Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Whateverist]

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.

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.

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.

[RW_9]

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.

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

[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.

[Minimalist]

Surely you don't think you are the first to present the teleological argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Many philosophers and theologians have expounded and criticized different versions of the teleological argument. Commonly, they argue that any implied designer need not have the qualities commonly attributed to the God of classical theism. Scientists have shown alternative explanations for biological complexity, notably natural selection, with no requirement for supernatural design.

From the 1990s, creation science was rebranded as intelligent design, presenting the teleological argument while avoiding naming the designer with the aim of presenting this as science and getting it taught in public school science classes. In 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design is a religious argument and is not science, and was being used to give pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a god-like designer.

[Whateverist]

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.

You may be more comfortable than I am in accepting arguments from authority. But not every cosmologist agrees that we inhabit a universe as opposed to a multiverse, this layman included. Think about it. How conclusive could any evidence be as to the origins of the uni- or multi- verse we inhabit. The vastness of space and time make certainty suspect. Remember, science isn't about verifying facts. Its about disproving assumptions. Even if a finite universe is currently most popular, only a theist would use that to argue the fact of the matter. The best theory is always provisional. I'm willing to leave it as an unsettled question. Your disposition toward certainty may make that less comfortable for you.

You have no trouble in believing in something eternal, but it is just an eternal being that you reject.

Well does that surprise you? Whether the whatever-verse and what gave rise to it and what gave rise to that and so on is infinitely old as I maintain or merely billions of years old, we both agree agree that the inorganic can be at least eons old. Now show me any creature/being of any kind that science has discovered which is any where near so old. I know about what is claimed about your favorite genie but that and other magical creatures are not widely accepted. So really old stuff is uncontroversially accepted but really old beings are not. I guess that is pretty much my problem with it.

[genkaus]

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?

---

Since more that 99% if the universe does not permit life as we know it, the tuning is not fine at all. Further, you have any evidence that some other form of life would not be possible with different tuning?

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

---

Lots of errors in the argument.
1. While the author realizes that "before" and "prior" are spatio-temporal concepts, he fails to realize that so is "beginning". The universe cannot have a beginning for the same reason it has no "prior".
2. Common mistake while presenting Kalam's argument: proof of applicability of causality in absence of spatio-temporal context.
3. Special pleading w.r.t. god. If actual infinite cannot exist, neither can god.
4. Complete misunderstanding of Aristotle's argument against actual infinite. According to Aristotle, actual infinite means that it is a known set with infinite items. That is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist. If the set is unknown, it is potential infinite and that can exist. Further, Aristotle held that time was infinite.

The argument against time being infinite is that successive addition of units would not then lead to infinite. The hidden but implied word here is "finite", i.e. finite successive addition of units would not lead to infinity. But infinite successive addition cannot lead to anything but infinity.

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.

Only if you are on earth.

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

You cannot be more wrong. The flood was actually in Satyuga, which was much more than 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago, the Kaliyuga began which led to the corruption and misinterpretation of truth. The ancient flood legend was imprinted into the collective consiousness, but other religions got its timing wrong. Every religion is a post-flood religion, obviously, but according to the True Religion of Hinduism, others are false.

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.

Wrong. "Beginning" is a spatio-temporal contextual event. Therefore, space and time cannot have a beginning and therefore neither can the universe.

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.

---

Wrong. Causation too is a spatio-temporal contextual attribute. It is not applicable prior to the big-bang and therefore the universe cannot have a cause.

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.

As far as I can see, the theists continue to present the same old argument in new forms and others continue to refute it. That does not mean the "debate" is still going on, it simply means that it is being repeated.

[RW_9]

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

I have buttons that can be pushed. Just keep flailing and you're bound to hit one.

[Minimalist]

Since more that 99% if the universe does not permit life as we know it, the tuning is not fine at all. Further, you have any evidence that some other form of life would not be possible with different tuning?

He desperately wants to think he is "special."

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, he is.......

[Doubting Thomas]

Hurr durrr.