(April 1, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I know it's difficult, but try to follow me on this: causality does not apply at the moment of the big bang and before. When you begin a question with "and then," you've already missed the point, because you're applying a linear causality to a region of spacetime that doesn't necessarily share it. Time does not work the way it does here, before there was a here: it's possible that nothing changed, and yet the big bang happened. It's possible that the event that caused the universe hasn't happened yet because of weird time shenanigans, or that it doesn't require a cause, or that the actual answer is something that, right now, defies human imagining and the language we'd use to discuss it. We don't know yet, but what we do know is that there's no use insisting that things beyond the universe, or even within the universe as a singularity, work the same way as they do inside the universe now. The one thing we can ascertain is that every fundamental constant within our universe stops working at the point where our universe stops being our universe, prior to the big bang. You need to let go of the presumptions inherent in the language you're using.

When you say "things don't simply pop into existence uncaused," my answer is that no, that's not true. Not at a quantum level, and not prior to the big bang. You don't get to assume that outside of our universe merely because it seems to be true within it.

Sounds a bit like the arguments for how God is not subject to time and space as we know them.

(April 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Concerning positive and negative evidence, let's say that the answer to the question, "is there a God?" is either yes, or no. Now suppose I have a coin in my hand and I toss it and ask you to choose head or tails, and before you answer, I say to you, "let me give you a tip, it isn't tails." Now is the evidence for heads positive or negative? Does it really matter?

How would you know it's not tails?
Why should I believe IN YOU? Why should I accept YOUR TIP?


Also.... it's funny how, (at least) since Pascal, there seems to be an impression that the existence of a god has a likelihood of 50%.... cute....

(April 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm)AJW333 Wrote: What does it matter that I choose God because the evidence for evolution is so bad?

First, you're lying.
You chose god because you got used to it. By parents, teachers, or whatever... society in general. You believed there was a god.
Then, when presented with evolution, your pre-ingrained notion of god was a bit at odds with it... and your mind decided to solve the dissonance by ditching the newcomer.

Is your notion of god accepting of you lying?
Also amino-acids have been seen to self assemble for decades.... amino-acids can then form into proteins with a far far better chance than your numbers have been suggesting.

(April 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, I just want to recap your position, and you can jump in to correct me wherever: you take complexity to be suggestive of design, in that you've used your incredible misunderstanding of how positive evidence works to suggest that the complexity of life indicates design. You simultaneously believe in a creator intelligence- the christian god- who designed life on Earth and has no designer or cause himself, despite being infinitely more complex due to his capabilities and attributes. That you don't see the obvious hypocrisy in holding these two positions is its own kind of terrifying thing,

As I stated  earlier, God is not subject to time and space, nor the laws that govern our universe. Because he is outside our universe, it is possible that he has always existed. Now this is a concept we struggle to understand because everything we do is subject to time and space constraints, but because God exists outside the dimension of time, eternal existence is eminently reasonable and as a result, infinite regression does not apply.

Quote:Just considering these two positions on their own merits, you now have two groups of complex entities that exist within your view of the situation: we have complex entities that are designed and the reason we can reach that conclusion is because they are complex, and we have complex entities of an order of magnitude greater complexity than anything in the first category, but that for random and unexplained reasons we must not conclude was designed due to its complexity, presumably because complexity is only evidence for design when it's convenient for your argument.

Apples and oranges. In our world, everything decays and tends towards randomness. Ultimately our universe will suffer heat death and cease to function at all. Outside of this universe, a different set of laws applies.You cannot assume that God, who exists in a different dimension, must be subject to our laws of nature.

(April 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Things can be complex with a designer, things can be complex without a designer. How did you determine that life falls into the former category and not the latter, without appealing to the odds considering that the odds of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial being existing because of nothing are far, far longer due to contravening everything we observe to be true in reality?

What complex things are there that have no designer?

(April 1, 2016 at 8:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:54 pm)AJW333 Wrote: You assume that God is subject to the same laws of nature that you and I are. The laws of our universe do not apply to God who exists outside our realm of existence.

How did you acquire knowledge of a being that exists outside of our universe, or what the laws of that other x might -or- might not be?  You probably don't have any knowledge of me, or what laws I live under...and I'm in the universe talking to you. To be blunt, if god exists outside of our universe, then his existence is moot, as it's functionally identical to non-existence in -this- universe. If god isn't in my "realm of existence", why should I give a shit about god stuff?

That would be your run-of-the-mill category B knowledge, Rhythm. [emoji6]

(April 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm)AJW333 Wrote: What does it matter that I choose God because the evidence for evolution is so bad?

First, you're lying.
You chose god because you got used to it. By parents, teachers, or whatever... society in general. You believed there was a god.
Then, when presented with evolution, your pre-ingrained notion of god was a bit at odds with it... and your mind decided to solve the dissonance by ditching the newcomer.

The same argument can be used against you. The entire education system in the west has been taken over by pro-evolutionists. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a teaching position in a biology department anywhere unless you tow the pro-evolution line. Your pre-ingrained education and desire to be the master of your own destiny prohibits you from even considering the existence of God.

(April 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Also amino-acids have been seen to self assemble for decades.... amino-acids can then form into proteins with a far far better chance than your numbers have been suggesting.

Citation?

(April 1, 2016 at 9:52 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, I just want to recap your position, and you can jump in to correct me wherever: you take complexity to be suggestive of design, in that you've used your incredible misunderstanding of how positive evidence works to suggest that the complexity of life indicates design. You simultaneously believe in a creator intelligence- the christian god- who designed life on Earth and has no designer or cause himself, despite being infinitely more complex due to his capabilities and attributes. That you don't see the obvious hypocrisy in holding these two positions is its own kind of terrifying thing,

As I stated  earlier, God is not subject to time and space, nor the laws that govern our universe. Because he is outside our universe, it is possible that he has always existed. Now this is a concept we struggle to understand because everything we do is subject to time and space constraints, but because God exists outside the dimension of time, eternal existence is eminently reasonable and as a result, infinite regression does not apply.

Quote:Just considering these two positions on their own merits, you now have two groups of complex entities that exist within your view of the situation: we have complex entities that are designed and the reason we can reach that conclusion is because they are complex, and we have complex entities of an order of magnitude greater complexity than anything in the first category, but that for random and unexplained reasons we must not conclude was designed due to its complexity, presumably because complexity is only evidence for design when it's convenient for your argument.

Apples and oranges. In our world, everything decays and tends towards randomness. Ultimately our universe will suffer heat death and cease to function at all. Outside of this universe, a different set of laws applies.You cannot assume that God, who exists in a different dimension, must be subject to our laws of nature.

(April 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Things can be complex with a designer, things can be complex without a designer. How did you determine that life falls into the former category and not the latter, without appealing to the odds considering that the odds of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial being existing because of nothing are far, far longer due to contravening everything we observe to be true in reality?

What complex things are there that have no designer?

What tests and methods did you use to arrive at the conclusion that God exists outside of time and space? I'm getting really tired of you shifting the burden of proof away. No matter what you say about evolution, it is in no way positive evidence for your god. Even if you could prove the theory of evolution was false right NOW, you aren't a bit closer to demonstrating your Christian God. For All your quibbling over the science you don't understand, it's ultimately meaningless.

(April 1, 2016 at 8:54 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Infinite regression is not required when you step outside the dimensionality of time.

How so?  Your god had to have a first thought, that requires causality which requires time.  What was your god doing before it's first thought?

If God is eternal then how is it he could have a "first thought?"

(April 1, 2016 at 10:01 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: First, you're lying.
You chose god because you got used to it. By parents, teachers, or whatever... society in general. You believed there was a god.
Then, when presented with evolution, your pre-ingrained notion of god was a bit at odds with it... and your mind decided to solve the dissonance by ditching the newcomer.

The same argument can be used against you. The entire education system in the west has been taken over by pro-evolutionists. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a teaching position in a biology department anywhere unless you tow the pro-evolution line. Your pre-ingrained education and desire to be the master of your own destiny prohibits you from even considering the existence of God.

(April 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Also amino-acids have been seen to self assemble for decades.... amino-acids can then form into proteins with a far far better chance than your numbers have been suggesting.

Citation?

lol, you mean towing the "science" line? How dare they?!

(April 1, 2016 at 8:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Infinite regression is not required when you step outside the dimensionality of time.

How convenient for you.

No more "convenient" than the change of laws we see in the quantum domain.

(April 1, 2016 at 10:17 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:54 pm)IATIA Wrote: How so?  Your god had to have a first thought, that requires causality which requires time.  What was your god doing before it's first thought?

If God is eternal then how is it he could have a "first thought?"

If he didn't have a first thought, then how does he have any thoughts? It's on you to explain the nature of your claim.