This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Grumblenuts]

You haven't bothered to think about WHAT created your supposed god now have you....

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is "something" which is eternal and unchanging. Which means that that "something" must be in reality no thing. Because "things" like matter and energy are not unchanging.

Space and time come and go. "Things" like the Aether are clearly eternal, dinglespam. "Quantum tunneling event"? Pathetic even for you, poser.

 

[Likkmee]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

BUT. They believe the little men at Goofle/Farcebook see all/know all and they need a blocker !
These are ancient.. almost 15-25 years !

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

How conveniently circular! Reasoned that out all by your lonesome, did ya? Logical fallacy is "Mind" stuff too, ya know.

 

[ding]

Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from

And they don't want anyone else to either

The Big Bang.


Where is your god come from?

God is eternal and unchanging. It's the only solution to the first cause conundrum. It's also the definition of truth.

Doesn't answer the question.

It does. Do you understand what it means to be eternal?

To live a boring life, how the Buddhists fear?

I always took eternal to mean without beginning and end.

So, where is you god’s beginnings?

What part of there is no beginning and end did you not understand?

 

[ding]

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.

How conveniently circular! Reasoned that out all by your lonesome, did ya? Logical fallacy is "Mind" stuff too, ya know.

Actually I got it from George Wald. You know... the Nobel Laureate

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”​

​

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”​

​

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”​

​

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.​

​

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."​

 

[ding]

You haven't bothered to think about WHAT created your supposed god now have you....

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is "something" which is eternal and unchanging. Which means that that "something" must be in reality no thing. Because "things" like matter and energy are not unchanging.

Space and time come and go. "Things" like the Aether are clearly eternal, dinglespam. "Quantum tunneling event"? Pathetic even for you, poser.

 

[expat_panama]

I always took eternal to mean without beginning and end.

How can that be?

In the simple human scientific world there is supposed to be a logical explanation for everything

But eternity defies logic

A circle has no beginning or end. Time is just a construct. The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient way of marking the expansion of the universe. So outside of a three dimensional space there is no time. So it seems to me that eternal only has meaning if one is inside space.

Fair enough

Christians believe in eternity also because God told them so

God told them so

Here's another way of looking at it... for any given thing there will be a final state of fact. We call this objective truth or reality. Once discovered it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way even when it wasn't know that it was that way. Thus objective truth or reality is eternal and unchanging.

So humans with out tiny brains are going to find out where eternity came from without any help from the Creator?

Dont hold your breadth waiting for that

I believe we can discover that through the light of human reason, yes. Are divine revelations involved in that? Maybe, but I doubt they come in the form that was embellished in the OT.

There's a lot that "the light of human reason" can illuminate, and the creation is a great place to examine the limits of observation.

For example, at the very first moments of the beginning of the universe we had EVERYTHING traveling at the speed of light, in fact some say that space itself was moving faster than lightspeed. The dodgy part of our examination of reality now is whether we want to say we're in common space/time or not. If we're in, then how can we observe anything w/ time standing still, and if we're out of space time what are our rules?

iow, we're stuck at the "observer problem" that Shrodeger & Einstien wrestled w/. Who's observing?

That is a lot of sticky wickets to play with isnt it?

I think its going be a while before the atheists figure it all out

Probably, but then again it may not be a problem of figuring it out but rather a decision to face and accept reality on its own terms.

 

[ding]

Here's an interesting thought...

John Jefferson Davis writes, Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or acausal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements—and not into rabbits or frogs—shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures.​

​

Frontiers of Science and Faith: Examining Questions from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) 55-56​

Trent Horn concludes....

Uncaused events in quantum mechanics do not refute the principle that something cannot come from nothing. Furthermore, the reduction of causation in quantum events to unpredictable probabilities does not refute our normal experience that objects simply do not appear without a cause. This leaves us with sufficient evidence to believe that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.”​

Does Physics Disprove the First-Cause Argument?

In a previous post I argued that a common atheist intuition about what would count as proof for the existence of God also provides a foundation for the intuitio...

www.catholic.com

 

[otto105]

Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from

And they don't want anyone else to either

The Big Bang.


Where is your god come from?

God is eternal and unchanging. It's the only solution to the first cause conundrum. It's also the definition of truth.

Doesn't answer the question.

It does. Do you understand what it means to be eternal?

To live a boring life, how the Buddhists fear?

I always took eternal to mean without beginning and end.

So, where is you god’s beginnings?

What part of there is no beginning and end did you not understand?

That where our universe came from without a god. You god came letter when primitive man needed to control other people.

 

[expat_panama]

Here's an interesting thought...

John Jefferson Davis writes, Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or acausal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements—and not into rabbits or frogs—shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures.​

​

Frontiers of Science and Faith: Examining Questions from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) 55-56​

Trent Horn concludes....

Uncaused events in quantum mechanics do not refute the principle that something cannot come from nothing. Furthermore, the reduction of causation in quantum events to unpredictable probabilities does not refute our normal experience that objects simply do not appear without a cause. This leaves us with sufficient evidence to believe that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.”​

Does Physics Disprove the First-Cause Argument?

In a previous post I argued that a common atheist intuition about what would count as proof for the existence of God also provides a foundation for the intuitio...

www.catholic.com

Please note that back in the first line u used the word "may" which was needed because the ultimate truth is unknown --we just don't know for sure. We can still move forward on the path you pointed out here & conclude that the causal force for the creation of the universe is unknowable, and as such any scientific inquiry is pointless.

imho anyone who comes to me insisting that he's got "Jesus in his heart" makes me wonder if he thinks he's also got God up his ass. Likewise mho is that when we start talking about what God does we're going to need a lot more humility than most are willing to assume.

Meanwhile even though scientific inquiry may find itself stopped (or at least stalled) it can still invite equally valid phylosophical inquiries.

 

[ding]

Here's an interesting thought...

John Jefferson Davis writes, Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or acausal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements—and not into rabbits or frogs—shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures.​

​

Frontiers of Science and Faith: Examining Questions from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) 55-56​

Trent Horn concludes....

Uncaused events in quantum mechanics do not refute the principle that something cannot come from nothing. Furthermore, the reduction of causation in quantum events to unpredictable probabilities does not refute our normal experience that objects simply do not appear without a cause. This leaves us with sufficient evidence to believe that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.”​

Does Physics Disprove the First-Cause Argument?

In a previous post I argued that a common atheist intuition about what would count as proof for the existence of God also provides a foundation for the intuitio...

www.catholic.com

Please note that back in the first line u used the word "may" which was needed because the ultimate truth is unknown --we just don't know for sure. We can still move forward on the path you pointed out here & conclude that the causal force for the creation of the universe is unknowable, and as such any scientific inquiry is pointless.

imho anyone who comes to me insisting that he's got "Jesus in his heart" makes me wonder if he thinks he's also got God up his ass. Likewise mho is that when we start talking about what God does we're going to need a lot more humility than most are willing to assume.

Meanwhile scientific inquiry may find itself stopped (or at least stalled) it can still invite equally valid phylosophical inquiries.

When it comes to the first cause we do know that the first cause is no thing. Things require space and time as the presence of things creates space and time. That we can know for sure. We can also know that matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium as matter and energy are not unchanging. Matter and energy are subject to change. So when we eliminate the impossible what we are left with - no matter how improbable - is the ultimate truth or as I would have said, the final state of fact or reality.

But putting that aside I do not agree that scientific inquiry into the origin questions is pointless. Rome was not built in a day. It was built brick by brick.

But I agree that humility is always a good thing. Some might confuse knowledge and conviction as lack of humility but I prefer to make that judgement based upon the content of the knowledge. If the knowledge is sound the conviction is justified. If the knowledge isn't sound, then it's vainglory.

As for having Jesus in my heart and God up my ass, I'm no saint, so I am sure they would agree I have some work left to do.

 

[ding]

Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from

And they don't want anyone else to either

The Big Bang.


Where is your god come from?

God is eternal and unchanging. It's the only solution to the first cause conundrum. It's also the definition of truth.

Doesn't answer the question.

It does. Do you understand what it means to be eternal?

To live a boring life, how the Buddhists fear?

I always took eternal to mean without beginning and end.

So, where is you god’s beginnings?

What part of there is no beginning and end did you not understand?

That where our universe came from without a god. You god came letter when primitive man needed to control other people.

How do you know?

 

[ding]

Meanwhile even though scientific inquiry may find itself stopped (or at least stalled) it can still invite equally valid phylosophical inquiries.

Sure. Within the confines of the science. But to philosophically state that the universe has always existed with zero scientific evidence supporting it and an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence against it is not philosophy. It's a preference for an outcome driven by a bias.

 

[Mac-7]

That where our universe came from without a god. You god came letter when primitive man needed to control other people.

You are in for an incredible shock

 

[expat_panama]

Meanwhile even though scientific inquiry may find itself stopped (or at least stalled) it can still invite equally valid phylosophical inquiries.

Sure. Within the confines of the science. But to philosophically state that the universe has always existed with zero scientific evidence supporting it and an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence against it is not philosophy. It's a preference for an outcome driven by a bias.

Please forgive but I'm somehow getting the impression that you've never taken a university level philosophy course.

Imagine the frustration u get when you run into someone who thinks he knows all about science and has yet to take his first university science course. Maybe I could bridge the gap by saying that what I'm talking about is a rigorous and demanding discipline where folks are forced to deal w/ which is knowable & not while having the skills to navigate the limits of the unknown.

Philosophy works for philosophical questions such as how can we know what we know while science is a rational method of inquiry based on physical observation which simply assumes the utility of reason w/o question. Yeah, science is often perverted into some kind of belief system ("I don't believe in god because I believe in science") but let's not go there.

Back on topic. What is the limit of "knowability" at the beginning boundary of our current space/time? The answer is that we can't project back before the point that the entire universe was traveling at the speed of light (and all time was standing still) unless we assume some kind of observer or interactive observing array that was somehow affected, or we assume something outside space/time that did the observing. One other hope is conjecture over some kind of gravitational field --and while the field can't project faster than light it's presence can curve space beyond where a gravitational acceleration exceeds lightspeed.

Am I making any sense?

 

[ding]

Meanwhile even though scientific inquiry may find itself stopped (or at least stalled) it can still invite equally valid phylosophical inquiries.

Sure. Within the confines of the science. But to philosophically state that the universe has always existed with zero scientific evidence supporting it and an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence against it is not philosophy. It's a preference for an outcome driven by a bias.

Please forgive but I'm somehow getting the impression that you've never taken a university level philosophy course.

Imagine the frustration u get when you run into someone who thinks he knows all about science and has yet to take his first university science course. Maybe I could bridge the gap by saying that what I'm talking about is a rigorous and demanding discipline where folks are forced to deal w/ which is knowable & not while having the skills to navigate the limits of the unknown.

Philosophy works for philosophical questions such as how can we know what we know while science is a rational method of inquiry based on physical observation which simply assumes the utility of reason w/o question. Yeah, science is often perverted into some kind of belief system ("I don't believe in god because I believe in science") but let's not go there.

Back on topic. What is the limit of "knowability" at the beginning boundary of our current space/time? The answer is that we can't project back before the point that the entire universe was traveling at the speed of light (and all time was standing still) unless we assume some kind of observer or interactive observing array that was somehow affected, or we assume something outside space/time that did the observing. One other hope is conjecture over some kind of gravitational field --and while the field can't project faster than light it's presence can curve space beyond where a gravitational acceleration exceeds lightspeed.

Am I making any sense?

I would argue that establishing the boundary conditions of matter creates space and time and matter is not unchanging defines what we know. It would be silly to begin a philosophical discussion without at first identifying what we do know.

And you are correct, I have never taken a philosophy class. I'm a degreed engineer with 37 years of work experience as an engineer. So I am well versed in science and logic. Do I need to take a university level philosophy course to know that the presence of matter creates space and time and that matter is not unchanging and cannot therefore be an eternal source?

Philosophically speaking... the only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. For if it is changing it cannot be eternal. So knowing that the presence of matter creates its own space time and that matter is not unchanging we eliminate matter as the solution to the first cause conundrum and are left with the solution to the first cause conundrum must be no thing.

So rather than question my credentials, why don't you explain to me why this is not correct. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Back on topic. What is the limit of "knowability" at the beginning boundary of our current space/time? The answer is that we can't project back before the point that the entire universe was traveling at the speed of light (and all time was standing still) unless we assume some kind of observer or interactive observing array that was somehow affected, or we assume something outside space/time that did the observing. One other hope is conjecture over some kind of gravitational field --and while the field can't project faster than light it's presence can curve space beyond where a gravitational acceleration exceeds lightspeed.

Am I making any sense?

With regard to the limit of knowability... We can project back to the size of a single proton using Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations. We can confirm those calculations using cosmic background radiation and red shift. We can calculate the amount of pair production of matter / anti-matter particles necessary to produce the level of cosmic background radiation that we measure (1,000,000,000 anti matter particles for every 1,000,000,001 matter particles).

So to argue that we can't project back to before the point that the entire universe was traveling at the speed of light unless we assume some kind of observer or interactive observing array or we assume something outside space/time did the observing is incorrect. It seems you are arguing that attempting to answer the origin questions shouldn't even be attempted. The problem with that is that we actually have a great deal of data.

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. Science is the study of nature (reality) so as to discover order within nature (reality) so as to be able to make predictions about nature (reality). It seems to me that each discipline has a role in answering the origin questions. Science can tell us what happened after all of the matter in the universe (and the 2 billion times that matter of matter/antimatter pairs) occupied the space of a single proton and then began to expand and cool. Philosophy can inform us what happened prior to that point but must honor what we do know about the nature of matter.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

 

[edthecynic]

You can play dumb for your entire life but you can not make everything appear from nothing. That is certainly not scientific

No it is biblical.

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.