Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[Federali Aundy]

no. i never said stars appear from nothing. i said particles.

Yes, but ultimately (according to you) the stars that appear come from particles which created themselves. This is illogical. While I'd love to know which particals your are referring to, I believe the "scientific" view of this is that they would come from another universe or other physical realm. No one argues they created themselves from nothing. If they did come from nothing, it would take a God to make them.

god's never had a beginning. but yet exists. sounds like he popped out of nowhere to me.

Unlike your illogical and superstitious view of the universe (i.e. that it mades itself from nothing) God does not create Himself - He is the uncreated Creator. In other words, his very essence is sheer existence itself. This cannot be proven through the material sciences, but it is not unreasonable. It would be unreasonable, however, if we claimed that God is a physical thing that is uncreated - because matter by definition cannot be uncreated. Thus God did not pop out of nowhere - He simply is.

sounds more like your supernaturalism is contradictory.

In order to make this point, you will actually need to show me how God's existence is self-contradictory. I was taught by a half-dozen atheist philosophy profs, none of whom thought that the idea of God was self-contradictory. Just because you categorically reject God given your poor philosophy it does not follow that God's existence is irrational or illogical.

believing in magical things is reasonable?

Well I don't believe in magical things because the definition of magic is that physical things have powers beyond the natural. I do not believe that waving a stick and saying hocus pocus will do something. God is not magical because He brings things into existence through His own power and not through a material thing.

i'm not doing your homework. put them up and prove them.
i've seen a man walk through the wall of china and disappear the statue of liberty.

I'm not all that big on researching miracles - since the fact that there even is a universe we're living in (given that the universe cannot create itself) is miraculous enough for me. But here is a video about the Mary appearance in Egypt. There are also miracles related to bleeding Eucharistic hosts which you can find here. Though I do question whether or not you'll even consider these since your philosophy makes no room for miracles.

not all philsophy comes to a proveable logical conclusion. some can lead to mythological flights of fancy.

And I take it you get to be the one who decides which arguments lead to "magical flights of fancy" and which are not? So instead of turning deductive arguments into subjective truths, how about you look at a syllogism and point out where the logic is wrong - because if you can't do this then the logic is valid and my argument holds.

same to you with your supernatural views.

You would be correct to tell me this if I was a polytheist who thought that each and every act we observe has a god as its principle actor. This would in fact be superstitious and I would be thankful for your correction. Instead what we see here is that I rationally believe in an absolutely simple being Whose essence is sheer existence and can thus logically give rise to a material universe. There is nothing here that is unreasonable or contradictory to what the sciences have told us about material things.

Your materialist views, however, are both unreasonable and unscientific. Materialism is unreasonable because it either (1) gives matter the power of self-creation or (2) gives matter an eternal nature. The first case is folly because not even God can create Himself and the second case is grossly illogical because matter, being composed of parts, cannot exist eternally. Materialism is also unscientific because it makes claims that cannot be verified by the scientific method. Materialism is not science, it is bad philosophy. Indeed, I would call your materialism an example of "mythological flights of fancy".

 

[shagdrum]

Certainly sounds like you are stating that one of the two arguments is 'more' valid - since my statement is 'false' (according to you) that they are equally valid.

And yet you conveniently IGNORED the CONTEXT of what I said.

I NEVER said (or implied) that, "the supernatural is more 'valid' than science". You are drawing an inference that is NOT THERE, which is a convenient way to put words in my mouth and delegitimize the point I was raising.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Cyclic universes wouldn't require a beginning point - circles have no end and no beginning. It works because beyond the 'universes' there isn't 'time'. Just as God has no beginning and no end...

Well I would still argue that a material universe requires an absolute beginning so that would be my caveat on a cyclic universe. There is no reason why a universe cannot expand, contract, expand, contract - but the expansion requires a start point. Math and physics point to this as well since every model of a universe requires an absolute beginning. Your idea is nice, though mathematically impossible. Again we run into the constraints of matter - finite things make for limits.

Your religion may not run 'contrary to' reason - but it certainly pushes the boundaries of reason - immaculate conception being one of them. Heaven and hell certainly aren't the ideas of 'reason' but of 'religion'.

What's wrong with the Immaculate Conception? As to heaven and hell, even a pagan like Socrates believed in an afterlife.

Jesus is human, as well as divine. He must be material - and he completes the Trinity.

Well before the incarnation, God the Son was still divine. There was no necessity on God's part to become man and the Trinity was still the Trinity before 3 BC when Christ was born. Perhaps you could explain your view here with more detail...

 

[hrmwrm]

Yes, but ultimately (according to you) the stars that appear come from particles which created themselves. This is illogical.

but you expect me to believe something created the universe which is infinite. that's real logical.

Unlike your illogical and superstitious view of the universe

kind of an ironic statement there.

God does not create Himself - He is the uncreated Creator

.

so, he's always existed, never starts, never ends, yet according to you creates the universe one day. what did he do with the rest of his infinite time? twiddle thumbs?
you do realize how illogical and impossible that is.

Just because you categorically reject God given your poor philosophy it does not follow that God's existence is irrational or illogical.

irony again.

Well I don't believe in magical things because the definition of magic is that physical things have powers beyond the natural.

believing in god would be contradictory of that statement.

I do not believe that waving a stick and saying hocus pocus will do something. God is not magical because He brings things into existence through His own power and not through a material thing.

creating something from nothing. hate to tell you, that's magic.

Though I do question whether or not you'll even consider these since your philosophy makes no room for miracles.

sure i'll consider. but we are talking of god here, creator of the infinite universe. i'd expect like the razing of mountains. small illusions hardly make miracles.

not even God can create Himself

then where did he come from? what created it?
by your own logic, something cannot start from nothing. yet you declare god from nothing. you provide no start, no end. that itself is illogical.

You would be correct to tell me this if I was a polytheist who thought that each and every act we observe has a god as its principle actor.

no, monotheists believe that. ask fossten. he's the one who once stated god makes me breathe.
but then, religion has abondoned many thoughts as they become less plausible in newer times and we learn more. like the earth isn't 6000 years old.

Well I would still argue that a material universe requires an absolute beginning so that would be my caveat on a cyclic universe. There is no reason why a universe cannot expand, contract, expand, contract - but the expansion requires a start point. Math and physics point to this as well since every model of a universe requires an absolute beginning. Your idea is nice, though mathematically impossible. Again we run into the constraints of matter - finite things make for limits.

the universe is infinite. it must be by definition. to have an end, you'd have to figure out whats at that end, then where does that realm end, etc.
physics and science deal with our own little section, the seeable universe.
you know, baby steps. worry about what's seeable first. although newer science is starting to delve into answering questions beyond this point. m theory comes to mind with it many dimensions and multiverses.
i think you keep forgetting that matter and energy are one and the same. make energy, you can create matter. destroy matter, you create energy.
there are no finite limits on matter.

 

[04SCTLS]

There is also the view that Big Bang notwithstanding the universe was not created from nothing by a thing but always was (like God) which is why it is infinite and that is the real puzzle.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Alright, now I think we're getting somewhere. Though I must say you offered no comments on the miracles offered to you and to simply use the word "ironic" as a rebuttle is quite intellectually lacking. But you have offered more detail on your position - so we at least have something to talk about.

You claim that:

the universe is infinite. it must be by definition. to have an end, you'd have to figure out whats at that end, then where does that realm end, etc.

and:

there are no finite limits on matter.

But matter is, by definition, finite. This is proven true by the fact that my fingers are seperate from the keyboard I am typing on. Thus we see that the keyboard and the fingers are both finite things. But we could also break these things down into yet smaller finite parts. matter is finite.

But perhaps this is not what you mean by infinite. It seems you may mean that the matter is infinite because the universe goes on without end. But does the universe have an end? Yes it does. This may be shown physically true by science through calculating that we live in a "closed" universe. Nevertheless, we can say for sure that the universe has an end by way of time: the universe will one day die in the Big Rip. So we can definitely say that the universe has a beginning and and end. It is finite.

I think the big question remains: where did the universe come from? Do you really think it made itself? You bring up m-theory and the multiverse, but as I pointed out to foxpaws, this only pushes my question back a level: where did the multiverse come from? To say it always was is a self-contradiction and to say it created itself is utterly irrational.

But instead of answering my question, however, you seem to try to deflect it by claiming my belief in God is as irrational as your belief in a self-creating universe. You write:

then where did he come from? what created it?
by your own logic, something cannot start from nothing. yet you declare god from nothing. you provide no start, no end. that itself is illogical.

and:

so, he's always existed, never starts, never ends, yet according to you creates the universe one day. what did he do with the rest of his infinite time? twiddle thumbs?
you do realize how illogical and impossible that is.

By way of time and causation, God is eternal. This means that He is outside of time and that all time is present to Him equally. God doesn't need to be created because His very essence is existence itself. He cannot not exist. It's not that God had "infinite time" at all. To give these attributes to the universe would be illogical because the universe is made of parts, existing in space and time. We can describe God like this because He is an absolutely simple being (i.e. He has no parts). There is nothing illogical here whatsoever - but it would be completely illogical to try to turn the universe into some kind of God (and by this I mean giving the universe divine attributes that it logically cannot have).

And now for some nit-picking:

creating something from nothing. hate to tell you, that's magic.

It seems I have to clarify "magic" a bit more. Magic and superstition go hand in hand. Magic is the use of something physical to do something supernatural and superstition is the belief that something natural can act, by its own nature, supernaturally. By definition, God is (1) not material and (2) all-powerful. Because of this, God can act on the world without it being magical or superstitious. You, however, give the universe powers that only God can have - and since the universe is physical and not all-powerful, your philosophy leads to a superstitious belief in a magical universe.

no, monotheists believe that. ask fossten. he's the one who once stated god makes me breathe.

You are correct that some monotheists believe differently from classical monotheism. Modern Islam falls into this category. As to fossten, I don't know enough about the conversation or fosstens beliefs to comment, but I would bet that fossten believes God can act in a secondary way through the principle actor during any given event.

 

[foxpaws]

Well I would still argue that a material universe requires an absolute beginning so that would be my caveat on a cyclic universe. There is no reason why a universe cannot expand, contract, expand, contract - but the expansion requires a start point. Math and physics point to this as well since every model of a universe requires an absolute beginning. Your idea is nice, though mathematically impossible. Again we run into the constraints of matter - finite things make for limits.

But outside of the universe/s there is no 'time.' There doesn't need to be a beginning and end. Your idea keeps thinking you need a starting point - when without time there aren't things like 'limit'.

What's wrong with the Immaculate Conception? As to heaven and hell, even a pagan like Socrates believed in an afterlife.

And even a pagan like Socrates believed in immaculate conception..

The concepts of heaven and hell aren't the results of 'reason'. They are the results of the unreasonable fear of the unknown. What happens when you die?

Well before the incarnation, God the Son was still divine. There was no necessity on God's part to become man and the Trinity was still the Trinity before 3 BC when Christ was born. Perhaps you could explain your view here with more detail...

Jesus, to be the 'son' must be 'born', through a material 'mother'. Otherwise how do we get 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost'? The physical universe completes our trinity.

Is there a need for a Trinity in other universes - perhaps not - our universe is unique - so we get a unique Trinity - Jesus. Created in conjunction with our material universe, which is unique. Mary cannot exist in other universes. She is unique to ours. This makes Jesus unique to our universe as well.

 

[Federali Aundy]

But outside of the universe/s there is no 'time.' There doesn't need to be a beginning and end. Your idea keeps thinking you need a starting point - when without time there aren't things like 'limit'.

Well I am not concerned with what is "outside" but what rather I am talking about the fact that "inside" the universe there is time. Furthermore, one cannot have matter without also having time. Anything that has parts is material and thus takes up both space and time. Once we start talking about time, there is a beginning and an end. But at this point we are talking about possible universes of which we are not a part of so I say let us stick to reality.

The concepts of heaven and hell aren't the results of 'reason'. They are the results of the unreasonable fear of the unknown. What happens when you die?

I have aleady given a good argument that humans are both spiritual and physical. As a refresher, I said that the fact that we can conceive of such an idea as infinity (along with other non-material realities) means that there is some part of us that is not merely physical. When we die, this non-temporal part of us will continue in eternity. Heaven and Hell are simply the eternal states of our souls when we die. The seeds we sow in life will be harvested in eternity in either heaven or hell.

Jesus, to be the 'son' must be 'born', through a material 'mother'. Otherwise how do we get 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost'? The physical universe completes our trinity.

Actually, God was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost long before 3 BC. In other words, our concept of physical fatherhood and sonship are reflections which participate in the eternal Fatherhood and Sonship of God. The Father conceives of His Son as one conceives of an idea. In such a way, the Son is the self-thought of God. The Son is God's self-image which so perfectly reflects God that it is itself personal as God is personal. Indeed, the idea is one with the Father as the thought is one with the thinker - yet each are unique. In such a way was the Son begotten by the Father. The unity of the two, however, is the Holy Ghost. This is all very deep theology, but it's a start. The purpose of the Son becoming man was not to complete the Trinity but rather to adopt mankind into the divine family. Or as the early Christians said: The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men could become the sons of God.

Is there a need for a Trinity in other universes - perhaps not - our universe is unique - so we get a unique Trinity - Jesus. Created in conjunction with our material universe, which is unique. Mary cannot exist in other universes. She is unique to ours. This makes Jesus unique to our universe as well.

Did you learn this kind of theological thinking from someone or are you making things up? I've never heard this kind of interpretation of the Trinity/Jesus/Mary before. You speak of Jesus and Mary being unique - which raises the idea that they are important. In your thinking, what role do Jesus and Mary play which makes them important?

 

[foxpaws]

I have aleady given a good argument that humans are both spiritual and physical. As a refresher, I said that the fact that we can conceive of such an idea as infinity (along with other non-material realities) means that there is some part of us that is not merely physical. When we die, this non-temporal part of us will continue in eternity. Heaven and Hell are simply the eternal states of our souls when we die. The seeds we sow in life will be harvested in eternity in either heaven or hell.

However the ideas of 'heaven and hell' aren't based on reason are they?

Actually, God was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost long before 3 BC. In other words, our concept of physical fatherhood and sonship are reflections which participate in the eternal Fatherhood and Sonship of God. The Father conceives of His Son as one conceives of an idea. In such a way, the Son is the self-thought of God. The Son is God's self-image which so perfectly reflects God that it is itself personal as God is personal. Indeed, the idea is one with the Father as the thought is one with the thinker - yet each are unique. In such a way was the Son begotten by the Father. The unity of the two, however, is the Holy Ghost. This is all very deep theology, but it's a start. The purpose of the Son becoming man was not to complete the Trinity but rather to adopt mankind into the divine family. Or as the early Christians said: The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men could become the sons of God.

Did you learn this kind of theological thinking from someone or are you making things up? I've never heard this kind of interpretation of the Trinity/Jesus/Mary before. You speak of Jesus and Mary being unique - which raises the idea that they are important. In your thinking, what role do Jesus and Mary play which makes them important?

Jesus is unique to this universe - he became material - through Mary - who is also unique to this universe. Without the 'material' contribution of Mary - no Jesus - just "son as self-thought of God". This universe is necessary to complete the trinity - to create Jesus. Otherwise, why not just 'pop' Jesus in? However, God thought it necessary to combine with the universe (through Mary) to complete Jesus - his son. As you said earlier - if you had done a dna test on Jesus he would be human - not divine. But his 'humanist' qualities are part of what defines him as the Son of God - because he also must be the Son of Man.

 

[hrmwrm]

It seems you may mean that the matter is infinite because the universe goes on without end.

no, that is the universe that is infinite. matter only exists where it does. at our given perception, it is only our seeable universe.

But does the universe have an end? Yes it does. This may be shown physically true by science through calculating that we live in a "closed" universe.

i've never come across anything stating we live in a closed universe. sounds like an interpretation.

By way of time and causation, God is eternal. This means that He is outside of time and that all time is present to Him equally. God doesn't need to be created because His very essence is existence itself.

sounds familiar. the universe is eternal, infinite. you keep wanting to minimize it to only that which we see. which allows you to keep your god is bigger arguement.

To give these attributes to the universe would be illogical because the universe is made of parts, existing in space and time.

really. you must be an amazing astronomer to have the answers to the cosmos and it's construction all figured out. this is what makes you in(un)credible in your arguement.
a few thousand years ago the heavens(cosmos) lay just above the earth. a tower just about touched it.
i prefer not to scripturally limit myself.
does time stop just because no-one is there to measure it?

but it would be completely illogical to try to turn the universe into some kind of God (and by this I mean giving the universe divine attributes that it logically cannot have).

what divine attributes? they are what you give god. the universe is naturally endowed with them.
your perspective is god exists from nothing, created from nothing, and now we have our universe. because you need to answer the question of the beginning, you create god.
look into the universe and you see it every where. there is no divine power necessary.

You, however, give the universe powers that only God can have - and since the universe is physical and not all-powerful, your philosophy leads to a superstitious belief in a magical universe.

yet again, it is you who gives god powers the universe is naturally endowed with.
i think you fail to see the perspective problem.

can you guess this quote?

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[hrmwrm]

There is also the view that Big Bang notwithstanding the universe was not created from nothing by a thing but always was (like God) which is why it is infinite and that is the real puzzle.

true. it always has been. but that's another question/answer to be asked/found maybe before our own big bang creation comes to an end.
the big bang only explains our part of the universe, not the whole picture.
after all, we can't see beyond a certain point.

 

[Federali Aundy]

no, that is the universe that is infinite. matter only exists where it does. at our given perception, it is only our seeable universe.

But you don't believe in a the immaterial. Everything that is, in your materialist philosophy, is matter and matter only. Therefore, if the universe is infinite and made of only matter, then it logically follows that there is an infinite amount of matter. My argument is that infinity cannot be acheived by anything finite because what is finite is by definition not infinite. Therefore, to speak of an infinite universe made of finite parts is a self-contradiction. Thus for you to say "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" is utterly an empty statement for it doesn't take "scientific" evidence to know that 2+2=4 or that "finite" is not "infinite". In other words, I have logically shown your position false without need for some new model of the universe or physical discovery. Your materialism is by definition a self-contradiction.

i've never come across anything stating we live in a closed universe.

And you haven't found anything stating that we live in an open universe either. Scientists don't know for sure because of our limited seeing ability into the universe. But even if we live in an open universe (i.e. the space expands without rather than within) that still doesn't prove an infinite universe.

the universe is eternal, infinite. you keep wanting to minimize it to only that which we see. which allows you to keep your god is bigger arguement.

Nope. I'm just using logic. Logic is "bigger" than the universe because even the universe can't break the rules of sound logic.

really. you must be an amazing astronomer to have the answers to the cosmos and it's construction all figured out. this is what makes you in(un)credible in your arguement.

So you disagree with me when I say that: "...the universe is made of parts"?

a few thousand years ago the heavens(cosmos) lay just above the earth. a tower just about touched it. i prefer not to scripturally limit myself.

Can you show me where I quoted scripture to you personally in order to prove my point? I can only find recourse to deductive logic in my dialogue with you thus far, sir.

what divine attributes? they are what you give god. the universe is naturally endowed with them.

Not even God can be self-creative - but you give the universe the ability to create itself from nothing. This is utterly non-sensical. You need to show me how the universe can logically possess the fanciful power you ascribe it.

 

[Federali Aundy]

However the ideas of 'heaven and hell' aren't based on reason are they?

Well it depends how detailed you want to get regarding what heaven and hell consist of. My conception of heaven also consists of such things as Purgatory, the Communion of Saints, and the Beatific Vision. These are matters of dogma and cannot be proven true via the scientific method. They can, however, be shown to be reasonable and consistent rather than unreasonable and inconsistent. So it all depends on how far you want to take your epistemology. I think an argument for an afterlife can be made on reason alone, but reason can't get you much farther than that.

Jesus is unique to this universe - he became material - through Mary - who is also unique to this universe.

So this is becoming very theological, but here we go.

We should note the distinction between Jesus' existence as the Son of God for eternity before ever becoming a human being. His humanity is certainly unique to this universe, but His divinity now radically changes humanity so that humanity can share in, or participate in, his divinity because He has shared and participated in our humanity. We do this by being "born again" into his body, the Church. Once we have entered into Him we can have eternal life as the adopted children of God, as adopted sons in the one Son.

Without the 'material' contribution of Mary - no Jesus - just "son as self-thought of God". This universe is necessary to complete the trinity - to create Jesus. Otherwise, why not just 'pop' Jesus in?

Mary certainly important. In fact, she is so important that Catholics call her the "theo-tokos" or Mother of God. The Son of God was certainly not going to simply "pop" in but actually be genetically brought into the human race through a pure and spotless woman befitting of carrying the divine presence as the Ark of the Covenent did to a lesser degree in the Old Testament. That being said, the incarnation of God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ did not "complete" the Trinity for the Trinity had long existed prior to the creation of the universe.

However, God thought it necessary to combine with the universe (through Mary) to complete Jesus - his son.

It's important not to think that God the Son was somehow incomplete before becoming Man as if something was added to God through the incarnation. Rather we should see that God elevated the human race and perfected our nature through drawing humanity into Himself via the incarnation. We are naturally incapable to supernaturally unite ourselves to God - so God did the work and calls all men to Himself by drawing humanity into Himself and giving it a greater dignity by allowing us to "be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

But his 'humanist' qualities are part of what defines him as the Son of God - because he also must be the Son of Man.

We could say that he "must be the Son of Man" only because God promised this to the human race through the many covenant oaths of the Old Testament. But this is an utter gift from God rather than a necessity, for we may recall that God existed in eternity without a material existence and thus the need for this infinte and omnipotent God to share in lowly finite matter would be no where necessary. But He does so in order to save us from sin and form us in battle to deliver the final blow to our Enemy: the Devil.

 

[hrmwrm]

But you don't believe in a the immaterial.

? you mean i don't believe in the supernatural?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" is utterly an empty statement for it doesn't take "scientific" evidence to know that 2+2=4 or that "

where does it state scientific evidence? it states evidence, not philosophical statements. evidence for the supernatural is?
2+2=4 is self evident from our laws of math.

Therefore, if the universe is infinite and made of only matter, then it logically follows that there is an infinite amount of matter.

actually, there is a lot of space. matter is only a part.

My argument is that infinity cannot be acheived by anything finite because what is finite is by definition not infinite.

you've made an arguement for each particle as finite, not the volume of matter.
you haven't shown how the universe cannot be infinite. evidence?

And you haven't found anything stating that we live in an open universe either. Scientists don't know for sure because of our limited seeing ability into the universe. But even if we live in an open universe (i.e. the space expands without rather than within) that still doesn't prove an infinite universe.

then where is the end, and in what realm does that end reside in.
and where is the end of that realm where our universe ends.
even if we are but an atomic experiment in a large lab somewhere, it must reside on a planet, which exists in space, which resides in a universe, which has an end, which resides in what realm?
infinity is pretty much a given, but we just worry about our seeable universe.
god is a copout to an answer for a question that may be unanswerable.

Nope. I'm just using logic. Logic is "bigger" than the universe because even the universe can't break the rules of sound logic.

sound logic still comes up with an infinite universe.

So you disagree with me when I say that: "...the universe is made of parts"?

i guess i would need you to define parts. parts as in matter or parts as in sections?

Can you show me where I quoted scripture to you personally in order to prove my point? I can only find recourse to deductive logic in my dialogue with you thus far, sir.

you have no belief in the bible and jesus? why are we talking of god then.
it was merely to point to the ancient myth of god, which has been a part of many ancient cultures. i'm sure all are but myth to you, except your final one now.

Not even God can be self-creative - but you give the universe the ability to create itself from nothing. This is utterly non-sensical. You need to show me how the universe can logically possess the fanciful power you ascribe it.

take a look around. everything has a natural way. there is no supernatural within our world order. supernatural power has been shown to be the nonsensical. there is nowhere on this earth that it is needed to describe phenomenon. so why would i extrapolate a superstitious idea needed for the creation of the cosmos?
you do know that e=mc2 works backwards as well?

Not even God can be self-creative

yet you give him that power. where is it's beginning?

 

[hrmwrm]

some reading. the universe just got bigger.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/76
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ugging-galaxies-beyond-the-universes-horizon/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/25/trans-cosmic-flow-broadens-our-horizon/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310162829.htm

 

[shagdrum]

where does it state scientific evidence? it states evidence, not philosophical statements. evidence for the supernatural is?
2+2=4 is self evident from our laws of math.

The demand of evidence over logical proof is a demand for empirical evidence; a notion which is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

Also, 2+2=4 is not rooted in empirical evidence but in logical proof.

If you are going to demand empirical evidence over logical proof you have to justify that standard, yet you keep avoiding that. That is not only presumptuous but inhibits any honest discourse.

Know what you are talking about.

 

[hrmwrm]

If you are going to demand empirical evidence over logical proof you have to justify that standard, yet you keep avoiding that.

if you are only going to rely on a philosophical statement, then

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

surely if the supernatural exists, it can't be that hard to show instances of it, hmm?
i'm not demanding "empirical" and never have.
just as science can't empirically prove itself, it does have evidence to justify it's claims.
i only ask the same.
show something that's so far out of natural that it would have to be the working of god.
(and remember, quantum physics is pretty out there, but still doesn't justify the supernatural either)
mythology has had 6000 years(at least) of claiming supernatural, which turns to myth.
so why would i view your judeo/muslim/christian offering any differently?

come back when you have something besides word games and assertions.

If you are going to demand empirical evidence over logical proof you have to justify that standard, yet you keep avoiding that. That is not only presumptuous but inhibits any honest discourse.

yet that is exactly what you ask of science. who inhibits honest discourse? then there is the junk "science" creationist keep creating.
you want honest discourse, then even the playing field. but you won't, because you'd have no leg left to stand on.
i'm done.

 

[shagdrum]

if you are only going to rely on a philosophical statement...

yet that is exactly what you ask of science....

:Bang

Do you not see that you are effectively asking me to prove a negative?! I have been pointing out for months that you need to justify your materialist assumptions and the empirical evidence that is the standard of judgment under those assumptions. Instead of doing that, you are now demanding that I prove that empirical evidence should not be the standard of judgment.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.​

You seem to think that the issue is relying on empirical evidence or relying on philosophical ideas. But the notion that empirical evidence is somehow more valid is, itself, a philosophical notion. So your implicit separation of the two is a false dichotomy.

The issue is whether or not the philosophical notion of empirical evidence should be relied on over other forms of philosophical reasoning. Philosophy and science are not separate.

You CAN NOT prove that philosophy should be relied on over empirical evidence because relying on empirical evidence IS relying on philosophy. Therefore your implicit demand that I prove that philosophy should be relied on over empirical evidence is effectively a demand that I prove that empirical evidence should not be relied on over other philosophical notions. It is a demand that CAN NOT be met because the question inherently misrepresents things.

BTW, If you are going to reject philosophy then you have to reject ANY AND EVERY bit of empirical evidence presented as well. You cannot reject philosophy and accept any empirical evidence without demonstrating a hypocritical and clearly dishonest double standard.

Why are you so scared of a philosophical discussion?

 

[Federali Aundy]

? you mean i don't believe in the supernatural?

I'm assuming that question is rhetorical...

it states evidence, not philosophical statements. evidence for the supernatural is? 2+2=4 is self evident from our laws of math.

As shag points out so well, we are not dealing with the laws of math but the laws of logic. The laws of deductive logic serve as prerequisites to scientific discovery. Indeed, without deduction one cannot offer any theories or hypotheses of any kind. Thus we are not talking about "word games and assertions" here but rather about the fundamental laws of philosophy that govern not only matter but spirit as well.

actually, there is a lot of space. matter is only a part.

I take it you are referring to the "realm" beyond the expanse of the physical universe. Sadly, however, if you were to define this realm you would say that it has no physical things in it of any kind; no particles, no microbes, no stars. I would say that that definition neither describes the universe nor infinity. It describes no-thing. Indeed your definition becomes the best definition of nothing I have ever heard. You cannot prove the existence of an infinite universe by recourse to the "Argument from Nothing".

you've made an arguement for each particle as finite, not the volume of matter. you haven't shown how the universe cannot be infinite. evidence? ...infinity is pretty much a given

Well if the universe were infinite, it would have always been infinitely large. The sciences tell us, however, that at the moment of the Big Bang the size of the universe was about the size of my fist. Super dense and super compact is most definitely finite. As I also pointed out to foxpaws, if the universe is infinite then it is infinitely old. Thus there was an infinite amount of time for things to happen and indeed all possible outcomes would have had time to occur, including universal death. But we are alive. Therefore the universe is not infinite.

we just worry about our seeable universe.

How scientific of you. Thankfully philosophy can make clear, reasonable, and logical statements about what goes on outside the seeable universe. But even the news stories you provided include scientists musing about what is pulling (or pushing) the material of the "dark flow" outside our seeable universe. There's more to science and philosophy than what is directly observable.

god is a copout to an answer for a question that may be unanswerable

Some things may not be scientifically answerable but yet self-evident. The statement of Parmenides that "from nothing only nothing comes" is not testable in a scientific laboratory - but it is true nonetheless. By applying such metaphysical truths to our universe we can arrive a transcendent, immaterial cause of our universe. We call Him God. There's nothing irrational about that and anything less is worse than a copout: it's a self-contradiction.

sound logic still comes up with an infinite universe.

Really? I have given you syllogism upon syllogism of actual logical argument that supports my claim. Can you please provide me with one, sir? (FYI this would include two propositions which, taken together, lead deductively to a conclusion)

i guess i would need you to define parts. parts as in matter or parts as in sections?

Well, both. But parts as in matter is the most fundamental of the two.

you have no belief in the bible and jesus? why are we talking of god then.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with our dialogue on universal origins. Furthermore, to say that God created the universe does not prove "the bible and jesus" - all it does is disprove your atheism. If you want to discuss the Bible and Jesus, we can do that somewhere else.

supernatural power has been shown to be the nonsensical. there is nowhere on this earth that it is needed to describe phenomenon.

First of all, I still need you to give me a single syllogism which proves your point. Second of all, I didn't ask you to believe that supernatural phenomena explain the natural occurences of the universe. I am speaking of how the material universe could get going in the first place. This is the fundamental question of which you have given no argument to base your claim.

Nevertheless, given my argument, you could say that the natural occurences of the universe have a supernatural form insofar as the initial act of the creation of the universe was supernatural. In such a way, everything we see uccurs via a secondary supernatural cause, though the primary cause is natural.

yet you give him that power [of self-creation]. where is it's beginning?

I did no such thing. I said God's nature is existence itself. God does not create Himself because God simply is. Such a statement can be true only of God precisely because God is not made of matter. Matter is intrinsically finite, taking up space and time. Thus when we speak of matter, we must speak of cause and effect because cause and effect are bound to space and time. Yet you apply such illogical notions to the universe. Thus your view is not only irrational, but self-contradictory and utterly unreasonable and unscientific.

why would i view your judeo/muslim/christian offering any differently?

You sir are the only one bringing up Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. We are talking about reason, science, philosophy, and "mere" God, not the God of any particular religious tradition. Let's stick to the topic at hand instead of attempting to divert it away from the fact that your views are not grounded in reason or anything that can call itself science.

 

[foxpaws]

I think an argument for an afterlife can be made on reason alone, but reason can't get you much farther than that.

Well at least we agree that heaven and hell aren't really 'reasonable'. I still don't think you could even get to the afterlife on 'reason'. What makes you think you can?

We should note the distinction between Jesus' existence as the Son of God for eternity before ever becoming a human being. His humanity is certainly unique to this universe, but His divinity now radically changes humanity so that humanity can share in, or participate in, his divinity because He has shared and participated in our humanity. We do this by being "born again" into his body, the Church. Once we have entered into Him we can have eternal life as the adopted children of God, as adopted sons in the one Son.

He was the Son of God before Mary, it was only after he was born he became 'Jesus'. Without our universe 'Jesus' wouldn't exist. Our universe has created a unique view of the Son of God.

That being said, the incarnation of God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ did not "complete" the Trinity for the Trinity had long existed prior to the creation of the universe.

A different 'Trinity' - our 'Trinity' needs our 'Universe' to complete it. Jesus is in 'our Trinity' making it unique, a combination of God and universe.

It's important not to think that God the Son was somehow incomplete before becoming Man as if something was added to God through the incarnation. Rather we should see that God elevated the human race and perfected our nature through drawing humanity into Himself via the incarnation. We are naturally incapable to supernaturally unite ourselves to God - so God did the work and calls all men to Himself by drawing humanity into Himself and giving it a greater dignity by allowing us to "be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Not incomplete - but different.

 

[04SCTLS]

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/ts_nm/us_pope_bigbang

By Philip Pullella Philip Pullella – Thu Jan 6, 8:43 am ET
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, said on Thursday.
"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.
"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in on the feast day.

While the pope has spoken before about evolution, he has rarely delved back in time to discuss specific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.
Researchers at CERN, the nuclear research center in Geneva, have been smashing protons together at near the speed of light to simulate conditions that they believe brought into existence the primordial universe from which stars, planets and life on earth -- and perhaps elsewhere -- eventually emerged.

Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.
"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.

Benedict and his have been trying to shed the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.
Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.
The church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the created the world.

But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

_______________________________________________________________

Even the Catholic Church doesn't believe in young earth creationism like evangelicals do.
I suppose it was just becoming embarassing.
So the Big Bang was God, eh?
Religion co opting science.

 

[Federali Aundy]

God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, said on Thursday.

I am often surprised at how poorly reporting is done about two kinds of stories: sports and religion. Often times this is because the former is written by people who know a lot about sports but nothing about writing while the latter is written by people who know a lot about writing but nothing about religion.

Nevertheless this story is far better than some I've seen. Take these headlines for example:

"God was responsible for the Big Bang, not science, says Pope Benedict"
(www.dailymail.co.uk)

"Pope challenges Big Bang theory" (www.presstv.ir)

Both of these titles fail to realize important facts at least about the Catholic Church and science. The first title seems to believe that "science" made the the universe when in fact science is merely a tool used to discover facts about the universe. The second fails to recognize that the Big Bang theory was not only postulated by a Catholic, but the man was a Catholic priest: Fr. Georges Lemaître. In fact, the other major game-changer when it comes to outer space was the idea that the Earth orbited the sun. Sadly, credit for this often goes to Galileo when it was another Catholic priest - Copernicus - who actually came up with it. And on a side note, we can also mention that it was a Catholic monk named Mendel who is the Father of Biology and yet another Catholic who is considered to be the Father of Mordern Biology.

So can we finally put to rest the tired notion that the Catholic Church is opposed to science?

Maybe not. As the story reads:

Benedict and his have been trying to shed the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.

Why is Galileo always and ONLY brought up as "proof" that the Catholic Church is "anti-science"? Can anyone name any other famous case of scientists getting in trouble for their theories? Besides, Galelio wasn't condemned "for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun" - Copernicus had already offered this teaching with no problem from the Church. Galileo questioned the existence of miracles and that's what got him in trouble.

But no one talks about that.

The church no longer teaches creationism

And it never did.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Well at least we agree that heaven and hell aren't really 'reasonable'.

Well I certainly never said they were unreasonable, I just said that reason alone cannot prove the existence of a heaven for the good and a hell for the bad. Reason can simply say: there is an afterlife (see below for more on this). It cannot prove "two" afterlife's. But perhaps you could say that heaven and hell make up one reality which is expressed in two ways, like a single coin with two sides. In such a way we can say that heaven is the experience of God's love as mercy while hell is the experience of God's love as justice. I'm not too sure on this, but it is certainly 'reasonable' by my lights.

I still don't think you could even get to the afterlife on 'reason'. What makes you think you can?

Because matter is by nature unable to do the things we can as persons. Abstract thought is what makes man different from the animals. The fact that we can hold two ideas in our minds is evidence of some transcendent, non-material aspect of ourselves. People can talk all they want about the brain, but they speak only of either a) the mind's physical manifestation or 2) the tool the mind uses to interact with the physical realm. In either case, since the mind is now immaterial and alive, there is no reason why the body's death automatically entails the soul's death as well.

He was the Son of God before Mary, it was only after he was born he became 'Jesus'. Without our universe 'Jesus' wouldn't exist. Our universe has created a unique view of the Son of God... A different 'Trinity' - our 'Trinity' needs our 'Universe' to complete it. Jesus is in 'our Trinity' making it unique, a combination of God and universe...Not incomplete - but different.

Two questions: 1) Where are you coming up with all this? and 2) What difference does it make?

Here's the thing about religious beliefs. Authentic religious beliefs can't just be "made up" by an individual on a whim. Furthermore, if the view postulated by the belief doesn't make any real difference, what good does it serve?

 

[hrmwrm]

I'm assuming that question is rhetorical...

no, just clarifying. you'd correct if my assumption was wrong.

, however, if you were to define this realm you would say that it has no physical things in it of any kind; no particles, no microbes, no stars.

mighty presumptuous. you can prove that statement?

Well if the universe were infinite, it would have always been infinitely large.

i assume infinite would go beyond large.

The sciences tell us, however, that at the moment of the Big Bang the size of the universe was about the size of my fist.

wrong. it is called a singularity. i've heard many sizes implied. none would be accurate.

Super dense and super compact is most definitely finite.

you're still limiting to our seeable part.

Thus there was an infinite amount of time for things to happen and indeed all possible outcomes would have had time to occur, including universal death.

who says it hasn't?

But we are alive. Therefore the universe is not infinite.

that makes sense. (i am being facetious)

There's more to science and philosophy than what is directly observable.

the universe too. it doesn't just end where we can see.

Some things may not be scientifically answerable but yet self-evident. The statement of Parmenides that "from nothing only nothing comes" is not testable in a scientific laboratory - but it is true nonetheless. By applying such metaphysical truths to our universe we can arrive a transcendent, immaterial cause of our universe. We call Him God.

and i call it a big bang, which is energy to matter. yet god comes from nothing.

Really? I have given you syllogism upon syllogism of actual logical argument that supports my claim. Can you please provide me with one, sir?

i have. maybe you have answers for me if it isn't infinite.

First of all, I still need you to give me a single syllogism which proves your point. Second of all, I didn't ask you to believe that supernatural phenomena explain the natural occurences of the universe. I am speaking of how the material universe could get going in the first place. This is the fundamental question of which you have given no argument to base your claim.

i have, but your circular logic refuses to see it.
if there are no present or ongoing supernatural phenomenon, then why would i believe the "big bang" is? you keep applying something to one situation that you haven't proven exists in the natural universe in the first place.

God does not create Himself because God simply is

when you prove the supernatural is possible, then prove it is the only choice, then you have an arguement.

Such a statement can be true only of God precisely because God is not made of matter. Matter is intrinsically finite, taking up space and time. Thus when we speak of matter, we must speak of cause and effect because cause and effect are bound to space and time. Yet you apply such illogical notions to the universe. Thus your view is not only irrational, but self-contradictory and utterly unreasonable and unscientific.

space is not made of matter. it is filled with matter. so space can have no limits by your reasoning.
god is made of nothing, but is something.
yeah. that's rational and not contradictory.

 

[foxpaws]

Here's the thing about religious beliefs. Authentic religious beliefs can't just be "made up" by an individual on a whim. Furthermore, if the view postulated by the belief doesn't make any real difference, what good does it serve?

This is very interesting Federali - in your mind - what constitutes "Authentic Religious Beliefs"?

And in this case - Jesus being tied to the universe - creates the idea that God is in the universe as well as outside the universe - that does make a real difference doesn't it?