I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
An 87 year old guy with Dementia changed him mind on his death bed. Notice he didn't do so when he had his full mental capacity, and the piss and vinegar to fight back.
This is all you have?
As for Atkins, I discounted a single statement he made 40 years ago that I feel is an over reach.
Just because someone else is an atheist, or former atheist does not mean I have to accept any or all of their positions.
If you had some real evidence for your God, you would present it, but you don't, and that's why you keep sending these strawmen.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The issue is not the lack of evidence. The issuse is there is no is evidence they will accept. If the evidence points to intelligence, it will be rejected.
One could satirize the atheist's rejection of evidence of an eternal Logos could be demonstrated by the following:
Atheist, "I see no evidence for the number 4."
Reasoning, "It appears that 3 + 1 = 4"
Atheist, "You simpleton, you are delusional. You have not provided any evidence for the number 4."
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
The issue is not the lack of evidence. The issuse is there is no is evidence they will accept. If the evidence points to intelligence, it will be rejected.
One could satirize the atheist's rejection of evidence of an eternal Logos could be demonstrated by the following:
Atheist, "I see no evidence for the number 4."
Reasoning, "It appears that 3 + 1 = 4"
Atheist, "You simpleton, you are delusional. You have not provided any evidence for the number 4."
You are of course correct. Romans 1:19-21
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
An 87 year old guy with Dementia changed him mind on his death bed. Notice he didn't do so when he had his full mental capacity, and the piss and vinegar to fight back.
This is all you have?
As for Atkins, I discounted a single statement he made 40 years ago that I feel is an over reach.
Just because someone else is an atheist, or former atheist does not mean I have to accept any or all of their positions.
If you had some real evidence for your God, you would present it, but you don't, and that's why you keep sending these strawmen.
1. You are the most compelling evidence that at least some Atheists are less honest than Christians.
Contrary to your assertion that Flew changed his mind "on his death bed." The fact is, and I quote, "However in 2004, he (Flew) shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in God.
This came 6 years before his death. Further, he had the mental capacity to discuss and elaborate his position prior to his death.
It is my opinion that you are so blinded with your own ideology, and so addicted to debating it, that it renders you somewhat incapable of intellectual honesty.
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
If you can make the hypothesis that God has always existed, why can't someone else hypothesize that gravity has always existed?
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
The question is, for lack of a better phrase, wrong-headed.
The reason. The question could be phrased, "You believe a Creator (God) created you. Who created the Creator (God)?
If the above is a legitimate question, the question could also be rephrased. "You believe that the universe created you. Who created the universe?"
The question becomes a circular argumet (or more apply put) an "I-got-you" question for those who do not want to believe in a Creator who has always been. Yet many of the same people are perfectly willing to accept that whatever material it was that created our universe...and us...has always been.
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
If you can make the hypothesis that God has always existed, why can't someone else hypothesize that gravity has always existed?
I thought about your response a bit more. I think you do get it.
TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Religion is one thing, but a relationship with the God who made you is something else entirely. There *is* a difference.
Why would you want a personal relationship with this guy:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Do you have any 'original' thoughts on this matter antelope_sniper...? "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
One would expect something other than verbatim plagierism from one who has boasted about having "more developed logic and reasoning skills" than others...!
I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
TF,
You began your post with not one, but two logical fallacies. First you presented an False dichotomy, presenting something from nothing, and your Creator as the only two options for the beginning of the universe. These are not the only two ideas currently floating around, so it possible both of these are wrong, and some other idea is correct. It's for this reason that even if Krauss's universe from nothing is dis-proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the correct answer is your God.
Next you committee the fallacy of equivocation. You claim the title is a lie, but Krauss clearly defines what, in scientific terms, he means by "nothing". It's very common for terms to have different meaning in science then they do in common everyday usage. Another example of this is the different definitions of the work "theory" that we've discussed before.
As for your discussion about the laws of gravity, again you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Our scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE, they are not PRESCRIPTIVE. Nobody passed a law in congress and said "this is how the universe shall act". Instead, Scientist observed the natural world and wrote laws that DESCRIBE what they observed. The universe does what it is going to do, we just have methods to describe it.
So we can rephrase your quote of Hawkings as "given our understanding of gravity",....
As for your grade school understanding of gravity, there is a lot more to it then that. As a couple of examples, gravity can act in strange way within a singularity, and gravity can produce negative energy. This negative energy from gravity, couples with a flat universe, is one of the necessary conditions for the current "universe from nothing" hypothesis to be mathematically plausible.
Next you strawman that "concepts" of distance and mass are required before the big bang, however a concept is just an abstract idea. The mass of empty space if real, regardless of whether we are here to conceptualize it or not.
As for energy, I guess you missed the part where gravity can create negative energy. What happens when you have the same amounts of both positive and negative energy in the universe? The result is a Universe with zero total energy. According to our current models, such a universe could be self creating, because it would be consistent with the principle of conservation of energy, since no energy is either created or destroyed. As I understand it, these are the condition leading to spontaneous creation discussed by Hawkins.
So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. These scientist are not proving the Bible with the Bible, they are supporting a current concept with past observations.
Really, you whole post if little more then one long argument from ignorance, which you wrap up with an argument from personal incredibility, and it the process you present zero evidence for your God.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Religion is one thing, but a relationship with the God who made you is something else entirely. There *is* a difference.
Why would you want a personal relationship with this guy:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Do you have any 'original' thoughts on this matter antelope_sniper...?
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
One would expect something other than verbatim plagierism from one who has boasted about having "more developed logic and reasoning skills" than others...!
I'd come to that same conclusion long before I'd ever head of Dawkins, as I said in my original post, he just said it better then I could. I gave credit, so there is no plagiarism.
If you care to dispute the quote, let's see what you got!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
If you can make the hypothesis that God has always existed, why can't someone else hypothesize that gravity has always existed?
Fair question, and I thank you for what seems to be an offer of friendly discourse. Please allow me to answer this way. One can offer evidence for both hypothecies. In the end, one chooses what she/he believes or accepts.
I would, if I may, like to suggest, in the spirit of friendly discorse, that when it comes to the subject of gravity, we have evidence of what it does...however, do you know of any evidence of what it is?
I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
TF,
You began your post with not one, but two logical fallacies. First you presented an False dichotomy, presenting something from nothing, and your Creator as the only two options for the beginning of the universe. These are not the only two ideas currently floating around, so it possible both of these are wrong, and some other idea is correct. It's for this reason that even if Krauss's universe from nothing is dis-proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the correct answer is your God.
Next you committee the fallacy of equivocation. You claim the title is a lie, but Krauss clearly defines what, in scientific terms, he means by "nothing". It's very common for terms to have different meaning in science then they do in common everyday usage. Another example of this is the different definitions of the work "theory" that we've discussed before.
As for your discussion about the laws of gravity, again you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Our scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE, they are not PRESCRIPTIVE. Nobody passed a law in congress and said "this is how the universe shall act". Instead, Scientist observed the natural world and wrote laws that DESCRIBE what they observed. The universe does what it is going to do, we just have methods to describe it.
So we can rephrase your quote of Hawkings as "given our understanding of gravity",....
As for your grade school understanding of gravity, there is a lot more to it then that. As a couple of examples, gravity can act in strange way within a singularity, and gravity can produce negative energy. This negative energy from gravity, couples with a flat universe, is one of the necessary conditions for the current "universe from nothing" hypothesis to be mathematically plausible.
Next you strawman that "concepts" of distance and mass are required before the big bang, however a concept is just an abstract idea. The mass of empty space if real, regardless of whether we are here to conceptualize it or not.
As for energy, I guess you missed the part where gravity can create negative energy. What happens when you have the same amounts of both positive and negative energy in the universe? The result is a Universe with zero total energy. According to our current models, such a universe could be self creating, because it would be consistent with the principle of conservation of energy, since no energy is either created or destroyed. As I understand it, these are the condition leading to spontaneous creation discussed by Hawkins.
So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. These scientist are not proving the Bible with the Bible, they are supporting a current concept with past observations.
Really, you whole post if little more then one long argument from ignorance, which you wrap up with an argument from personal incredibility, and it the process you present zero evidence for your God.
You attack me instead of the idea and the content of the post. Typical of you. So many words. So little meaning.
Let me ask you. How did the universe come into being?
Seems like you are saying, well we don't know but that is here is not evidence of a Creator. Well, the universe is here, what is that evidence of?
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
You have not "searched" for God in the only place He can be.
Your studies of various religions was an exercise in futility if your true aim was to find God.
So are you saying that God is an obligant symbiont? First I've heard of an Omnipotent being as such.
Curdog, lets consider what you are saying.
If God can only exist within a person, he is not omnipresent, nor can he exist outside space and time. Since by your definition he cannot reside outside space and time, you've disqualified him as the first cause.
There is a huge difference between WHERE God CAN be....... and the only place He can be FOUND.
He IS everywhere.
But one can only "find" Him inside one's self.
He can only respond to an open mind. Not because of any limitation on His part... but because of OUR limitations.
He can't be comprehended...He can be apprehended.
But only when one has enough humility to open his mind to the possibility.
Your demands for evidence are similar to a flea demanding that the elephant reveal himself, when he has spent his entire life living on that elephant.
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
Maybe in the same way God could not exist until we though him up.
