Zone1 Christian Zionism

[ding]

I've told you I don't and I'd rather not have to guess which one you refer to.

You don't need to guess. I'll tell you when I'm defending the God of Abraham against your attacks.

 

[ding]

Incorrect.

Not incorrect. You just don't want to admit to being an atheist. You have been arguing against the science that the universe began because it implies a creator. You have been arguing that the universe was created from an existing form of energy to eliminate the need of a creator. You have been arguing against a creator period. You are no agnostic. The classic response of an agnostic to the question of was there a creator is "I don't know." You are acting like you know. You are no agnostic.

 

[ding]

alang1216

Do you agree that the incorporeal is the source of the corporeal?

And if so, how do you know the Creator is not the incorporeal source of the corporeal?

 

[alang1216]

Not incorrect. You just don't want to admit to being an atheist. You have been arguing against the science that the universe began because it implies a creator. You have been arguing that the universe was created from an existing form of energy to eliminate the need of a creator. You have been arguing against a creator period. You are no agnostic. The classic response of an agnostic to the question of was there a creator is "I don't know." You are acting like you know. You are no agnostic.

I have been arguing that the science is hardly settled so I don't know that it did or didn't get created by some Creator. It hardly matters if it was in some pre-existing form or not.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

Do you agree that the incorporeal is the source of the corporeal?

Is energy an incorporeal? If so it absolutely may be. If not, and there is another source, it could be. I don't know.

And if so, how do you know the Creator is not the incorporeal source of the corporeal?

I don't, hence I'm agnostic.

 

[ding]

I have been arguing that the science is hardly settled so I don't know that it did or didn't get created by some Creator. It hardly matters if it was in some pre-existing form or not.

As an argument against the universe began not being created from existing matter.

Of course it matters. It's literally the key point to the question was the universe created by a creator. If the universe was not created then it is a moot question. So yeah, it matters.

 

[ding]

Is energy an incorporeal? If so it absolutely may be. If not, and there is another source, it could be. I don't know.

You literally argued that energy is incorporeal in post #270. Did you forget about that already?

Yes, energy is considered to be incorporeal. So the prevailing scientific theory has the corporeal being created from the incorporeal. So there is a scientific basis to believe a creator is the incorporeal source of our existence. Science can't address what that source is. Science can only say the source is incorporeal. Which is where studying the evolution of space and time comes in which points to a moralistic and providential creator.

I don't, hence I'm agnostic.

Exactly. But you seem to keep arguing like you do.

 

[alang1216]

As an argument against the universe began not being created from existing matter.

Of course it matters. It's literally the key point to the question was the universe created by a creator. If the universe was not created then it is a moot question. So yeah, it matters.

You are telling me what this Creator can and can't do? Maybe it took existing energy to make the universe?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, energy is considered to be incorporeal. So the prevailing scientific theory has the corporeal being created from the incorporeal. So there is a scientific basis to believe a creator is the incorporeal source of our existence. Science can't address what that source is. Science can only say the source is incorporeal.

OK

Which is where studying the evolution of space and time comes in which points to a moralistic and providential creator.

Maybe you see the pointing but I sure don't. When we convert matter to energy are we creating new creators? Will the creator eventually die of entropy?

 

[ding]

You are telling me what this Creator can and can't do? Maybe it took existing energy to make the universe?

Am I telling you what this Creator can and can't I? Because it seems like I only told you that the Creator created the universe and that it wasn't from existing matter because the CMB is evidence the universe wasn't created from existing matter. Not because of what this Creator can and can't do.

 

[ding]

Maybe you see the pointing but I sure don't. When we convert matter to energy are we creating new creators? Will the creator eventually die of entropy?

The only extant attributes of reality are the positive attributes of reality. The negative attributes of reality are the absence of the positive attributes of reality.

Why would you think we are creating new creators? Can you walk me through what that would look like?

Entropy doesn't apply to the incorporeal.

 

[alang1216]

Am I telling you what this Creator can and can't I? Because it seems like I only told you that the Creator created the universe and that it wasn't from existing matter because the CMB is evidence the universe wasn't created from existing matter. Not because of what this Creator can and can't do.

Could the universe have been created from existing energy?

Why would you think we are creating new creators? Can you walk me through what that would look like?

Not a clue. How was the Creator created? How do you know?

Entropy doesn't apply to the incorporeal.

Entropy doesn't apply to energy itself, but rather describes how energy spreads out, becomes disordered, or becomes unavailable to do work, a key concept in thermodynamics where energy transforms from useful to less useful forms, increasing overall disorder, like heat dispersing into the universe. While energy is conserved (First Law), entropy (Second Law) explains why useful energy always decreases, increasing system randomness, like hot coffee cooling or a gas expanding.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Christianity and Judaism are very different. It begins by the Christian distortion of Genesis. There is no devil hell Fall of man or original sin in Genesis.

This was created to use as a threat to force people to be obedient.

The message in Genesis is God gave Adam morals and free will so he could choose to come to God. Not be forced by threats of hell and eternal damnation.

The religion of the Jews doesn't provide any hope or understanding of the afterlife. Jesus completes your incomplete understanding

 

[ding]

Could the universe have been created from existing energy?

Not and produce the CMB.

 

[ding]

Not a clue. How was the Creator created? How do you know?

Then why would you ask if we are creating new creators?

The Creator wasn't created. Because the Creator is existence itself. It's the only logical conclusion.

 

[ding]

Entropy doesn't apply to energy itself, but rather describes how energy spreads out, becomes disordered, or becomes unavailable to do work, a key concept in thermodynamics where energy transforms from useful to less useful forms, increasing overall disorder, like heat dispersing into the universe. While energy is conserved (First Law), entropy (Second Law) explains why useful energy always decreases, increasing system randomness, like hot coffee cooling or a gas expanding.

The nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which popped into existence through paired particle production did not exist as energy prior to popping into existence. It existed as potential. Hence the phrase, a temporary borrowing of energy from nothing.

You are trying to take something inside of space and time and apply it to something outside of space and time. That won't work. It's the presence of energy/matter which creates space time.

 

[alang1216]

Then why would you ask if we are creating new creators?

The Creator wasn't created. Because the Creator is existence itself. It's the only logical conclusion.

I'm not sure what that means but it is hardly the only logical conclusion. Our universe could be the unfortunate result of an alien science experiment gone wrong.

 

[alang1216]

Not and produce the CMB.

I have no idea. We've reached the end of my astrophysics knowledge.

 

[ding]

Our universe could be the unfortunate result of an alien science experiment gone wrong.

Even that scenario means there was a creation and a creator.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure what that means but it is hardly the only logical conclusion.

It means that existence has always existed and is the source or matrix of the physical world.

What other logical conclusions do you believe exist?