Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

No. There are deists around here that I love like brothers but their concept of god is as useless as the angry desert god you think is so hot.

You will have to go a long way to demonstrate that your magic man...or any magic man...is real.

What do you think about the evidence of the finely tuned physical laws that created a life permitting Universe? How about the information in DNA?

---

You do realize that Zeno's paradox is not applicable in this case. Aristotle, in his

refutation, distinguished "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (as applicable to Zeno's

arguments) from things that are infinite in extension (as applicable in infinite timeline).

You're still running into the logical contradictions which arise from postulating an actual infinitity of past events. Actual infinities don't exist in reality. Transfinite math has no actual ontological import. I think you may enjoy this article:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/kalam.htm

---

Hinduism actually tries to explain the origins of the universe; the beginning of time, the origin of god itself. Your religion abruptly begins for no reason; when a god lying dormant for eon suddenly decides to make the world for no reason whatsoever and in 6 days. (yes that's 6 human days, FYI. Hinduism gives the creation timescale in periods of millions/billions of years; so do some other religions. I am dumbfounded why your god keeps his timescale cryptic; for some its measured in human years, for others, its god years).

It's not at all cryptic. Some Christians have reinterpreted the scriptures to accomodate deep time; I do not. The text clearly indicates they are 24 hour days.

Hinduism divides time into a scale known as yuga's. Some sects believe that the last yuga actually ended some 6000 to 10000 years ago; the transition was marked by a great flood. Looks like Christianity borrowed the flood story from the Hindu scriptures and the new yuga is actually the beginning of the Christianity era; thus the beginning of creation, as interpreted by your bible.

If you're going to interpret by what scriptures say, the flood came 1500 years after the creation of Adam and Eve. The civilizations that existed before the flood were all completely wiped out, except for eight people. So hinduism is a post flood religion, and the reason it contains a flood story is the same reason that every culture in the world and in our history has a flood story. Because there actually was a worldwide flood which is still imprinted onto the collective consciousness of mankind. If you compare them, you will see the details all line up with the story in Genesis:

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

And yes, the same god who created the whole universe from virtually nothing needed the rib of man in order to create women

He could have created any way He wanted to, but He chose to create woman from man. Why isn't He allowed to have any creative freedom?

---

You misunderstand me. Certainly matter and energy had a beginning. As I said, in the first micro seconds of the big bang the various energy forces had not yet separated and it would be a while before anything would coalesce into matter. That doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I said that everything has come from something that existed before. Everything in the universe as we know it today came from that big bang. As a singularity there is nothing we can point to which is the same as what we observe now. Nonetheless everything that we see today was contained therein. That does not mean that anything came from nothing. Yes matter and energy as such had a definite beginning but they did not come from nothing. They came ultimately from what was in that singularity (not what was inside your sky daddy).

What came before the singularity? I don't believe anyone knows though some say some paradoxical sounding things. You hear that space and time also began with the big bang. I say no one knows that for sure. There is no reason to think that the singularity which gave rise to this universe is or was unique. If you could travel far enough you might find out we live in one of an infinite number of multiverses. If that is so then we don't have to assume that time and space itself began with the big bang.

It's widely agreed upon that time and space began with the big bang, and I've shown you the evidence, from as recently as last month, which shows the Universe had an absolute beginning. Why do you refuse to admit this? It's interesting that everything suddenly becomes really vague and unknowable when we're discussing facts that lean towards my explanation and away from yours. You're now satisified with ignorance as an answer and we can just assume anything could be true about origins, as long as it isn't God of course.

The point is, we don't need a magic genie to explain anything. Personifying whatever it is which gave rise to the singularity simply adds nothing to an explanation.

The real magic happens in the singularity, and you're perfectly fine with that. It's the thought of the Universe having an intelligent cause that you can't accept. You try to make this sound implausible but when you consider all of the facts it is a better explanation, which is how you are supposed to evaluate the evidence. You have no trouble in believing in something eternal, but it is just an eternal being that you reject.

---

I think its a powerful argument, and it is one that philosophers debate extensively. I am well versed in many other arguments, logical and otherwise, for the existence of God. I am not all about arguing, though. I'm happy to discuss whatever is on peoples minds.

". . .it is one that philosophers debated extensively."

There, fixed it for you.

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmol...-argument/

Both theists and non-theists in the last part of the 20th century generally have shown a healthy skepticism about the argument. Alvin Plantinga (1967, chap. 1) concludes “that this piece of natural theology is ineffective.” Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an impossibility, no cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning (1991, chap. 7). Similarly, Michael Martin (1990, chap. 4), as do John Mackie (chap. 5), Quentin Smith (Craig and Smith, 1993), Bede Rundle, and Graham Oppy (2006, chap. 3), reasons that no current version of the cosmological argument is sound (1990, ch. 4).

Yet dissenting voices can be heard. Robert Koons employs mereology and modal and nonmonotonic logic in taking a “new look” at the argument from contingency, William Lane Craig defends the kalām argument, and Richard Swinburne, though rejecting deductive versions of the cosmological argument, proposes an inductive argument which is part of a larger cumulative case for God's existence. “There is quite a chance that if there is a God he will make something of the finitude and complexity of a universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe…can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God” (1979, 131–2). In short, contemporary philosophers continue to contribute detailed arguments on both sides of the debate.

Though you do have more staying power than I anticipated, so that's interesting.

I hope you might find one of the arguments interesting enough to engage with at some point.