KenRU wrote: How about the utter lack of miracles? All religions claim miracles (through prayer, etc). Yet never once have we seen the laws of nature broken or suspended.
I would disagree that there is a complete lack of miracles, even in modern times. I think what you are asking is why are there not miracles happening all the time? However, I see no requirement that in order for God to exist, miracles must happen all the time.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673308#p673308
KenRU wrote: If we agree that a miracle is a supernatural event, akin to having the laws of nature superseded, then we can easily agree what constitutes a miracle.
Well, at the risk of derailing this thread, I would say the creation of the universe would be miraculous. The laws of nature were superseded by the creation of the world. And its origin must’ve been outside our universe since our universe was what was created.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673699#p673699
mwtech wrote:
otseng wrote:
KenRU wrote: If we agree that a miracle is a supernatural event, akin to having the laws of nature superseded, then we can easily agree what constitutes a miracle.Well, at the risk of derailing this thread, I would say the creation of the universe would be miraculous. The laws of nature were superseded by the creation of the world. And its origin must’ve been outside our universe since our universe was what was created.
This could only be evidence of a miracle if
1) you can show that the universe was created
2) there were any physical/natural laws to suspend before the universe was created, which is nonsensical
Let’s just concentrate on the “laws of nature superseded” part.
Do laws exists independently from the universe? That is, did preexisting laws operate to cause our universe to exist?
What do you consider to be physical/natural laws?
Would agree that the first law of thermo was violated regarding the origin of the universe?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673793#p673793
mwtech wrote: I think the constants or laws of physics/nature began at the time physical and natural began. How could there be physical laws if there is nothing physical. We can’t know if there are laws independent og the universe, we’d have to be able to observe “outside the universe”, a concept I can’t even imagine.
If this is true, then physical/natural laws cannot account for the origin of our universe. If laws cannot, then it is reasonable to infer a teleological origin to our universe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673866#p673866
Divine Insight wrote: Especially in mathematical terms where gravity potential energy is given a negative sign and matter is given a positive sign, summing up the universe we get zero.
Yes, this is what is commonly claimed. But, I’d have an easier time believing this claim if it can be demonstrated that gravitational energy can destroy matter. Why would it only be a one way process where out of nothing came gravitational energy and matter, but it cannot go the other way?
Now it’s important to realize here also that because matter and energy are basically the same stuff, energy too causes spacetime to warp. In other words energy generates gravity just like mass does. So energy is also paid for in terms of distorted spacetime, or gravity.
Yes, I understand this. But, spacetime is only warped locally. For the entire universe, I believe the spacetime fabric is actually flat.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674007#p674007
KenRU wrote: There are many models of how the universe came into existence, none of which require a supernatural explanation.
Depends on how you define supernatural. If it means outside our universe, then our universe must’ve had a supernatural origin.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674015#p674015
mwtech wrote: All it means is that the current physical laws we observe wouldnt apply to the singularity.
And the definition of a miracle is consistent with this. Natural laws would not be consistent with this.
How does it logically follow that because the current laws of physics were inapplicable, then there must have been a designer God that caused the universe to begin to exist?
There are three possible explanations for the cause of something.
1. Natural law/process
2. Chance
3. Intentional design
If 1 and 2 are ruled out, then it’s logical that 3 is a solution.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674232#p674232
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 193 by otseng]
The Universe doesn’t need an origin.
It can simply not come, or come from no thing (which some people think is different to coming from nothing).Is that supernatural?
If the universe existed eternally in the past, I’d agree with you. But since the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past, it had an origin.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674234#p674234
Divine Insight wrote:
otseng wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Especially in mathematical terms where gravity potential energy is given a negative sign and matter is given a positive sign, summing up the universe we get zero.Yes, this is what is commonly claimed. But, I’d have an easier time believing this claim if it can be demonstrated that gravitational energy can destroy matter. Why would it only be a one way process where out of nothing came gravitational energy and matter, but it cannot go the other way?
There’s no reason to believe that it can’t go the other way. On the contrary we have evidence that it does go the other way. This is precisely what happens when matter and antimatter meet. Moreover, every time new matter is created it is always created in matter/antimatter pairs.
Are you saying gravity is antimatter?
otseng wrote:
Now it’s important to realize here also that because matter and energy are basically the same stuff, energy too causes spacetime to warp. In other words energy generates gravity just like mass does. So energy is also paid for in terms of distorted spacetime, or gravity.Yes, I understand this. But, spacetime is only warped locally. For the entire universe, I believe the spacetime fabric is actually flat.
If you believe that then you reject scientific knowledge. We know that precisely the opposite is true. The fabric of spacetime is anything but flat. On the contrary it’s a seething sea of quantum foam where matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into and out of existence.
When I mean flat, I speak on the cosmic scale, not on a local scale.
As for scientific knowledge, actually, I believe it supports my case.
“Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.”
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Plus it’s definitely a two-way street. If all that stuff that is popping into existence wasn’t also popping back out of existence the universe would quickly become filled with matter and antimatter. So the two-way nature of this process is clearly evident.
For antimatter and matter, yes, I agree it’s a two-way street. But, I believe what you are claiming is that the universe arose not of antimatter and matter, but gravity and matter.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674502#p674502
KenRU wrote: Replying to post 193 by otseng]
Depends on how you define supernatural. If it means outside our universe, then our universe must’ve had a supernatural origin.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.If we’re talking before the beginning of the universe (when), then we can’t be talking about where (outside). So, no, it would not be “supernatural” as you intended here. And, the “when” (beginning) could very well have a natural explanation anyways.
Unless you define things outside of our universe as also being natural, then “before” and “outside” our universe can be considered supernatural.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674503#p674503
If you know of another explanation for the cause of something, I’d be curious to know it.
Would that rule still work in a singularity, where the rules are suspended?
Well, we can then classify it as a miracle since we can never understand it, even in principle. 
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674504#p674504
wiploc wrote: Then what was god’s origin?
God had no origin. The Biblical concept of God is that He is eternal.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674505#p674505
Jashwell wrote: The fact that the Universe began to exist doesn’t mean that it had to begin somewhere or at some time or from something – there weren’t any of those things.
Are you referring to Hawking’s imaginary time?
If you imagine a film – it’s of finite length. But does playing the first frame of the film coincide with the film reel beginning to exist?
I have no idea what you are referring to here. How does your analogy correlate with the universe?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674513#p674513
Divine Insight wrote: It’s not antimatter, but it may have actually come from the energy of antimatter.
That, I’ve never heard of.
Yes, but you’re talking about the large scale universe there. That wouldn’t’ have anything to do with how gravity might play a roll in the creation of matter. If we want to discuss gravity as being a part of the creation process then we need to speak about gravity on a quantum scale. At this point we don’t currently have a quantum theory of gravity, but we clearly can’t dismiss it at these scales either.
It would then be purely conjecture at this point then to say gravity had a role to play at the moment of the origin of the universe.
In the beginning of the Big Bang we have reasons to believe that matter and antimatter were created in equal parts. The question then arises “Where did the antimatter go? Why didn’t the whole universe just annihilate itself? Scientists don’t have an answer for where antimatter went.
Yes, valid questions. Another question is why did it only happen once in the history of our universe?
In fact, this may have occurred at the end of inflation.
Well, speaking of inflation. I’m quite skeptical of that as well.
You mentioned earlier that “magic” is not an explanation. I see cosmic inflation theory as naturalistic magic. We don’t know how to solve the horizon problem, so let’s invent the inflationary theory. Do we actually know what caused the inflation to start or to stop? Do we know why it only occurred once?
I’ll grant that there is a lot of speculation here on my part, but it’s all being speculated within the framework of known science and no additional magic is required.
Depends on what you mean by magic. If no supernatural element is required, sure. But, if it eliminates hand-waving, I disagree.
In fact this would actually make sense mathematically since the matter/antimatter content of the universe would have had to have been in perfect balance. If the antimatter converted into gravity then gravity too would be in perfect balance with matter yielding a sum of “zero energy” when everything is accounted for.
Yes, I see what you are saying. This would be an explanation why the first law of thermo would not be violated during the origin of the universe. However, the trick would be to demonstrate that anti-matter is equivalent to gravitational energy.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674705#p674705
wiploc wrote:
Would that rule still work in a singularity, where the rules are suspended?Well, we can then classify it as a miracle since we can never understand it, even in principle.
Anything we don’t understand is magic? How convenient for the theists.
Convenient that naturalism fails to explain the origin of the universe and that theism can account for its origin? It certainly is.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674707#p674707
God is also transcendent. God is not bound by our universe, either in space or time.
Eternality of God does not mean of infinite time previous in our spacetime. Rather, God is outside of our time. So, from our perspective, God is eternal.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674708#p674708
Divine Insight wrote: I would agree with this. But I see no reason to rule out either 1 or 2. In fact, insofar as I can tell both of these have already been ruled-in in our current world by observation. So why should we be so quick to rule them out when considering how the world began?
For one thing, if the size of the universe was at one point smaller than a planck length, then science, even in principle, cannot describe what happened.
Another problem is when did natural laws and processes arise? Did it spontaneously appear with the origin of the universe? How could that happen? Or are laws somehow eternal?
Chance typically is not “pure” chance, but based on some underlying physical process. Radioactive decay is described by probabilities, but they are described by the quantum properties of the elements. The role of a die is also described by probabilities, but one knows that a cube would result in 1/6 of a chance for a particular side to face up. The same with the universe. If it did arise by chance, it would go back to problem 1. What is the origin of the underlying process?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674709#p674709
KenRU wrote: Since the how or why of our universe’s origin is unknown, there is no reason to believe a supernatural event happened. It would only be wishful thinking.
Or the wishful thinking is that there could be no supernatural cause.
Using logic that argues for a supernatural possibility, I could equally argue that a hyper-intelligent trans-dimensional alien could have sparked the beginnings of our universe. As cool as that may be, it offers no more an explanation (and has no more or less proof) than saying god did it, or it was a supernatural event.
You’re sort of correct. Yes, we don’t know the exact nature of the creator. It could be whatever deity. But, nobody is really offering an alien as a possible explanation.
The absence of knowing something and postulating a supernatural cause, is just as wise as man creating Poseidon to blame for tidal waves.
True, if there was an acceptable naturalistic explanation. We have naturalistic explanations for tidal waves, so there’s no need for Poseidon. In the case of the origin of the universe, we have no acceptable naturalistic explanations. I’ll even go further. If the God hypothesis is correct, I will make the prediction that there will never be an acceptable scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.
So, I still maintain, there has been no verifiable proof a miracle ever happened.
I’ve never claimed that there exists a verifiable proof of a miracle.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674802#p674802
Divine Insight wrote: Much of the mass/energy content most likely came into being when inflation stopped.
I’ve never heard of this. Can you provide a reference to this?
otseng wrote: Another problem is when did natural laws and processes arise? Did it spontaneously appear with the origin of the universe? How could that happen? Or are laws somehow eternal?If we postulate that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation then clearly we would need for the laws of quantum mechanics to have existed prior to the universe. However, this is not a problem because those laws are explainable by purely natural actions. And by that I simply mean actions that have occurred by pure chance.
How did those laws arise that existed independently of the universe?
So the entire universe could have come into existence from a quantum fluctuation with nothing other than laws of pure random chance behind it.
Would you agree that according to our observations, this would have only happened once? Have we ever observed a quantum fluctuation producing matter that has existed on the order of billions of years?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674950#p674950
Divine Insight wrote:
otseng wrote:
In the beginning of the Big Bang we have reasons to believe that matter and antimatter were created in equal parts. The question then arises “Where did the antimatter go? Why didn’t the whole universe just annihilate itself? Scientists don’t have an answer for where antimatter went.Yes, valid questions. Another question is why did it only happen once in the history of our universe?
Actually there are potential reasons why it only happened once. After all why should we expect it to happen again if all the antimatter is already gone?
If you had a box of kindling wood and you set it on fire and burned it up and it all turned to ash would it make sense to ask why you can’t do it again? It’s a one-way process. Maybe it’s the same thing with antimatter becoming gravitational energy in the early universe. The universe is quite different today, so there’s many things that took place in the early universe that are no longer occurring today.
The difference is that the universe arose out of nothing. There was no “initial kindling wood” for the universe to form out of. Antimatter and matter must’ve arose simultaneously from nothing. Though it’s possible for this to happen all the time on the quantum scale, we don’t ever observe it happening on the macro scale.
otseng wrote:
In fact, this may have occurred at the end of inflation.Well, speaking of inflation. I’m quite skeptical of that as well.
I just heard an interesting talk on public radio that evidence for inflation has been discovered. I was very sleepy at the time I listened to this so I didn’t catch the details. I fell asleep. But clearly progress is being made in this area.
Well, I’m now convinced of inflation! 
Actually inflation was originally proposed to solve the problem of magnetic di-poles. But then it was soon realized that it solves the horizon problem and the flatness problems too. It was quickly realized that it actually solved many problems that it was never intended to solve.
Yes, I agree that there are many other things that it “solves”.
As far as I’m concerned it still constitutes “magic” no matter what.
I had expected pushback from you on this, but I’m glad we agree on this.
The question is, does magic need a magician to explain it? And if it does, then why call it magic since it has an explanation? The magician would then be the entity that has no explanation. May as well save a step and just let magic be magic all on its own.
Well, the “magicians”in this case would be the ones who postulated the theories. They offer ideas that try to convince the audience that what they present is the truth, but, in fact, contain much hand-waving.
I have no problem with magic. I’m convince that reality is indeed magical.
I recently just listened to a book from Dawkins and I was surprised that he too took this view.
To expect that a God is behind everything is to actually expect that some little guy is pulling all the levers making the “magic” happen and therefore it’s not really magic at all.
I don’t believe that God is behind everything. But, if naturalistic explanations are not viable, then I believe a supernatural explanation is then rational.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674952#p674952
If an entity exists outside our universe that created all of space/time/matter, the most common description of it would be a deity. Who exactly would argue that it is an alien?
We have a lot of different theories and if one of them is shown to be correct we will have no need for your god either. What will you do then?
I would then say the Biblical God is just based on blind faith.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675013#p675013
Divine Insight wrote: There is no problem with postulating the quantum fields have always existed independent from the macro universe.
How did the quantum field arise?
Are you suggesting that we should be seeing baseballs and anti-baseballs popping into and out of existence? There are very good reasons to explain why that never happens. There’s no reason to expect that to happen.
We don’t expect baseballs to pop into existence, and yet our entire universe did pop into existence?
Well, don’t you think that gives Inflation quite a bit of merit as a viable explanatory theory?
It also raises a lot of questions. Some of which I already raised. Another issue is that it would mean the universe had expanded faster than the speed of light.
So for me they are “magic”. But that in no way implies that there is a magician behind them. In fact, it there was a magician behind them then they would no longer be magic.
Yes, I understand that is what you mean.
Ironically I think this is what religious people need. They refuse to believe in magic. Instead they insist that there must be a magician behind it that can explain the magic in every detail to the point where it’s no longer magic.
Now, that IS an ironic statement.
So if we don’t know what constitutes reality how can we even begin to speak of the supernatural?
To me, anything beyond our physical universe would be supernatural.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675133#p675133
help3434 wrote: We do have evidence of the Big Bang and the naturalistic formations of planets and stars. Where is there room for a Supreme Being in these seemingly natural processes that take millions and billions of years? Not mechanism could a deity use to cause or influence any of it?
As for the formation of planets and stars, even naturalistic explanations posit things that are not even observable or detectable. So, I do not really think it has much of a leg up on things. For example, how did our moon form?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675136#p675136
KenRU wrote: But you are assuming the origin of the universe will never be explained. So, your assumption of a supernatural cause, is, essentially, hinging upon science never explaining the origin of the universe. But if, down the road, it does … ? (or at least presents a viable explanation?)
Kind of like the “god of the gaps” don’t you think?
I’m not assuming it. It’s still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I’m just making the prediction that one will never be found.
What makes it not a god of the gaps argument is that I’m stating it is falsifiable. God of the gaps arguments are not falsifiable, like the illustration I gave earlier with the flickering light.
Why leap to a supernatural explanation, instead of a simple, “I don’t know”?
Would you accept “I don’t know” as a satisfactory answer to questions about the Bible or Christianity?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675138#p675138
KenRU wrote: [Replying to otseng]
But, I’m just making the prediction that one will never be found.
What makes this any difference than an assumption? Sounds like splitting hairs to me.
In science, making an assumption and making a prediction is not splitting hairs.
Well, perhaps I’m mistaken, but the parts of god (properties) that are proven to be false by science, would most certainly be falsifiable. What’s left becomes non-falsifiable … for the time being.
Yes, you’re mistaken.
Would you accept “I don’t know” as a satisfactory answer to questions about the Bible or Christianity
No, for Christianity and the bible.
Then why should anyone accept “I don’t know” as a satisfactory answer to the origin of the universe?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675274#p675274
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 397 by otseng]
Yeah, it pretty obviously refers to the sky and the ground.
Not the atmosphere or the planet beyond just the crust.Just like how it refers to the lights in the sky. Not to the stars.
No, it does not just mean the atmosphere, but can include the entire universe.
Heaven is shamayim. The definition can be:
– heaven, heavens, sky
– visible heavens, sky
– as abode of the stars
– as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
– Heaven (as the abode of God)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex … 8064&t=KJV
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675277#p675277
KenRU wrote: You’re claiming lack of evidence (in essence) is evidence for belief in a supernatural origin of the universe.
Where did I ever say that?
Also, it’s getting very difficult to read your posts. I’d ask you to please use the quote bbcode to show who said what. See Quick BBCode Tutorial.
Before I go about showing how you’re mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?
You were the one to bring it up.
There are certainly many factual inaccuracies in the bible.
I’d disagree with this. There can be some, but I wouldn’t agree with many.
But even if nothing about god has ever been proven false by science (which I disagree with), I still don’t see how it couldn’t be considered a god of the gaps, given your earlier admissions.
If you disagree, then you must have some reason to support it.
Science also has many models that account for how it began – without the need for a Cause.
Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=676294#p676294
KenRU wrote: Post 381 made me think this was your reasoning:
“I’m not assuming it. It’s still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I’m just making the prediction that one will never be found.â€�That’s why I said “in essenceâ€�. You believe that none will be found, correct? Was I wrong?
Yes, I did say that. But, I’m not saying that lack of evidence is evidence for belief in the supernatural.
My apologies. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully, I’m doing this right : )
Yes, looks good. Thanks.
Before I go about showing how you’re mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?You were the one to bring it up.
So, you’re arguing that science has not proven any properties of god false, therefore it can not be a “god of the gaps� belief? If you’re not saying this, then by definition, it is indeed just that.
No, I’m not arguing that. I’m just asking what properties of god are proven to be false by science.
Not having an answer is a far smaller leap of logic then the leap to an supernatural entity or origin.
If arguments for God just rested solely on the cosmological argument, I can somewhat agree with you. But, there are other independent arguments that also support the idea of God. So, it’s not that much of a leap as you suggest.
My only point in bringing up the origin of the universe was challenging the claim that there was zero evidence for God. I’m not going to get into any of the other arguments since that is not the point of this thread. And speaking of which, if anybody does have arguments and evidence to support the belief that gods do not exist, please present them. It’s been awhile since any has been presented.
If the properties of god (what he has been attributed to have done or is currently doing) are explained by science, then it is a God of the Gaps belief system.
I’d agree with that.
Science also has many models that account for how it began – without the need for a Cause.Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.
And how is god not: at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support it?
Because there exist many other independent arguments and evidence to support God, besides the origin of the universe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=676876#p676876
Danmark wrote:
otseng wrote:
KenRU wrote: Unless I’m mistaken, this was in the context of discussing the need for a universe to have a Creator. So, if you’re not saying the lack of scientific evidence available to explain the origin of the universe necessitates the need a supernatural explanation, then what are you saying?If our universe is what is considered natural and if the cause of our universe was not by itself, then it must’ve had a supernatural cause.
Indeed this is a key question, perhaps the key question. But what is the evidence that the universe has not always been, in one form or another? In the alternative, what is the evidence the universe did not cause itself in the singularity that resulted in the ‘Big Bang?’
For me the key is that we know the universe exists. We have no reason to suppose it has not always existed or in the alternative that it did not cause itself via the ‘Big Bang’ as some theorize. In any event we do not doubt its existence and we only speculate on its origin if indeed it has not always been.
It could not have always existed, unless you want to propose that physical laws have changed.
As for the universe causing itself, that would go against the principle of causality. The effect and the cause cannot refer to the same thing.
However, by supposing it had an unknown cause and labelling that cause ‘God,’ we have entered into the region of pure speculation.
At this point, I use “God” in a very generic sense. I’m not even saying such a God is Yahweh. It could be any type of Deist creator god.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=677268#p677268
Danmark wrote: I have assumed the universe “always was.” At least until those pesky cosmologists started talking about a ‘big bang.’*
Do you have any justification for this? Or is it just an assumption?
Theists believe God ‘always was,’ that he is beyond the scope of time and space. What is the problem with assigning this same attribute to the universe?
If you want to believe science, you can’t posit an eternal universe. As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science. 
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=677525#p677525
KenRU wrote: Not to mention we don’t necessarily know a Cause (or cause) is definitely necessary.
If the universe began to exist, then it requires a cause.
If the universe caused itself, then like I said, it violates the principle of causality.
You have no evidence that the universe needs a Creator, and no evidence that says the universe could not have existed in any other varied form.And you have evidence that our universe existed in another form?
That’s the point. Since this origin is still unknown, I fail to see how a Creator is either necessary or the best explanation. Why the need to go outside of nature for an explanation?
Do you have another explanation other than a supernatural explanation?
I’m not sure I agree that the god of the gaps argument is non-falsifiable. But even if I did, the overall point is that god’s abilities and properties (in this case) become smaller and less grandiose. Correct?
If it is a God of the gaps argument, yes. But, like I said, I’m not making a God of the gaps argument.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=677527#p677527
I entirely agree with you about my belief the universe has always been. It is simply my own intuition. When given the choice between the universe coming into existence from nothing and the alternative that it has always been, the latter makes infinitely more sense to me.
Well, then if evidence is not necessary for beliefs, then theists believing in God based on faith alone should not be a problem either.
That there are physicists who agree with me, is of no great importance to me.
I assume you mean physicists who do not agree with you.
My central postulate is that this ‘eternity principle’ or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative ‘ground of being’ + personality called ‘God.’
As I mentioned, science goes against the idea of an eternal universe.
One reason is the second law of thermo. If the universe was eternal, then we would’ve reached the heat death by now. Since we are not at the heat death, the universe is not eternal.
Also, if one believes the Big Bang theory, then the universe could not be eternal.
As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.Talk about special pleading.
Would you agree that science is the study of the natural world? Since God created the natural world, God is not bound by science.
Is he by any chance bound by logic?
For purposes of discussions about God, yes, God is bound by logic.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=677649#p677649
wiploc wrote: If you hang a bucket of water over a fire, you expect the heat from the fire to go into the water. That is, heat moves from high concentration to low; the water warms up, and the fire cools off.
But it could go the other way. The heat from the water could go into the fire. The water could freeze, while making the fire hotter. There’s no reason it couldn’t happen. It’s just that on average, the heat tends to flow from hot to cold. How strong is this tendency? So strong that, if you could fill the known universe with buckets of water over fires, and keep it that way from the big bang until now, you wouldn’t expect to observe the water freezing one time.
It could go the other way, but not on average over a long period of time. Over time, like you said, the water warms up and the fire cools off. Eventually, they will both reach the same temperature if they were the only two things in consideration. This can also be applied to the cosmic scale. Given enough time, everything will either cool off or heat up to one temperature. At that point, the universe will have reached the heat death.
then it’s possible to reset entropy back to zero (or whatever the minimum is) every time.
Unless the laws of physics change when the universe bounces, entropy will not be reset.
He said, “Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.”
And we’re also to repeat “God could not have created the universe” three times too?
But if you can show me a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang, then I’m likely to change my mind.
Actually, science is not able to give any answer of what happened before the big bang.
So why do you say that, given the big bang, the universe cannot be eternal?
If the universe had a beginning, then it can not be eternal. I thought that’s fairly obvious.
I have disturbing news. I asked the cosmologist what the currently (this was probably ten years ago) most popular theory was. He said it was that the farther back you went, the closer you got to the big bang, the more time slowed down. Thus, the big band was [in what fricking sense?] infinitely long ago!
And why did time slow down the closer to the big bang?
Since God created the natural world, God is not bound by science.Special pleading, circular reasoning, begging the question.
How so?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=677799#p677799
wiploc wrote: I was thinking entropy. But, since theists often field a version of the fine tuning argument which claims that there were no laws of physics at the beginning of the big bang, then, yes, maybe that too.
You do realize that if there was no laws of physics, then you’ll have to throw out any scientific explanation. The only thing left would be a miraculous explanation.
If you’re going to arbitrarily define whatever happened before the big bang as not being part of the “universe,”
I don’t think it’s an arbitrary definition. I think by definition the big bang was the origin of our universe.
I have to withdraw my assent to your defining science as the study of the universe.
Then what is science?
Therefore, believing in the big bang does not logically require one to believe in a finite past.
So, what are you suggesting?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=678106#p678106
wiploc wrote:
otseng wrote:
wiploc wrote: I was thinking entropy. But, since theists often field a version of the fine tuning argument which claims that there were no laws of physics at the beginning of the big bang, then, yes, maybe that too.You do realize that if there was no laws of physics, then you’ll have to throw out any scientific explanation. The only thing left would be a miraculous explanation.
“Miraculous explanation”? Oxymoron anybody?
Oxymoron, why?
All I’m saying is that I am unaware of any scientist saying that the big bang was the actual beginning (as opposed to a conventional beginning like the first day of January, of the first year of our lord).
I’m just talking about our universe here. So, you do not agree that our universe is around 14 billion years old?
Your claim is that I have to believe in a finite past if I believe in the big bang. Despite repeated opportunities, you haven’t explained why that is.
It would’ve been a finite amount of time in the past when we are speaking of our time correct? Or do you dispute this also?
I have to believe the big bang is the beginning because you define it that way?
I’m not the one defining it.
“The Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
I have to withdraw my assent to your defining science as the study of the universe.Then what is science?
The study of all of the natural world, regardless of when it happened, notwithstanding any arbitrarily defined limits.
OK, then what is the natural world? Is it something other than our universe? On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists? How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=678296#p678296
I’m not sure if it’s actually “causeless”. Virtual particle pairs are a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Because it seems like you’re always asking me questions but not answering mine.
Uh, where have I not answered your questions? I’ve tried to be fairly methodical in this thread and follow posts addressed to me. I might not have answered to your satisfaction, but that doesn’t mean I have not answered them. I might have also postponed addressing them, but I can’t address all questions at one time and have said I’ll eventually address them (eg, the problem of evil).
You claim that objective morality can’t exist without god. By implication, you’re claiming that it can exist with god. (Do I have that right?)
Yes. Of course, I’m not the only one that has claimed this. As you know, Divine Insight also agrees that objective morality doesn’t exist in an atheistic world.
And you tell me we have to agree on definitions before you’ll answer.
Yes, because I had asked you, “Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil?” Then you asked for me to provide a definition of the terms. Which I did so in post 414.
BTW, I don’t recall if you ever acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil.
I’d like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god.
Let’s assume that “the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it.”
The question is where does this “ought” come from? It cannot come from themselves, since it doesn’t matter what they think about it.
So, what or who defines what people ought to do? It would have to come from some authority that defines what people ought to do. This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history. The authority that best fits this would be a god.
One other thing: I’d like you to start putting blanklines between your work and mine.And not just me, but anybody. It’s nice to be able to see at a glance, when responding to a post, which parts I wrote and which parts the other person wrote.
You mean a blank line after the quote block? This is the first I’ve heard that this is netiquette to do this.
Special pleading is when you apply a rule to other people that you don’t apply to yourself.
Special pleading is when an arbitrary exception is made to a standard/rule/principle to a particular class of things. For example, suppose there is a rule that says all people must stand in line. But suppose I then say I don’t have to stand in line and can go immediately to the front. That would be special pleading. However, if there is a rule that handicapped people can bypass the line and if I show that I’m in a wheelchair, then it would not be special pleading.
I’m not arguing that “Everything that exists needs a cause—except not my god, because he’s special.” What I am arguing is that everything that began to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause. However, God is in a different class because God did not begin to exist. So, it’s not special pleading.
– I don’t know why you say that your god didn’t begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.
This is standard Christian doctrine. This is not something I just happened to arbitrarily make up.
– I don’t know why you say the rest of the universe did begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.
How can one accept the Big Bang and say that universe did not begin to exist?
– But since you do say the universe began, why doesn’t that mean that your god began along with everything else?
Because if God created the universe, God could not have also began with the universe.
– Generally, theists deal with this issue by equivocation. They use one definition of “begin” when they want to show that their god did not begin, and another definition to show that the rest of the universe did begin. In other words, their claim that god is a special case depends entirely on special pleading.
There’s no equivocation. I’m using the term “begin” the same way in both instances.
I’m not saying that you’ll do this. And I’m not saying that theists are generally conscious of performing this sleight of mouth. I am saying that—once I point out the equivocation—I have never seen a theist manage manage a plausible defense of the claim that god didn’t begin but the rest of the world did.So, if there really is a way to justify that claim, I really want to see it.
Would you agree that something must not have a beginning? Otherwise we have an infinite regress?
But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.Do you agree that whatever began to exist must have a cause?
No. Given that most cosmologists believe that some things happen uncaused, I don’t see how I can go against the weight of expert opinion.
If something is truly causeless, then it would be beyond science (and cosmology). One of the major purposes of science is to find causes. If something was truly causeless (there was no law, no principle, no force, no agent), would it even fall in the realm of science?
But, I’d be willing to stipulate that everything that happens has a cause, if that would help you state your case. But I’m not willing to make that stipulation with an arbitrary exception for your god.
I don’t see it as an exception. But, I’m even willing to go with your stipulation. Let’s suppose that God did have a cause. It still would not refute the existence of God.
“OK, then what is the natural world?Since I don’t believe in magic: Everything that exists.
Hypothetically speaking, if God does exist, would the natural world then include God?
So, if we go with my preferred definition (universe = everything) then, no there is nothing other than the universe.
If you mean universe is “all of reality”, I would say that’s an arbitrary definition for universe.
Sometimes we talk about “pocket universes,” or use other language to make it clear that we’re using “universe” in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about “our universe.”
Yes, I’m talking about “our universe”. Do you believe other universes exist?
but I don’t know what those things are, in part because I don’t know what “our universe” is.
“Our universe” is everything that resulted from the Big Bang.
Except for the fact that he arbitrarily excludes gods, I’m with Plantinga.
Not sure what you mean. Does that mean you DO include gods in the universe?
On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists?I’m not making any claim like that.
But, you still use language that implies things outside “our universe” exists. If you have to qualify our universe, you imply that there are other universes.
If you don’t count gods as part of our universe, then, right back at you: On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exist?
There are many reasons. For one, it can account for the origin of our universe. For another, it can account for objective morality.
How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?”I’ve never said they do.
OK.
If things inside our universe require causes, why don’t things outside our universe require causes? If you get to make up the one rule for one place, why do you get to make up the other rule for the other place? Isn’t that just special pleading?
Another reason it’s not special pleading is because if our universe is eternal, then there would not be a cause for it. It’s not just that God is an exception. It’s that anything that does not begin to exist would not need a cause, including an eternal universe or an eternal God.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680041#p680041
Artie wrote:otseng wrote: So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?The Block Universe explains this from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ … iverse.asp It’s really quite simple. We are watching from inside the universe. There’s no such place as “outside” the universe where there already was/is space and time and from where you first could see nothing and then see the universe coming into existence. Space and time came into existence with the universe. From within the universe we can look back to the Big Bang but no further simply because there is no further. That’s where time and space “starts”.
Yes, I agree that space and time came into existence with our universe. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is where our space and time starts. But, it still does not answer the question if our universe (even as a block) just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without a cause. If one does claim that, wouldn’t that just be a faith belief?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680206#p680206
Jashwell wrote: Time doesn’t actually flow – we just perceive a flow. Past & the future exist too, but in the same way that you don’t exist here, they don’t exist now. We can’t currently perceive them as well as the present (one could argue with memories and predictions that you can somewhat accurately sense the past/future).
Actually, I’m not convinced of the B-theory of time.
We perceive time to be flowing, but it really isn’t. We perceive to be here, but we really aren’t. We perceive to have a train of thoughts, but we really don’t.
This is a strange metaphysical view where what we perceive has nothing to do with reality.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680952#p680952