Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[madog]

Its not a problem until you rely on that evidence for important issues.

That may be, but to you I ask if this observation of mine is valid regardless of what demonstration gets built upon it?

Its valid for you, but has no evidential strength against others interpretation of the same observations and even less against empirical evidence ...

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

[dyresand]

So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Things always change given time humans as well. Like people who were hillary voters until evidence came around hillary isn't that trust worthy 
so they changed their minds. Then there is also things that don't change like pro hillary news stations.

[madog]

So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Are you trying to play a word game with me? I have been very clear with you .... "only" implies it can't be something else .... I never state something is not possible only that there are varying degrees of likelihood.

If something is trivial, trivial evidence is usually sufficient, but when something has important consequences the evidence must be more substantial.

I agree with the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ....

[RozKek]

---

---

We aren't. We've me met your claims and assumptions. Simply put, you said either a supernatural element created the universe or nature somehow did it itself, because in nature everything is being created therefore the universe itself must have been created. (I explained that it's not created in the way you think it is). But the important things.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.

---

 

---

 This is what I meant earlier, the everday logics doesn't need to apply to the beginning of the universe and doesn't.

So there, I summed it up to make it easier for us, picked out the important parts, and I'd appreciate it if we could continue discussing, I happen to find this interesting.

I have been following this conversation, and find it interesting as well.   I think it is interesting that so many self proclaimed skeptics are willing to dissolve the principle of causality and the principle of sufficient reason so readily.  I will comment in blue for your list below.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
When you say the laws of nature, I think of natural forces.  You seem to be implying that the principle of causality is a result of these forces.   How did you come to that conclusion?  Also, if what is being put forth is possible, then what in nature is prohibiting this from occurring now?
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
I would not use the word proven (as this pertains to math and logic), but I would disagree.   In the previous comment you alluded to something outside of nature (or supernatural).   So I don't think you agree with this either. 
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.
I have seen this statement a number of times, and asked before; but don't think I ever got an answer.   What is the reasoning behind this statement?   What "according to quantum mechanics" says that something can come from nothing?

1) I had a hard time understanding your first question:
"When you say the laws of nature, I think of natural forces.  You seem to be implying that the principle of causality is a result of these forces.   How did you come to that conclusion?" But I think I have the gist of it. You mean that my implications are that cause and effect is the result of the natural forces? And by that do you mean that cause and effect can exist without and existed before the laws of nature? I'll approach this in a relevant way. What Catholic_Lady was saying was that either a supernatural element made everything or nature somehow did it itself because everything in nature is created. But we do know that our current understanding of physics break down at the point of a singularity (big bang), so like Esquilax said it is silly to say that it operates by the same causal rules, but we do not know. We already know that probabilities are present in quantum mechanics imagine what comes past planck time. So I say I do not know and without knowing that one cannot draw the conclusion that CL did saying nature must've somehow done it itself also implying that cause and effect were present at the point of a singularity. Without knowing that, you can't say it must've been a supernatural element nor can you say that nature must've created itself somehow because we do not know if cause and effect applies to a singularity so those aren't the only options. Even if cause and effect applied to a singularity, god isn't proven at that point either. There are other options, it may be that the default state was that something existed, didn't have to be nothing. It may be that the universe has always existed, there are theories on that one.

Also I thought these might help: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo....uclvccfhr
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207
Lawrence Krauss even made a book on how it's possible that a universe can come from nothing. In that case I doubt very much that cause and effect applies to a singularity.

2) Can you quote me on when I alluded to something outside of nature. What do you mean by nature anyway. Personally I haven't given it too much though, but when I think of nature I think of materiality or everything that can be observed, explained physically etc. While supernatural I think of immaterial, something that cannot be explained by science or such, i.e something nonsensical.

3) I think my answer on 1) answers "I have seen this statement a number of times, and asked before; but don't think I ever got an answer.   What is the reasoning behind this statement?   What "according to quantum mechanics" says that something can come from nothing?" too. If effect exists without causality then something can come from nothing. You can read the articles I mentioned and read further on quantum fluctuations and quantum. And the medium article mentions quantum potentiality, so that's probably relevant too.

[robvalue]

I just thought I'd bring up again about the different types of causes: material and efficient.

Material is what something comes from (essentially some form of energy, most likely); and efficient is the agency by which it happens.

So something can (logically) have four combinations of causes:

1) Efficient and material
2) Just efficient
3) Just material
4) Neither efficient nor material

It's my understanding that science so far suggests that 1 and 3 can happen. No observation of 2 or 4 have been encountered as far as I know; but that doesn't make them impossible. Their discovery may well impact current theory.

Creation from nothing, God style, seems to mostly be type 2.

From a philosophical viewpoint, I'd say that it's impossible to prove an event has no efficient cause, or no material cause for that matter. But science isn't about proof, it's about accurate models.

Science dudes please slap me if I'm mistaken.

[madog]

I think Rozkek and Robvalue have about covered it, but below is the way I like to consider something from nothing without the need for the supernatural "God/s" fairies etc .....

We know that particles pop in and out of existence, we think that the universe may have just popped into existence and maybe even multiple universes also, which sounds supernatural. But note lightening appeared as the supernatural until we understood it was an electrostatic discharge.

If you consider you are in a room and you know nothing exists outside the room you would consider anything that pops inside or outside of the room as popping in and out of existence. Until you know about the garden, the upstairs bedroom, the cellar, the kitchen, etc it is pointless to guess where an object popped in from or out too ... but that doesn't mean we should assume the supernatural or a "God/s".

Dog.

[ignoramus]

Let me try to explain from my perspective. If you're actually interested in hearing it, and not just interested in criticizing us Christians for what you think we all believe in, regardless. 

Personally my belief is that Hell isn't a physical place, it's a state of being. It's when a person has fully and consciously rejected God after they die, which at that point means they have rejected love and goodness, since they learn at that point that God IS love and goodness. This is a self punishment because we are creatures of love, made for love, and we need it to be happy. So when we are so filled with hate and pride and greed that we reject love and goodness, we are only making ourselves miserable and empty. That is Hell.   

Hope that helps clear it up.

Deb, if that's your interpretation, you're not even religious!

There's way too much fairy floss and cream puffs in that explanation, I feel like I'm in OZ.
Who in their right mind would consciously reject "anybody" after they've died?

I would be the first to acknowledge that I was wrong (due to insufficient information.) and go from there! woot!

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Are you trying to play a word game with me? I have been very clear with you .... "only" implies it can't be something else .... I never state something is not possible only that there are varying degrees of likelihood.

If something is trivial, trivial evidence is usually sufficient, but when something has important consequences the evidence must be more substantial.

I agree with the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ....

Absent any demonsration I can understand considering the initial observation trivial. And yet it is the obviousness of it that gives its power. It puzzles me that something so readily apparent meets with such resistance. Quibbling over the exclusionary qualifier, only, is just a diversion since out of 4 possible options, two are irrelevant and the one remaining is incoherent:

Something that actually exists can cause change and does.(the observation)
Something that actually exists could cause change but does not. (Irrelevant)
Something that doesnt actually exist could cause change but does not (irrelevant)
Something that doesn't actually exist can cause change and does (incoherent).

If all possibilities are logically exhausted then my use of 'only' is justified. There really isn't any way to weasel out of it. Not even quantum mechanics will save you. Nothing does not exist.

[madog]

"that only actual things can cause change?"

 

No the lack of "actual things can cause change" .... the lack of any heat in the universe can cause the universe to cool .... the lack of gravity can cause curved light to travel in a straight line .... The lack of a glass can make liquid spread across a surface ... etc, etc, etc .....