Science isn’t always the answer.

[ding]

If you could prove how it was frivolous fluff using logic, you would. But you

I have. Ding, you have, like, 4 copypastas that everyone has seen. 1000 times. We have been over this ground already.

Then show me a rebuttal, because it has yet to be rebutted by anyone.

Which is why you will keep seeing it. Winning hands get played.

Sure!

Yep, count on it.

 

[ding]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

What exactly do you believe that Vladimir Lenin meant when he said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

His intent in saying it was to get rid of the competition. Lenin was the new god. Pick up a history book, my man.

Similarly, you would be wrong to call north korea an atheist state. The Uns are gods. Its the most religious state on the planet.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, synagogues etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designations were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes. In the long run state atheism failed to convert many people. Religion strengthened underground and was revived to help fight the Second World War. It flourished after the fall of Communism. As Paul Froese explains:

Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs.[10]

Religion in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[forkup]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Actually I think Holly like me, is trying to get you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Sorry that "it's all around" doesn't cut it. In fact, it's a fallacy to beg the question. I challenge you to give one just one argument that's not fallacious in nature.

Ok, here you go.

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.

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

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

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.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I didn't go through the whole thing but let's start here.

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

The objections I have for God aren't trivial in the least. At least not the God from the Bible. So this begs the question. Do you believe in any God in organized religion cause than we would have an immediate problem?

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.

And yet you seem to claim a deep understanding of this four-dimensional being.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

That's a fallacy. It's begging the question. You need to establish that the universe can't occur naturally. Good news is, if you do you get a Nobel Prize.

So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

Maybe because if we weren't we wouldn't be in a position to make these kinds of contemplations on account of us not existing?

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence

Support this?

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this post the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

 

[ding]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

What exactly do you believe that Vladimir Lenin meant when he said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

His intent in saying it was to get rid of the competition. Lenin was the new god. Pick up a history book, my man.

Similarly, you would be wrong to call north korea an atheist state. The Uns are gods. Its the most religious state on the planet.

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

 

[ding]

The objections I have for God aren't trivial in the least. At least not the God from the Bible. So this begs the question. Do you believe in any God in organized religion cause than we would have an immediate problem?

Non-responsive to the point that if you perceive God to be a fairy tale then everything you look at will be skewed towards that end. It matters not whether or not your position is warranted or not because it shows a bias. Materialists like yourself love science and are proud of not being biased. So I am asking you, is it good to be biased?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ummm... no, humanists are materialists

Secular humanists, yes. I am materialist, essentially by default. You say i have a spirit? Great! Can't honestly say i care.

 

[ding]

And yet you seem to claim a deep understanding of this four-dimensional being.

Actually I don't. I say the closest I can come to perceiving God is something we can't possibly understand which is consciousness without form.

I arrived at this conclusion because matter and energy cannot be an infinite acting force because matter and energy are not unchanging. Not to mention that the presence of matter and energy create space and time. So whatever the solution is to the first cause conundrum (or the uncaused first cause) it must be beyond matter and energy. Spirit is beyond matter and energy and is something we can't fully understand.

 

[ding]

And yet you seem to claim a deep understanding of this four-dimensional being.

Let me add that things like truth and love are not subject to physical laws. And in fact the very definition of truth matches the attributes to the solution of the first cause conundrum which is something which is eternal and unchanging. Truth fits that bill.

Not to mention we have an example of something which is not matter or energy existing before the creation of space and time and that is the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet you seem to claim a deep understanding of this four-dimensional being.

Actually I don't. I say the closest I can come to perceiving God is something we can't possibly understand which is consciousness without form.

I arrived at this conclusion because matter and energy cannot be an infinite acting force because matter and energy are not unchanging. Not to mention that the presence of matter and energy create space and time. So whatever the solution is to the first cause conundrum (or the uncaused first cause) it must be beyond matter and energy. Spirit is beyond matter and energy and is something we can't fully understand.

Then why call it spirit? Why not call it...aether? Or miasma? Why spirit? The only thing you claim to know about it is that it is "outside" our understanding. Maybe it's a huge, purple donkey who is a Star Wars fan, and we just cant see it.

 

[ding]

That's a fallacy. It's begging the question. You need to establish that the universe can't occur naturally. Good news is, if you do you get a Nobel Prize.

Maybe you have not been following science but the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

And yet you seem to claim a deep understanding of this four-dimensional being.

Actually I don't. I say the closest I can come to perceiving God is something we can't possibly understand which is consciousness without form.

I arrived at this conclusion because matter and energy cannot be an infinite acting force because matter and energy are not unchanging. Not to mention that the presence of matter and energy create space and time. So whatever the solution is to the first cause conundrum (or the uncaused first cause) it must be beyond matter and energy. Spirit is beyond matter and energy and is something we can't fully understand.

Then why call it spirit? Why not call it...aether? Or miasma? Why spirit? The only thing you claim to know about it is that it is "outside" our understanding. Maybe it's a huge, purple donkey who is a Star Wars fan, and we just cant see it.

Call it whatever you want. I believe it is infinite consciousness, infinite intelligence, infinite logic, etc.

 

[forkup]

The objections I have for God aren't trivial in the least. At least not the God from the Bible. So this begs the question. Do you believe in any God in organized religion cause than we would have an immediate problem?

Non-responsive to the point that if you perceive God to be a fairy tale then everything you look at will be skewed towards that end. It matters not whether or not your position is warranted or not because it shows a bias. Materialists like yourself love science and are proud of not being biased. So I am asking you, is it good to be biased?

Everybody has a bias. The best thing we can hope for is to be aware and keep an open mind. That's why I took the time sifting through that long post and first tried to understand it and then came out with specific, non-trivial problems I had with your logic.

You, for instance, are biased towards trying to prove the existence of some ( so far unnamed) supreme being. I asked specifically for an argument for the existence of God that doesn't rely on fallacious arguments. Sorry to tell you but you didn't provide this.

 

[ding]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[forkup]

That's a fallacy. It's begging the question. You need to establish that the universe can't occur naturally. Good news is, if you do you get a Nobel Prize.

Maybe you have not been following science but the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and was created from nothing.

Says you, but not a single scientist. They will claim that they don't have information enough to come out with a determination.

But since you have a problem with something from nothing. Who created your God?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and was created from nothing.

*nothing that we can observe, more accurately

 

[ding]

The objections I have for God aren't trivial in the least. At least not the God from the Bible. So this begs the question. Do you believe in any God in organized religion cause than we would have an immediate problem?

Non-responsive to the point that if you perceive God to be a fairy tale then everything you look at will be skewed towards that end. It matters not whether or not your position is warranted or not because it shows a bias. Materialists like yourself love science and are proud of not being biased. So I am asking you, is it good to be biased?

Everybody has a bias. The best thing we can hope for is to be aware and keep an open mind. That's why I took the time sifting through that long post and first tried to understand it and then came out with specific, non-trivial problems I had with your logic.

You, for instance, are biased towards trying to prove the existence of some ( so far unnamed) supreme being. I asked specifically for an argument for the existence of God that doesn't rely on fallacious arguments. Sorry to tell you but you didn't provide this.

Yes, and you proved yours by parsing my evidence instead of weighing all of the evidence.

I literally compiled my evidence over 15 years before reaching my conclusions.

 

[ding]

That's a fallacy. It's begging the question. You need to establish that the universe can't occur naturally. Good news is, if you do you get a Nobel Prize.

Maybe you have not been following science but the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and was created from nothing.

Says you, but not a single scientist. They will claim that they don't have information enough to come out with a determination.

But since you have a problem with something from nothing. Who created your God?

You just lost that bet.

 

[Hollie]

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

I don’t hold mankind’s failures on acts of Christians, I hold Christians accountable for the failures of Christians. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by Christians in order to come to conclusions about Christianity. The fact is, the only external example of Christianity we have is Christians. If one is going to come to conclusions about such matters as forced conversions, enslavement of people, the revulsion of knowledge by the ruling class (the Dark Ages), the Christian world provides those examples.

You can't be that naive, Holly. Hitler called himself a Christian. He could call himself a woman in this day and age. That wouldn't make him a woman. This stuff is basic.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden

So, you think all those good people who are non-Christians haven't hurt other people, or done things they are ashamed of?
Even Christians hurt other people, and do things they are ashamed of.

Those who deny that are simply lying to themselves.

Seriously, Holly, you are very naive and lack discernment.

Case in point. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. You should be able to tell that just by looking around today. People have done lots of things in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean God is anywhere near them.

I wasn't aware that you were assigned as the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not a real Christian. Such a weighty burden you bear.
"I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publicly and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what Christians have done to humanity, he sure was.

Theists define outside of theism any group that engages in behavior later deemed to be considered anti-thetical to the theism in question. For instance, Hitler was not banished from the Catholic Church (the Vatican) at all during his reign. Only AFTER he was vanquished and only after the world expressed outrage at his acts of brutality, and only AFTER the deaths of over 20 million people in WW2 did the theists start to argue that "Hitler wasn't religious".

Yes, Hitler certainly was. And his totalitarian views and hatreds grew from his religious upbringing.


Why not pay attention to what I have written out? I never claimed that the non-religious never hurt other people. Hey, it's Christians in these threads who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

or

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many Christians, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is Christianity)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by religionists here to be the result of the inerrancy of Christianity (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise. It seems that there is an undercurrent of how great those who believe in god and Jesus are.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive, and want to see the heads roll of the kuffar roll; they ache to see blood spilled. They take glee in the idea there is going to be conflict, that people are about to die in horrible ways, and this is all good. I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

My expectations? Either your religions are the solution or they are the problem. Gott Mit Uns, Guess what? You are the problem.


Don't be so naïve to think that you are the final arbiter of "real Christians" vs. the "not real christians". Take responsibility for what your ideology has wrought. It creates divisions where there are none.

 

[ding]

Who created your God?

Ah... the infinite regression.

There is only one solution to this conundrum. An uncaused first cause. Something (or in this case no thing) which has existed forever and is unchanging. Because for it to exist forever it must be unchanging. Matter and energy are not unchanging. So the solution to the first cause is spirit or no thing.

 

[forkup]

See previous point. Also, you are making an extrapolation based on something that's a new endeavor in human history and claim it's inevitable. Want me to point to all renowned scientists who are arguing against this evolution?

You probably should have read the whole argument instead of parsing it.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.

Again who says this is the case? How do you know, were you there?