JW looking for clarity

[Heywood]

Furthermore, the argument from physics, that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, is not applicable to the universe as a whole, only to fields and particles within the universe. You cannot use it to argue for a creator for a universe.

What is the reason this isn't applicable to the universe as a whole?  Is it simply a premise necessary to get the universe started?

[downbeatplumb]

A being that is not doesn't experience time cannot do anything because there is no time to do it. Time is what allows for transition in states.

The poster said, "as we know it".  Why can't a being transcend our own time dimension? Maybe that being exists in a separate time dimension or two...or three....or four or an infinity of time dimensions.  Let me see you use your puny 3 spatial 1 temporal dimensional brain contemplate a googolplex spatial and googol temporal dimensional being.  Tell us what a being, if one exists, is like.

"Maybe" it was caused by a white hole from a previous universe, fluctuations in the cosmic vacuum or a time travelling member of the Red Dwarf crew jump starting the big bang with the jump leads from Starbug.

See what you can do is say "maybe" then anything, if you aren't prepared to back it with evidence then it's just words on a screen that mean nothing.

[Heywood]

The poster said, "as we know it".  Why can't a being transcend our own time dimension? Maybe that being exists in a separate time dimension or two...or three....or four or an infinity of time dimensions.  Let me see you use your puny 3 spatial 1 temporal dimensional brain contemplate a googolplex spatial and googol temporal dimensional being.  Tell us what a being, if one exists, is like.

"Maybe" it was caused by a white hole from a previous universe, fluctuations in the cosmic vacuum or a time travelling member of the Red Dwarf crew jump starting the big bang with the jump leads from Starbug.

See what you can do is say "maybe" then anything, if you aren't prepared to back it with evidence then it's just words on a screen that mean nothing.

I'm point out to surge that he misrepresented what the poster said.  I'm not making arguments about the nature of God.  A being outside our time is not necessarily outside time so his criticism fails.

[FreeTony]

I don't believe its a cult and that they use brain washing as a tactic.

Said every member of every cult since the beginning of time.

[Aoi Magi]

Nica

"Show me evidence" is a valid statement, because without evidence there is no reason to trust any claim or assertion, especially for a huge claim like "GOD". Also there is no "logically" correct reason to believe god is outside space and time without evidence. That is just an assumption. The bible and almost all such religious texts show the interaction between him and man, and also state that he was very willing to show evidence to non-believers, so as per that it is quite fair for us to ask for evidence now.

But we don't need to discuss all points right now, instead put forth your concerns one at a time and the brilliant heathens here will help you deconstruct and understand the fallacy behind them.

[Alex K]

Furthermore, the argument from physics, that Energy cannot be created . or destroyed, is not applicable to the universe as a whole, only to fields and particles within the universe. You cannot use it to argue for a creator for a universe.

What is the reason this isn't applicable to the universe as a whole?  Is it simply a premise necessary to get the universe started?

No, Heywood, conservation of energy is an observational fact. Within our universe, it *could* even be violated by a new type of as yet undiscovered forces or some such. It's not something that is even defined before there is a universe.

[robvalue]

The brainwashing part is pretty simple.

Why would you assume anything in the bible is true? There is no rational way to get to that conclusion without assuming it before you even open up the book. Even if you find certain bits you think are "true" that is in no way evidence for anything else in the book being true. It's a big book of claims, nothing more. And the claims important to Christianity are entirely unfounded. You have to just believe them, because you've been trained to believe them, or you have to say you believe them even if you don't.

[Jackalope]

I have a question...

Do you know any good knock-knock jokes?

[Heywood]

What is the reason this isn't applicable to the universe as a whole?  Is it simply a premise necessary to get the universe started?

No, Heywood, conservation of energy is an observational fact. Within our universe, it *could* even be violated by a new type of as yet undiscovered forces or some such. It's not something that is even defined before there is a universe.

What existed before there was a universe?  The same thing that exists now.  Reality.  Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to reality today also apply to reality before there was a universe?  Do we have any reason whatsoever to believe that realities and their sub realities are not self similar?

I'm not familiar with the conservation of energy  proves god argument.  However if you are basing your refutation of it on speculation that conservation of energy might now always hold....I find that to be a stretch....and a really weak refutation.

[Aoi Magi]

Why would anything need to be "before" the universe?