Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Nobody Dies for a Lie
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIf you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html
And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/
This is all in the realm of theoretical physics certainly, but there’s evidence to support such concepts; it is too soon to claim their impossibility in favour of the theistic notion of Creation Ex Nihilo, which is no more than a faith-based bald assertion.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostHow to induce the shift from timeless eternity, which seems to be an unchanging state, to creation, which isn't?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostQuantum mechanics, ever hear of it? Actually it goes back even further than the quantum. Einstein himself said that the distinction between past, present, and future was just a persistent illusion.
So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.
As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.Last edited by JonathanL; 09-19-2018, 03:08 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostWhat exactly is this "evidence of physics" that point to the non-existence of time?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.
By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI seriously doubt that MM is capable of the level of consideration you describe. Not that it matters; MM is still a coward since he had the opportunity to show how his argument didn't apply to his god, but declined.
Originally posted by Roy View PostA question for you: if your god existed in a state of timeless eternity, how did the creation of the universe get triggered?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYour implication that MM would run into some sort of problem if he tried to apply his argument about an infinite past being impossible to God's actions simply betrays your ignorance about what theists mean when they say God is eternal.
From what he's written so far MM obviously doesn't believe God has existed for an infinite amount of time, so He couldn't possibly have been active for an infinite amount of time either. Most theists that have ever seriously considered what it means for God to be eternal have taken it to mean that there is no state of existence where God doesn't exist. According to classical theism time came into being with the creation of the universe. Before that God existed in a state of timeless eternity and depending on what camp of theism you belong to you either believe that God continued to exist in a timeless eternity even after creating the universe, or you believe God entered into time by His creative act. But in neither case did God exist, or act, in an infinite past.
Maybe before you call MM a coward you should consider actually studying a bit of natural theology to avoid putting your foot in your mouth like you did above.
A question for you: if your god existed in a state of timeless eternity, how did the creation of the universe get triggered?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostApply your argument about an infinite past being impossible to your god's actions (if you can, which I doubt) and see what happens.Originally posted by Roy View PostNor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.
Your implication that MM would run into some sort of problem if he tried to apply his argument about an infinite past being impossible to God's actions simply betrays your ignorance about what theists mean when they say God is eternal.
From what he's written so far MM obviously doesn't believe God has existed for an infinite amount of time, so He couldn't possibly have been active for an infinite amount of time either. Most theists that have ever seriously considered what it means for God to be eternal have taken it to mean that there is no state of existence where God doesn't exist. According to classical theism time came into being with the creation of the universe. Before that God existed in a state of timeless eternity and depending on what camp of theism you belong to you either believe that God continued to exist in a timeless eternity even after creating the universe, or you believe God entered into time by His creative act. But in neither case did God exist, or act, in an infinite past.
Maybe before you call MM a coward you should consider actually studying a bit of natural theology to avoid putting your foot in your mouth like you did above.Last edited by JonathanL; 09-15-2018, 06:50 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf an actual infinity is impossible, then wouldn't you say that precludes the existence of a god?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMy problem infinite regression 'argument(?) is that it is an actual infinity concept and explains nothing beyond the defined closed infinity set that is referred.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostYou mean this?
A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.
Not only was it not taken out of context, you even repeated the claim when challenged:
Your skin cells are alive, at least in their early stage, but they are not life since they do not have the attributes that science uses to describe life (they don't organize, adapt, self-sustain, metabolize, respond to stimuli, etc.). .
You've also changed your excuse. Previously you said this quote was non-controversial, implying that it's correct as quoted. Now you say that it's deceptively taken out of context, implying that it's incorrect as quoted. Make your mind up.
Nor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
And you continuing to promote a quote of mine that was deceptively taken out of context ...
A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.
Not only was it not taken out of context, you even repeated the claim when challenged:
Your skin cells are alive, at least in their early stage, but they are not life since they do not have the attributes that science uses to describe life (they don't organize, adapt, self-sustain, metabolize, respond to stimuli, etc.). .
You've also changed your excuse. Previously you said this quote was non-controversial, implying that it's correct as quoted. Now you say that it's deceptively taken out of context, implying that it's incorrect as quoted. Make your mind up.
Nor did you attempt to apply your infinite regression 'argument' to your deity. You aren't just too stupid to know how stupid you are - and too stupid to realise the obviousness of your attempts to lie your way out of your idiocies - you're a coward too.Last edited by Roy; 09-14-2018, 07:11 AM.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Leave a comment: