If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

FYI, still not discussing magic.

 

[ding]

Whatever this thing is that is outside of space and time and capable of creating the material world it can’t be made of matter and energy that exists in the material world. Which means it could be eternal and unchanging.

 

[Kilroy2]

No one can know the past, all they can do is believe in what is told to them and base some of it on the limited experiences that are available for people to make the determination of what is true or what is false

Yet it does require logic and a believe to find out for oneself

living centuries ago versus now we can understand that people were idiots and after all these centuries there has been some progress but idiocracy still plagues us.

Then again if we knew everything then we would be the definition of God

It is a good thing that other will tell us what we need to know and that way we can continue on without loosing any brain cells from over-activity.

We do want to save them for the big question

Am I dead or is this memorex

 

[diver52]

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

Right now I am just trying to get you to agree with what every court follows which is that tangible items can be used as evidence. That’s the first step.

I already know what standards every court follows in terms of evidence. There is a word you need to understand. "Relevance." You have to demonstrate that the evidence you wish to present has some connection to the point you are trying to make. Until you understand that, you are going to fail.

 

[diver52]

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Evidence of what?

Let’s see. God’s existence, God’s attributes, purpose of the universe, reason for creation, etc.

Interesting. Ok. What is God? What are those attributes? We can start there. And please, don't just tell me... I require you to support any claim with more than just your wishing it's true.

 

[diver52]

The evidence clearly shows that existence, aka space and time, aka the universe had a beginning.

The question is what came before it and was it caused. Was it intentional? All valid questions. No magic involved at this point.

I know the answer to this one. We haven't got a clue.

 

[diver52]

Is there something which is capable of existing outside of space and time that is conscious and capable of creating the material world?

That’s really the heart of the debate.

Same answer. We haven't got a clue. Our ignorance is currently absolute.

 

[diver52]

Whatever this thing is that is outside of space and time and capable of creating the material world it can’t be made of matter and energy that exists in the material world. Which means it could be eternal and unchanging.

You are assuming there is a thing. You are assuming what it can't be made of. You have no clue about any of it. Universe creating may well be an entirely natural phenomenon which happens all the time. This universe may be the third place entry in a middle school science fair.

 

[diver52]

This is another thing I don't get. There is so much certainty being expressed. But the nature of faith is the belief in things unknown. Faith is based in ignorance. You don't need faith to use a spoon because a spoon is a fact. So to deny that ignorance is deny faith. The more one insists that what they believe must be fact, the weaker the faith they have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I say the evidence tells us that God is supremely intelligent.

Who gives a shit what you say? Crazy people say crazy things all the time.

Prove the evidence doesn’t prove that the universe was created from nothing.

Haha....like this ^^

Embarrassing

 

[ding]

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

Right now I am just trying to get you to agree with what every court follows which is that tangible items can be used as evidence. That’s the first step.

I already know what standards every court follows in terms of evidence. There is a word you need to understand. "Relevance." You have to demonstrate that the evidence you wish to present has some connection to the point you are trying to make. Until you understand that, you are going to fail.

You are arguing that there is no evidence for a creator. I am arguing that what he created is evidence of his existence. That means everything since the beginning of creation is relevant. Everything since the beginning of time points to intelligence existing before space and time.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

 

[ding]

The evidence clearly shows that existence, aka space and time, aka the universe had a beginning.

The question is what came before it and was it caused. Was it intentional? All valid questions. No magic involved at this point.

I know the answer to this one. We haven't got a clue.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Evidence of what?

Let’s see. God’s existence, God’s attributes, purpose of the universe, reason for creation, etc.

Interesting. Ok. What is God? What are those attributes? We can start there. And please, don't just tell me... I require you to support any claim with more than just your wishing it's true.

Good, intelligent, powerful, eternal, unchanging, logical, loving, caring.

The support can be found in what he created.

 

[ding]

Is there something which is capable of existing outside of space and time that is conscious and capable of creating the material world?

That’s really the heart of the debate.

Same answer. We haven't got a clue. Our ignorance is currently absolute.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

 

[ding]

Whatever this thing is that is outside of space and time and capable of creating the material world it can’t be made of matter and energy that exists in the material world. Which means it could be eternal and unchanging.

You are assuming there is a thing. You are assuming what it can't be made of. You have no clue about any of it. Universe creating may well be an entirely natural phenomenon which happens all the time. This universe may be the third place entry in a middle school science fair.

If you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

This is another thing I don't get. There is so much certainty being expressed. But the nature of faith is the belief in things unknown. Faith is based in ignorance. You don't need faith to use a spoon because a spoon is a fact. So to deny that ignorance is deny faith. The more one insists that what they believe must be fact, the weaker the faith they have.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in someone or something. I don't put complete trust in anything without good reason. I have faith that everything works for good. If your faith never grows the best you can hope for is to suffer without complaint.

 

[ding]

I say the evidence tells us that God is supremely intelligent.

Who gives a shit what you say? Crazy people say crazy things all the time.

Prove the evidence doesn’t prove that the universe was created from nothing.

Haha....like this ^^

Embarrassing

I didn't think you can. I can prove that the universe has not existed forever and that it did have a beginning.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[diver52]

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

Right now I am just trying to get you to agree with what every court follows which is that tangible items can be used as evidence. That’s the first step.

I already know what standards every court follows in terms of evidence. There is a word you need to understand. "Relevance." You have to demonstrate that the evidence you wish to present has some connection to the point you are trying to make. Until you understand that, you are going to fail.

You are arguing that there is no evidence for a creator. I am arguing that what he created is evidence of his existence. That means everything since the beginning of creation is relevant. Everything since the beginning of time points to intelligence existing before space and time.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You still fail to provide a connection. You are merely claiming that your utterly unsupported guess must be the right one. I think my utterly unsupported guess is the right one.

 

[diver52]

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Evidence of what?

Let’s see. God’s existence, God’s attributes, purpose of the universe, reason for creation, etc.

Interesting. Ok. What is God? What are those attributes? We can start there. And please, don't just tell me... I require you to support any claim with more than just your wishing it's true.

Good, intelligent, powerful, eternal, unchanging, logical, loving, caring.

The support can be found in what he created.

Those words are meaningless. If you ask me what a dog is I can certainly give you a description which will allow you to identify a dog when you see one.

What is God?

 

[ding]

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

Right now I am just trying to get you to agree with what every court follows which is that tangible items can be used as evidence. That’s the first step.

I already know what standards every court follows in terms of evidence. There is a word you need to understand. "Relevance." You have to demonstrate that the evidence you wish to present has some connection to the point you are trying to make. Until you understand that, you are going to fail.

You are arguing that there is no evidence for a creator. I am arguing that what he created is evidence of his existence. That means everything since the beginning of creation is relevant. Everything since the beginning of time points to intelligence existing before space and time.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You still fail to provide a connection. You are merely claiming that your utterly unsupported guess must be the right one. I think my utterly unsupported guess is the right one.

The connection is that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

The connection is that God created the material world to experience the material world through beings which create and know.