Do you agree or not?
A reality based on faith is essentially a wish for a specific reality since there is not sufficient supporting evidence.
Zone1 Christian Zionism
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
I don't hold beliefs on things I have no knowledge of. So your statement that I have no evidence that it is not real and should believe it is idiotic.
It's ridiculous for you to believe this is comparable to what you are doing. You do have beliefs on God not existing. So you should have evidence for your beliefs.
That's you grasping at straws because the universe popping into existence scares you. The evidence for a universe popping into existence not being created from existing matter is overwhelming. It's mainstream science.
Last edited:
I agree the way you stated it is wrong. It's because you have never thought through what can exist outside of space and time that you are unable to grasp the corporeal coming from the incorporeal. But given that the universe was not created from existing matter and that matter cannot exist without creating space time the only possible explanation is the incorporeal is the source of the corporeal.
Reality does not exist or not exist based upon faith. My beliefs of reality are based upon evidence. You just so happen to reject that evidence for no good reason other than it offends your sensibilities.
alang1216 chew on this because it is relevant to this discussion even if you don't understand how.
The total energy in the universe is thought by many physicists to be zero, a concept known as the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis, where the vast positive energy of matter and radiation is perfectly balanced by the negative energy of gravity, meaning the universe could have sprung from "nothing" without violating conservation laws. While we can estimate the energy in the observable universe (around 3.2 x 10^71 Joules of positive mass-energy), the total net energy, including negative gravitational energy, balances out to zero.
The Two Sides of the Cosmic Energy Coin:
The total energy in the universe is thought by many physicists to be zero, a concept known as the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis, where the vast positive energy of matter and radiation is perfectly balanced by the negative energy of gravity, meaning the universe could have sprung from "nothing" without violating conservation laws. While we can estimate the energy in the observable universe (around 3.2 x 10^71 Joules of positive mass-energy), the total net energy, including negative gravitational energy, balances out to zero.
The Two Sides of the Cosmic Energy Coin:
- Positive Energy (Matter/Radiation): This is all the "stuff" we can see and detect, like stars, galaxies, gas, and light (photons).
- Negative Energy (Gravity): Gravity is considered a form of negative energy; it takes positive energy (work) to pull things apart against their gravitational attraction, meaning the attraction itself represents negative energy.
- Conservation of Energy: If the total is zero, energy wasn't created, it just rearranged from potential (negative) to actual (positive) forms, fitting the law that energy can't be destroyed.
- The Big Bang: This balance suggests the universe could have arisen from a quantum fluctuation (a temporary "borrowing" of energy from nothing).
Last edited:
Bezukhov
Anarcho-Capitalist
Jesus did say: "If you're a Christian-Zionist go around the world and kill people and take their stuff"
It is exactly the same.
Ahura Mazda is the supreme, wise creator God in Zoroastrianism, one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions, representing light, truth, order (Asha), and goodness, locked in an eternal struggle with the destructive spirit Angra Mainyu (evil). He is the "Wise Lord" who created the universe and established cosmic law, emphasizing humanity's free will to choose between good and evil, a core tenet of Zoroastrian belief.
Now that you have knowledge of Ahura Mazda, but no evidence that it is not real, you should believe. After all, you now know about as much about Ahura Mazda as I know about the God of the Bible.
Scares me? No, but my gut tells me it didn't. Our cosmological knowledge always seems to lead to us not being unique or special.
I suspect it popped into existence from some other, pre-existing form. Does that scare you? Does an eternal universe conflict with an eternal creator?
This happens all the time since energy and matter are interchangeable.
A universe in which positive energy dominates will eventually collapse in a Big Crunch, while an "open" universe in which negative energy dominates will either expand indefinitely or eventually disintegrate in a Big Rip. In the zero-energy universe model ("flat" or "Euclidean"), the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly cancelled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.
Some physicists argue a truly zero-energy universe would be static and unable to evolve, contradicting observed expansion and change.
It is unclear which, if any, of these models accurately describes the real universe.
It's not the same. I'm not arguing against or for Ahura Mazda. I am arguing for a Creator. You are arguing against a Creator. I have evidence for my argument. You have no evidence for your argument. This is a smoke screen to distract from the fact that you have no evidence for your beliefs.
No, another pre-existing form does not scare me. In fact my previous post discussed exactly that. It called it "a temporary borrowing of energy from nothing." God is no thing. So a temporary borrowing of energy from nothing is technically correct. The energy that led to the creation of the universe was in the form of potential. It literally did not exist in any form prior to the universe popping into existence. "a temporary borrowing of energy from nothing."
The universe is not eternal into the past. It is eternal into the future. So, no, an eternal universe does not conflict with an eternal creator because it is not eternal into the past. Atheists have long been bothered by the universe having a beginning, as well they should.
Yet another nail in your argument's coffin. The universe started off as pure energy. Which means what existed before was not corporeal but incorporeal. The incorporeal is the source of the corporeal. "a temporary borrowing of energy from nothing."
What isn't unclear however is that everything you described began with the universe beginning. The fate of the universe may be unclear but it's beginning is not. The universe popped into existence not being created from existing matter.
DGS49
Diamond Member
Kill this thread. It has become masturbatory.
They all do. This one is no different than the rest.
You conflate the Creator (of the universe) with God (Yahweh). I will only argue against God (atheist), not against the Creator (agnostic). How many times have I made this distinction?
I use the terms "God" and "Creator" interchangeably but I have not been arguing for the God of Abraham. If I had I would have brought up Jesus as another piece of my evidence. Which I haven't. You have been arguing against a Creator period which means you cannot be agnostic.
I've told you I don't and I'd rather not have to guess which one you refer to.
Incorrect.
Similar threads
- Locked
