Started By
Message
re: I want God to be real.
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:34 pm to WhitewaterDawg
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:34 pm to WhitewaterDawg
quote:
DMT
0
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:39 pm to CrimsonChin
quote:
I want God to be real.
You're in luck!! He is!!
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Correct, now explain how you know that the universe did not begin as a product of natural processes.
If one is claiming that the universe was created from nothing by nothing, then the burden of proof is to offer evidence that such a creative occurrence is a natural occurrence.
Contrarily, if one is claiming that the universe was created by a natural occurrence from something, then the burden of proof would be to identify the natural source for the something from which the universe was created.
Anything less would be introducing supernatural creation.
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If matter was spontaneously generated by an inevitable occurrence produced by natural phenomenon that are not depended on existence, I would not consider that a "prime mover". And it certainly wouldn't be supernatural.
I'm not understanding. Would you give an an example of "Natural phenomenon that are not depended on existence"? And how that would adhere to natural laws we observe today?
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:51 pm to beejon
quote:
If one is claiming that the universe was created from nothing by nothing, then the burden of proof is to offer evidence that such a creative occurrence is a natural occurrence.
He didn't claim that it did happen that way, he claimed that you have to prove that it did not or could not have happened that way.
Right now, the question is agnostic as in: It cannot be known at this time or there is no evidence.
You are saying that it was caused by something supernatural, therefore it must be proven or you must provide evidence that there is something supernatural.
If it is outside of the "natural world", then how can you measure it? Could you ever prove it? Is your position reliant only on your faith that it is true?
We're saying we don't know, you're saying you do.
And doing a very bad job at arguing, which is kind of why William Lane Craig lost all credibility a while back.
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:53 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
"Our means of receiving impressions are absurdly few, and our notions of surrounding objects infinitely narrow. We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos." - Lovecraft
I'm not sure how that's related to the effect produced by the first uncaused cause.
quote:
Under the assumption that the universe does not, in fact, collapse in on itself.
I once again refer to perception.
The universe may collapse on itself. That doesn't offer evidence for the Aristotelian view of an eternal universe though.
quote:
Depends on what you're talking about. Life can come from nonlife in the correct conditions.
But, I can hit you with the same thing: If we exist, how can you prove there was ever a nonexistence?
The question is not about life coming from nonlife, the question is concerning can nothing produce something from nothing and that be a naturalistic view of creation. As far as I am aware, and correct me if I'm wrong...and give an example, but within the constraints of natural laws, nothing cannot produce something from nothing.
Posted on 1/18/15 at 11:57 pm to beejon
quote:
The question is not about life coming from nonlife, the question is concerning can nothing produce something from nothing and that be a naturalistic view of creation. As far as I am aware, and correct me if I'm wrong...and give an example, but within the constraints of natural laws, nothing cannot produce something from nothing.
This is the stupidest argument you have because you cannot know that.
You're positing that based on our limited knowledge of the universe.
Using human perception to dictate how the universe operates is woefully misguided.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:00 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Jesus was real.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:02 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
He didn't claim that it did happen that way, he claimed that you have to prove that it did not or could not have happened that way.
No, the burden of proof is to show that nothing producing something from nothing is within the constraints of natural laws.
quote:
Right now, the question is agnostic as in: It cannot be known at this time or there is no evidence.
Right now, for such a scenario to occur, it would be a supernatural occurrence.
quote:
You are saying that it was caused by something supernatural, therefore it must be proven or you must provide evidence that there is something supernatural.
I'm saying that there is 1) an uncaused first cause and 2) that an uncaused first cause isn't in agreement with natural laws therefore is supernatural. If one were to offer evidence that an uncaused first cause was within the occurrence of natural laws, then the uncaused first cause wouldn't be supernatural.
quote:
If it is outside of the "natural world", then how can you measure it? Could you ever prove it? Is your position reliant only on your faith that it is true?
"Outside of the natural world" is supernatural. The proof is that natural laws do not support the view that nothing creates something from nothing.
quote:
We're saying we don't know, you're saying you do.
"We don't know" is simply at attempt to deflect the focus from the fact that nothing producing something from nothing is a supernatural occurrence, not a natural occurrence.
quote:
And doing a very bad job at arguing, which is kind of why William Lane Craig lost all credibility a while back.
Lost "all credibility"? Really?
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:04 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
This is the stupidest argument you have because you cannot know that.
You're positing that based on our limited knowledge of the universe.
Using human perception to dictate how the universe operates is woefully misguided.
Give an example, within natural laws, of nothing producing something from nothing.
I'm surprised you haven't attempted Krauss' argument by now.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:05 am to beejon
Empty space, which for many people is a good first example of nothing, is actually unstable. Quantum mechanics will allow particles to suddenly pop out of nothing and it doesn't violate any laws of physics.
Just the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity can produce 400 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars and then beyond that it turns out when you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, space itself can arise from nothing, as can time.
It seems impossible but it's completely possible and what is amazing to me is to be asked what would be the characteristics of a universe that came from nothing by laws of physics. It would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we measure.
Just the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity can produce 400 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars and then beyond that it turns out when you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, space itself can arise from nothing, as can time.
It seems impossible but it's completely possible and what is amazing to me is to be asked what would be the characteristics of a universe that came from nothing by laws of physics. It would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we measure.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:07 am to beejon
quote:
If one is claiming that the universe was created from nothing by nothing, then the burden of proof is to offer evidence that such a creative occurrence is a natural occurrence.
Contrarily, if one is claiming that the universe was created by a natural occurrence from something, then the burden of proof would be to identify the natural source for the something from which the universe was created.
Anything less would be introducing supernatural creation.
First, I never said it happened that way. I was illustrating the absurdity of claiming the universe must exist due to a supernatural cause. The fact is that you believe it has a supernatural cause, and that there is no other possible explanation, because you lack both the desire and the knowledge to believe anything else.
Second, and this goes back to you lacking the knowledge most likely due to a lack of pursuit for obvious reasons, there are widely held ideas in the field of astrophysics about "nothing coming from nothing" as an explanation for existence.
In what I believe is a futile attempt to educate, I offer you this:
LINK
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:12 am to Roger Klarvin
Kevin Steele is a better hire than Chavis.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:12 am to beejon
quote:
Right now, for such a scenario to occur, it would be a supernatural occurrence.
By this measure, 5,000 years ago lightening, comets, eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes and a nearly endless list of other unexplainable phenomenon were supernatural.
Your argument is essentially one for the virtues of human ignorance, that it is better to not know as it gives us reason to keep believing. After all, God was far more powerful and involved in the day to day lives of humans when everything from leprosy to earthquakes was his doing.
This post was edited on 1/19/15 at 12:15 am
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:16 am to KSGamecock
quote:
Kevin Steele is a better hire than Chavis.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:17 am to KSGamecock
quote:
Empty space, which for many people is a good first example of nothing, is actually unstable. Quantum mechanics will allow particles to suddenly pop out of nothing and it doesn't violate any laws of physics.
Just the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity can produce 400 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars and then beyond that it turns out when you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, space itself can arise from nothing, as can time.
It seems impossible but it's completely possible and what is amazing to me is to be asked what would be the characteristics of a universe that came from nothing by laws of physics. It would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we measure.
There are also a few models in which the universe could have very well started from nothing. I just think we're in our infancy of understanding the universe -- although there seems to be a group of people who think humans are the focal point of it all.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:17 am to Roger Klarvin
I heard God's Not Dead. I read it on the internet.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:18 am to BlackPawnMartyr
I went to the beach with Jesus once and I don't have the footprints to prove it.
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:18 am to Roger Klarvin
Oh dear god. 
Posted on 1/19/15 at 12:18 am to KSGamecock
quote:
I went to the beach with Jesus once and I don't have the footprints to prove it
That's because he walks on water. Duh.
Page 5 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News