a burden to be around so many illogical irrational "believers".. So no personal experience.. combined with no social bond and a faulty guide = no Christian specifically..

Regarding religion in general.. the premise is simply faulty so there was no reason to submit my life to a faulty premise with no evidence backing it.. :-/

 

[Larniavc]

Gravity and QM cannot co-exist, therefore most likely there is a second time dimension.

But gravity exists, so do quantum effects.

So you could almost say they 'co' exist.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No evidence points to this.

You are confusing evidence for the Big Bang with such evidence. Evidence for the Big Bang isn't necessarily evidence for physical existence being an "effect". It is -- at best -- evidence for a finite past, which is not in itself a reason to think that the universe is an "effect". One may speculate about that, of course, but that speculation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of time as it pertains to spacetime, and many have pointed out.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The two main characteristics of an effect are that it has a beginning and is changing. The universe has both characteristics.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And provide a cogent explanation what a second arrow of time actually means in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It means that a causal event can occur that produced our universe of space and time and also yet not be part of it which is the effect. This also confirms the biblical teaching that the creator operates beyond our time dimension and is not confined to it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It means that a causal event can occur that produced our universe of space and time and also yet not be part of it which is the effect.

I have heard about scientific speculation regarding a second arrow of time, and to my knowledge it did not refer to what you write above. Do you have a source to back this up? Because otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you are just making that up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The two main characteristics of an effect are that it has a beginning and is changing. The universe has both characteristics.

You've gone into endless repeat mode. I've already dealt with this at length, in particular that you are equivocating on the word "beginning" (and now even on "changing").


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The universe did not come from absolutely nothing. It came from a Creator.

eud: You missed an important part of what I had written: "It is a transformation of something existing to something else existing."

So, tell me. Is the universe God, or a part of God, that had transformed into something material? IOWs, are we made of transformed God-stuff?

Or is the universe something that exists in addition to God? IOWs, is it something other than God that God had created without any prior existing resources?

The evidence points to Him creating it from something non-material.

ed: You have not proven that causation does not occur "outside" the universe.

eud: I don't have to, any more than I have to prove that Zeus doesn't exist outside of the universe, or that it even makes sense to talk about anything outside of the universe. That's not my burden in this discussion.

But given that the universe has all the characteristics of an effect, it plainly points to the strong possibility that causality CAN occur transcendent to the universe. Even many non-Christian astrophysicists agree that that is a possibility such as Paul Davies.

ed: At one time it was thought that outer space had different laws of physics than earth. Yet when we began space travel we assumed that the laws discovered on earth applied to space and we turned out to be correct.

eud: We knew that there was such a place as outer space. We don't know that there is anything outside of the universe.

We knew very little about it such as we thought it was filled with an ether and not a vacuum. But another analogy is atoms, we did not know that they existed, but we assumed that they operated according to the laws of physics and logic if they did. And this was confirmed by science later when their existence was discovered.

ed: So it is rational to assume the laws of logic apply to "outside" the universe until proven otherwise.

eud: Of course, and I had argued earlier that laws of logic must apply to any physical reality. However, it is not rational to assume that there is any such place as "outside" of the universe. Some evidence is definitely needed.

There is evidence besides it being an effect, also Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem points to the existing of something "outside" nature, ie supernatural.

ed: Also see my other post about another dimension of time.

eud: Please explain this other dimension of time.

See earlier post above.

eud: and how it is not the fallacy composition.

See above.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The evidence points to Him creating it from something non-material.

By "evidence", do you mean a reading of Genesis?

You didn't answer my question clearly. Where did this "non-material" resource come from? Was it something eternal and co-existing with God, but not God? Or was it part of God that God transformed into material existence?

I'll give you one thing: it is brave of you to reject the creation ex nihilo that is the usual apologetic for creation.

But given that the universe has all the characteristics of an effect

That is not a given in this discussion. I flat out reject that premise because it depends on equivocations and other fallacies.

it plainly points to the strong possibility that causality CAN occur transcendent to the universe.

One can always imagine such a thing, but possibilities don't close off other possibilities. It is also possible that the universe is uncaused, and that causes are only internal to the universe.

Even many non-Christian astrophysicists agree that that is a possibility such as Paul Davies.

What specifically did Paul Davies argue?

We knew very little about it such as we thought it was filled with an ether and not a vacuum. But another analogy is atoms, we did not know that they existed, but we assumed that they operated according to the laws of physics and logic if they did. And this was confirmed by science later when their existence was discovered.

We knew that we were made of something that is part of the natural universe, even if we didn't know specifically that it was atoms as we understand them today. That's not a good example.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem points to the existing of something "outside" nature, ie supernatural.

Please justify this claim. How does GIT accomplish this task? Popcorn for everyone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[robert skynner]

At times people ponder a reason for believing in the one and only God (consider Isa. 45:5-6). Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are; and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit. Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say ---though they will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.

A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.
B. If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.
C. One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.
D. God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).
E. Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.

My own path in coming to reject Christianity was based upon several reasons. Firstly and primarily, the complete lack of love and kindness amongst Christian people, the endless and constant sin (especially fornication) which church leaders don't repent of, they just attack the whistleblowers and the hypocrisy of so many who knowingly and willfully don't even attempt to practice what they preach.

Secondly, the definition of the Trinity, the constant adding of works (such as tithing) to the new covenant and the constant definition of person of Christ. Many Christians attend nominal Trinitarian Churches, but in practice they deny the Trinity, usually by affirming either tritheism or modalism. I gave up on religion when in my street evangelism group, Christ's resurrection was promoted as a spiritual resurrection and I was mocked for being too academic!

In all honesty, many people who call themselves Christians and attend evangelical Churches are non-Trinitarian, here is a video of me outside Plymouth Christian Center, in Devon in the UK in 2015, asking why these people in an Elim Pentecostal Church (which has a Trinitarian statement of faith) told me several times that Jesus was God the father, which is modalism. I came to the realization that Christianity is simply nuts, as Christians themselves, don't care about their so-called savior, if Christ is blasphemed, then Christians often don't even care:

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The universe did not come from absolutely nothing. It came from a Creator.

eud: You missed an important part of what I had written: "It is a transformation of something existing to something else existing."

So, tell me. Is the universe God, or a part of God, that had transformed into something material? IOWs, are we made of transformed God-stuff?

Or is the universe something that exists in addition to God? IOWs, is it something other than God that God had created without any prior existing resources?

The evidence points to two possibilities, He either created it from nothing or He created it from nothing detectable by humans, ie neither matter or energy.

ed: You have not proven that causation does not occur "outside" the universe.

eud: I don't have to, any more than I have to prove that Zeus doesn't exist outside of the universe, or that it even makes sense to talk about anything outside of the universe. That's not my burden in this discussion.

The law of Causality is a metaphysical law, so it is not tied to just physical entities. Non-physical entities like ideas can cause things.

ed: At one time it was thought that outer space had different laws of physics than earth. Yet when we began space travel we assumed that the laws discovered on earth applied to space and we turned out to be correct.

eud: We knew that there was such a place as outer space. We don't know that there is anything outside of the universe.

Well the same thing occurred with atoms. At one time we didn't know that atoms existed or how they behaved. So when we discovered that they existed we assumed that they behaved according to the laws of physics, and it turned out to be correct. So it is more rational to assume something that is metaphysical will operate according to metaphysical laws, ie laws of logic.

ed: So it is rational to assume the laws of logic apply to "outside" the universe until proven otherwise.

eud: Of course, and I had argued earlier that laws of logic must apply to any physical reality. However, it is not rational to assume that there is any such place as "outside" of the universe. Some evidence is definitely needed.

Besides the evidence from causality for such a place, Godels Incompleteness Theorem also points in that direction.

ed: Also see my other post about another dimension of time.

eud: Please explain this other dimension of time.

In order to resolve the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics, according to many physicists a second time dimension must exist.

ed: and how it is not the fallacy composition.

eud: Which post number?

I don't remember but you can find it by doing a search.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The evidence points to two possibilities, He either created it from nothing or He created it from nothing detectable by humans, ie neither matter or energy.

What evidence? But thank you for saying that you don't actually know which of those alternatives is correct. The problem, though, is that this clouds your argument regarding causality.

The law of Causality is a metaphysical law, so it is not tied to just physical entities. Non-physical entities like ideas can cause things.

Ideas have to do with the functioning of the brain. The reason that "ideas" can cause anything is because material brains can cause things.

Regardless, the law of causality could not fail to apply to a physical universe. It is not something imposed on physical reality, but something that must be true of any physical reality.

Well the same thing occurred with atoms. At one time we didn't know that atoms existed or how they behaved. So when we discovered that they existed we assumed that they behaved according to the laws of physics, and it turned out to be correct. So it is more rational to assume something that is metaphysical will operate according to metaphysical laws, ie laws of logic.

Atoms are part of the natural universe. That is why one assumes that they may be understood in the same way as anything natural. That says nothing about anything "metaphysical" (or outside of nature), about which one can't say really say anything. One might surmise that something like that would conform to logic, but it is difficult to say. I'll agree that ideas conform to logic, but ideas are produced by a physical brain, and are (generally) about a physical reality, regarding which logic makes good sense.

Besides the evidence from causality for such a place

Of which there is none. That is just a philosophical or theological speculation.

Godels Incompleteness Theorem also points in that direction.

How? I'd really like to hear how GIT allegedly "points in that direction".

In order to resolve the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics, according to many physicists a second time dimension must exist.

Okay, so how does that relate to this issue, when it is simply about mathematically modelling gravity and quantum mechanics in our universe? IOWs, about a form of time similar to the one that we are familiar with in the macro-world?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence points to two possibilities, He either created it from nothing or He created it from nothing detectable by humans, ie neither matter or energy.


The law of Causality is a metaphysical law, so it is not tied to just physical entities. Non-physical entities like ideas can cause things.



Well the same thing occurred with atoms. At one time we didn't know that atoms existed or how they behaved. So when we discovered that they existed we assumed that they behaved according to the laws of physics, and it turned out to be correct. So it is more rational to assume something that is metaphysical will operate according to metaphysical laws, ie laws of logic.


Besides the evidence from causality for such a place, Godels Incompleteness Theorem also points in that direction.



In order to resolve the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics, according to many physicists a second time dimension must exist.


I don't remember but you can find it by doing a search.

The evidence points to? What specific evidence are you referring to?