Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

Everything must have a creator... except the creator. Makes perfect sense.

Well, this gets right to the heart of the point we're debating at the moment. On the matter of origins, either something is eternal or the Universe came from absolutely nothing. If you don't want to argue the latter, you're looking at an uncaused cause. Some want to say the Universe is eternal, but as I have just brought up, the facts are stacked against it. Moreover, the evidence shows that time, space matter and energy are finite. Which makes the cause of the Universe timeless, spaceless, extremely powerful and transcendent. Does that sound like anyone you've heard of?

---

No one designed the designer. God is an eternal being.

According to some versions of the Hindu belief, God came from a fire (Sada-Shiva [the supreme godhead] was born out of a single flame of fire; who then gave birth to other primary gods). So something did come before god, which rules out your idea of an eternal god. Now will someone explain how this flame came into being before the god himself.

(And before you go ahead can claim that Hinduism is wrong and Christianity is right, here is some facts for you:
1) Hinduism is much much older than Christianity
2) The Hindu scriptures, though many, are almost all in sync while trying to explain the origins of the universe. Far better piece of literature than the contradictory, evil and adult's only bible used by you Christians)

Disclaimer: I personally believe Hinduism as a pile of shit, though better quality shit than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Judiasm is older. Hinduism dates back to 1500 BCE..Abraham lived 1800 BCE..Moses wrote the Torah in 1400 BCE using scriptures/oral traditions passed down from that time (and earlier).

[Phil]

Abraham lived 1800 BCE..Moses wrote the Torah in 1400 BCE using scriptures/oral traditions passed down from that time (and earlier).

Evidence that those two ever lived? If all you are going to do is cite the book of Yahweh's fables, don't bother replying.

[genkaus]

So, you're postulating an eternal past? The problem with that is, you can't have an infinite series of past events. The reason being, that you could not reach the present with an infinite past, because you would have to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today. The Universe would have to start somewhere for us to be having this conversation.

Nonsense. You can traverse an infinite past if you have infinite time to do so - which you do. The number line is infinite, it is still possible to traverse it.

---

According to some versions of the Hindu belief, God came from a fire (Sada-Shiva [the supreme godhead] was born out of a single flame of fire; who then gave birth to other primary gods). So something did come before god, which rules out your idea of an eternal god. Now will someone explain how this flame came into being before the god himself.

One version of Hindu belief which I found to be particularly close to our current scientific understanding - the supreme godhead or Brahman, is all there is, that is it is the entirety of existence. In its unmanifested form it combines all matter, energy, space and time into one, almost-nothing point called Hiranyagarbha (golden egg or golden womb). In its manifested form, it is the entire universe and it gives rise to all gods, humans animals demons etc. The last time it manifested was about 4 billion years ago - a surprisingly close ballpark figure given that this was written by people who did not have the technology we do.

Disclaimer: I personally believe Hinduism as a pile of shit, though better quality shit than Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Agreed. I consider Hindu mythology a fantastic piece of fantasy literature.

---

Judiasm is older. Hinduism dates back to 1500 BCE..Abraham lived 1800 BCE..Moses wrote the Torah in 1400 BCE using scriptures/oral traditions passed down from that time (and earlier).

The writing of the vedas dates back to 1500 BCE. The scriptures and oral traditions are even older than Judaism. Therefore Hinduism is older than Judaism

[RW_9]

Well, this gets right to the heart of the point we're debating at the moment. On the matter of origins, either something is eternal or the Universe came from absolutely nothing. If you don't want to argue the latter, you're looking at an uncaused cause.

Let me give you a tip: the key to interesting apologetics is to refrain from relying on medieval arguments such as the first cause. The discussion has evolved from there, including the theological side of the argument. There's a reason your talking points are covered in freshman classes: a hell of a lot has come after them.

[Whateverist]

mumbo jumbo

I'm not impressed and I'm certainly not convinced. You say that the idea that something always came before something else is impossible and based on that you conclude a magic being did it in a manner that can't be comprehended let alone explained. Why even bother with logic if in the end you're going to hand it over to magic anyway.

You're not impressed by logical arguments? What I said wasn't mumbo-jumbo, but something easily comprehensible to anyone who is familiar with analytic philosophy and formal argumentation. So, if you're claiming what I said is nonsense, it is showing that you do not understand either of these things.

I'll give you this to chew on while you're pondering your reply:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21...event.html

Actually I'm just not impressed with your logical arguments. Garbage in, garbage out. You begin by presuming to impose constraints on the origins of the universe when science has not finished telling that story. You assume that what is true of infinite sets applies to the prior states of the universe even when the complete story of the universe is not known. Even if anyone wanted to grant you this point (which I do not) your conclusion is still wildly unsupported. [I suppose you do not think I can ever cross the room either since to do so I would have to traverse an infinite series of halfway points.]

You'd like to conclude that therefore everything owes its existence to something outside of cause of effect, that only what had no beginning could create things which do have a beginning. How do you know such a thing exists or is possible? You infer it by default. How else could it be when we're all wrapped up in these horrible paradoxes?

Let me paraphrase your argument and you can tell me where I have it wrong:

1. Nothing can come from nothing.
2. That is unless something eternal existed before everything else.
3. Everything that is not eternal must have been created from nothing by the eternal something, which implies the eternal something must have the power to make up shit out of nothing.

Step one is falsified if magic genies can make things out of nothing. It is also falsified if eternal genies can exist who do not owe their existence to prior creator genies.

Step two is wrong if in fact everything that exists is recycled from something that existed before it. Everything is eternal but it changes over time, sometimes quite radically.

Step three begs the question of how anything ever comes out of nothing. Either the "nothing" is more than it seemed (air, microbes, gamma rays) or someone needs to explain how anything at all can be fashioned from absolutely nothing.

You haven't shown that the universe was created by an eternal genie. You have simply argued (poorly) that that is the only possible explanation. If you can't think up anything better than that maybe you should leave it to the adults.

[Minimalist]

What is your view of origins?

Listen very, very closely.

I do not know. Astrophysicists make a compelling argument for the Big Bang theory - certainly far more compelling than your ever-eternal sky-daddy - but the matter is not yet settled.

I do not have to pretend that I have an answer to EVERYTHING. Certainly I find your answers to be utterly ridiculous but that does not mean that there may not be another answer which science has yet to discern. The matter is still under consideration at this point in time as far as I am concerned.

Now do you get it?

[brotherlylove]

Nonsense. You can traverse an infinite past if you have infinite time to do so - which you do. The number line is infinite, it is still possible to traverse it.

You're talking about a potential infinite rather than an actual infinite. Check aristotles refutation of zenos paradox.

The writing of the vedas dates back to 1500 BCE. The scriptures and oral traditions are even older than Judaism. Therefore Hinduism is older than Judaism

If you want to argue it that way, the scriptures and oral traditions of judaism go back to Adam and Eve. Hinduism is a post-flood religion.

---

Let me give you a tip: the key to interesting apologetics is to refrain from relying on medieval arguments such as the first cause. The discussion has evolved from there, including the theological side of the argument. There's a reason your talking points are covered in freshman classes: a hell of a lot has come after them.

If you have a subject in mind, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. 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.

---

Actually I'm just not impressed with your logical arguments. Garbage in, garbage out. You begin by presuming to impose constraints on the origins of the universe when science has not finished telling that story. You assume that what is true of infinite sets applies to the prior states of the universe even when the complete story of the universe is not known. Even if anyone wanted to grant you this point (which I do not) your conclusion is still wildly unsupported. [I suppose you do not think I can ever cross the room either since to do so I would have to traverse an infinite series of halfway points.

The evidence is pointing to an absolute beginning, and at the least a finite beginning for time space energy and matter. I am not imposing any constraints that aren't already part of well established theories:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks...lenkin.pdf

I am not assuming anything of infinite set theory other than it demonstrates that an actual infinite number of things does not exist in reality, and leads to obvious contradictions, like my example of Hilberts Hotel. If you're okay with logical contradictions, then you cease to have an argument. Your infinity example is merely potential instead of actual and doesn't represent anything real; check out aristotles refutation of zenos paradox

You'd like to conclude that therefore everything owes its existence to something outside of cause of effect, that only what had no beginning could create things which do have a beginning. How do you know such a thing exists or is possible? You infer it by default. How else could it be when we're all wrapped up in these horrible paradoxes?

I deduce it from the evidence of a beginning to the Universe in which time, space matter and energy themselves had a beginning.

Let me paraphrase your argument and you can tell me where I have it wrong:

1. Nothing can come from nothing.
2. That is unless something eternal existed before everything else.
3. Everything that is not eternal must have been created from nothing by the eternal something, which implies the eternal something must have the power to make up shit out of nothing.

Step one is falsified if magic genies can make things out of nothing. It is also falsified if eternal genies can exist who do not owe their existence to prior creator genies.

God isn't making things out of nothing, He is created the Universe by His own power. An uncaused cause didn't come from nothing; that's the point, God is eternal.

Step two is wrong if in fact everything that exists is recycled from something that existed before it. Everything is eternal but it changes over time, sometimes quite radically.

It has been demonstrated that in the cyclic universe model, the entropy would increase in every cycle until it ended in heat death; it couldn't be eternal. We already discussed the impossibility of an infinite amount of past events.

Step three begs the question of how anything ever comes out of nothing. Either the "nothing" is more than it seemed (air, microbes, gamma rays) or someone needs to explain how anything at all can be fashioned from absolutely nothing.

This is your misconception; again, God had something (His power) which created the Universe. There never was "nothing".

You haven't shown that the universe was created by an eternal genie. You have simply argued (poorly) that that is the only possible explanation. If you can't think up anything better than that maybe you should leave it to the adults.

I don't think you've understood the subject matter. You have yet to admit that time space matter and energy had a finite beginning, even though it is widely agreed upon by cosmologists. I have shown evidence that the Universe does have a beginning, and simple logic tells you everything which begins to exist has a cause. We can infer quite a bit from these simple facts, such as that the cause of the universe is necessarily timeless, spaceless, extremely power and transcendent. I am not arguing that it is the only explanation, I am arguing it is the best explanation.

---

What is your view of origins?

Listen very, very closely.

I do not know. Astrophysicists make a compelling argument for the Big Bang theory - certainly far more compelling than your ever-eternal sky-daddy - but the matter is not yet settled.

I do not have to pretend that I have an answer to EVERYTHING. Certainly I find your answers to be utterly ridiculous but that does not mean that there may not be another answer which science has yet to discern. The matter is still under consideration at this point in time as far as I am concerned.

Now do you get it?

Does this mean you are open to the existence of a Deist God?

[Minimalist]

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.

[genkaus]

You're talking about a potential infinite rather than an actual infinite. Check aristotles refutation of zenos paradox.

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).

If you want to argue it that way, the scriptures and oral traditions of judaism go back to Adam and Eve. Hinduism is a post-flood religion.

---

Actually, your god created Adam and Eve only 6000 yrs ago. The Hindu god created Manu and Sati about 4 billion years ago. Your religion is still in its diapers compared to Hinduism.

[Forsaken]

If you want to argue it that way, the scriptures and oral traditions of judaism go back to Adam and Eve. Hinduism is a post-flood religion.

---

Actually, your god created Adam and Eve only 6000 yrs ago. The Hindu god created Manu and Sati about 4 billion years ago. Your religion is still in its diapers compared to Hinduism.

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).

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.

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