(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:
Thanks for the cosmological correction.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:Read the section under the heading "Do the Bible and Science Disagree?"Quote:How do you know I don't look at current cosmology and see it confirming scripture?There is nothing in scripture which is confirmed by science, not even in the slightest.
Here is a list of predictions the Bible made that has been confirmed by science:
Do the Bible and Science disagree
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Even the models where the universe 'began to exist', it happens spontaneously without a cause, leaving no moment for god to work.
Just out of curiosity, how would a person know the difference between the universe spontaneously 'beginning to exist' and the universe spontaneously 'beginning to exist' through God?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: I bet you don't even accept the total energy of the universe is zero(which means we are just a re-arrangement of nothing).
Don't know anything about that so I couldn't comment.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: But its all real science, and physicists are working hard to find out which model is correct, if any.I would expect scientific models by definition to exclude God. A model that would include God would not be falsifiable and therefore not scientific.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:Please address the premises, or the conclusion in your counterargument:Quote:The current scientific consensus is that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding then it cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite.
Well, you are quite welcome to prove the universe had a beginning, which hasn't even been done by any of the scientific community for the entire history of modern science. And even if you did prove a beginning, it doesn't prove there is a god. There are self contained models where the universe doesn't need a god to get it started. So even if you did prove a beginning, you're just proving god didn't create the universe, according to modern science. So I'd give up this argument if I were you.
Pr. If the universe is expanding it cannot be infinite.
Pr. The universe is expanding
/:. The universe cannot be infinite.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: You made this claim by saying the universe can't be infinite. If you are willing to grant an infinite god, there is no reason you can't grant an infinite universe. Unless you don't claim god is infinite, in that case this thing is just a being, not a 'god'.
The 'then' in a conditional isn't always concluded in modern language. I summarized your argument above (from post #49) as:
If you are willing to grant an infinite God, then there is no reason you can't grant an infinite universe. In other words: If there is an infinite God, then there is an infinite universe. You''re claiming an infinite God, therefore there must be an infinite universe.(to clarify the language, the 'you' in these statements refers to me, ex: "I am willing to grant an infinite God", "I'm claiming an infinite God", etc.
If I have misrepresented your argument then I am sorry and I retract my statement calling it a fallacy of affirming the consequent. And if I have misrepresented it, please clarify your meaning to the above quote.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: I was trying to get around the point that it is inconsistent to say infinities cannot exist, yet affirm a god which is infinite by its very nature.I agree it would be. I'm not making the argument that infinities cannot exist.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:A reference to an analogy. (see post #35)Quote:From the 'plates' perspective, how can the human exist?What do you mean here?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: No-where near an argument from ignorance.
Let's review
Quote:Isn't time a requirement for a mind to be able to think?
Not an argument one way or another.
Quote:A timeless mind, is by its very nature non functional. If a mind exists transcendent of time,
If a mind exists transcendent of time, then a mind exists transcendent of time. By definition the mind exists, and it does so independently of time.
Quote:I hardly see how it would classify as a mind.
Ignorance?
Quote:A mind functions within time, one thought flows after another,
True. In an environment where time exists, a thought process can be measured by time. This does not mean that thoughts necessitate time, but rather time is a measurement of them. If you don't measure them do they still exist? Of course, they're just unmeasured.
Quote:I hardly see how a 'transcendent' mind would even work in the slightest.Ignorance?
Quote:It seems to me, and incoherent concept.
Personal opinion?
Quote:How could this kind of mind even do anything, like think, and let alone create a universe?Good questions. If you don't know the answer to them, how is this an argument?
Quote:How does a mind create a universe anyway, have any evidence of this process?
Shifting the burden of proof
Quote:Sounds incredibly far fetched to me.A summation?
Again, your argument isn't a true argument from ignorance, simply walking close to that line. There's a lot of personal opinion and ignorance type statements in the argument.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: 'Personal bias' is the wrong word. 'Preference', yes. Because most atheists are empiricists, not surprising at all. No one here is arguing that we must be able to put god in a test tube to verify his existence, that would be absurd to ask. If god did exist, you'd expect all sorts of evidence everywhere. Back 2000 years ago, he was curing blind people, turning water into wine. And now all of that completely stopped... Hmm, I wonder why that is!
Because Christ was crucified?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: If you make claims such as miracles, and etc, which have an observable impact on our world,They were 'observable' while Christ was God and man walking on the earth. He is no longer functioning as such. A miracle would be subject to study at the time of it's observance, not 2000 years later.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Anything that has physical effects can be subject to scientific inquiry. And the absence of evidence is so strong in the field of science, scientists such as Victor J Stenger say that with science the claim can be made that 'god does not exist'.I agree the physical effects can be subject to scientific inquiry. 2000 years ago Jesus healed a blind man. What physical evidence remains today that are subject to study that scientifically prove that God does not exist?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Re-read what I said there, I didn't say anything to the degree you were implying. There are many unanswered questions.
There are many unanswered questions, but your 100% positive that of all the unanswered questions not one of them would point to the existence of God?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: We don't know where the universe came from. We don't know if it 'came from' anywhere. We don't know if the universe had a beginning, and we certainly don't know if it was eternal. All we can know is that we know almost nothing.So your argument is that we know almost nothing, but we know for certain that God does not exist.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: But that doesn't mean we can't know more. Brilliant minds are forming many models of the universe, we don't know which is right or wrong, only future experiments will tell us. And as with what Darwin did for life, the same might be done with the universe. As we learn more our need for a creator god to explain what we observe around as has been emancipated.Same comment as above.
This was the point I was driving at. We don't know where the universe came from, but we know it didn't come from God. This statement isn't scientifically possible. You can certainly make a faith statement, that once science makes enough discoveries, it'll be proven that God doesn't exist. But again this is a faith statement and is not scientific proof of anything.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:15 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Oh, quoting the bible... By the way, this definitely didn't help anything.The answer to your question:
Quote:Why doesn't he prove it right now to all of us and end the debate?is found in the text.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
