Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No need for God

janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:22:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Universe can exist alone eternally, therefore, there is no need for a creator.

Theists claim God can exist eternally, without a creator. I claim the Universe can. A creator God is just extra, unnessessary step. Why add unnessessary complexity?

A self-existing universe is simple. Why bother to make things more complicated than they have to be?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:22:21 PM, janesix wrote:
The Universe can exist alone eternally, therefore, there is no need for a creator.

Theists claim God can exist eternally, without a creator. I claim the Universe can. A creator God is just extra, unnessessary step. Why add unnessessary complexity?

A self-existing universe is simple. Why bother to make things more complicated than they have to be?

It is not about making things complicated, it is about becoming aware of the truth. The truth is not complicated, you believe having a Creator makes things complicated therefore that is what you will think but it is not, it is only logical not complicated.

There is absolutely nothing about the concept of creation that is complicated, everything fits in harmony and flows effortlessly from just about every angle of the concept of a Creator Being.
This OP is merely an opinion of course.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:33:11 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:22:21 PM, janesix wrote:
The Universe can exist alone eternally, therefore, there is no need for a creator.

Theists claim God can exist eternally, without a creator. I claim the Universe can. A creator God is just extra, unnessessary step. Why add unnessessary complexity?

A self-existing universe is simple. Why bother to make things more complicated than they have to be?

It is not about making things complicated, it is about becoming aware of the truth. The truth is not complicated, you believe having a Creator makes things complicated therefore that is what you will think but it is not, it is only logical not complicated.

There is absolutely nothing about the concept of creation that is complicated, everything fits in harmony and flows effortlessly from just about every angle of the concept of a Creator Being.
This OP is merely an opinion of course.

How is bringing God into the situation "logical"? Is there some kind of need for a creator?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 1:14:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.

There is ample evidence for a torus universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And no evidence that disproves it.

ALL options are illogical. A Universe created by an eternal, omnipotent being is illogical as well. The only "logical" option is that nothing exists at all,and that is not a real option, because things exist.

All I am saying is, God is an unessessary complexity if the Universe is eternal,and the evidence doesn't exclude that option.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 1:14:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.

There is ample evidence for a torus universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And no evidence that disproves it.

ALL options are illogical. A Universe created by an eternal, omnipotent being is illogical as well. The only "logical" option is that nothing exists at all,and that is not a real option, because things exist.

All I am saying is, God is an unessessary complexity if the Universe is eternal,and the evidence doesn't exclude that option.

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 1:38:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Since when is the BB the beginning of the universe?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 1:45:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 1:38:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Since when is the BB the beginning of the universe?

it might as well be.

"The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov...

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 2:19:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 1:45:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:38:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem
Not on eternalism.

because without God, all actions are deterministic.
Non-sequitur.


Since when is the BB the beginning of the universe?

it might as well be.

"The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov...

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

The big bang is the beginning of expansion. Space does not need anything to expand into other than itself.
The singularity that is hinted at is more or less referring to a stage of the universe where we have no clue what's going on other than the fact that our modells completely fail.

It's quite funny how Hawking appeals to Popper when he says "The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory" considering Popper's falsificationism was rejected on the basis that it renders all of science unscientific. Starting with cosmology.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:22:21 PM, janesix wrote:
The Universe can exist alone eternally, therefore, there is no need for a creator.

Theists claim God can exist eternally, without a creator. I claim the Universe can. A creator God is just extra, unnecessary step. Why add unnessessary complexity?

A self-existing universe is simple. Why bother to make things more complicated than they have to be?

You sir are correct!

There is no need for a God in any explanation for the origin of life, or how we got here or even why we are here. There is not one shred, one iota of proof of a Creator. Or even a good argument. (The best one I have heard for a Deistic, non-personal God, am ID Creator, has ONE argument regarding something called "Irreducible Complexity" which I used to entertain sometimes, but after doing some research, have dismissed.

As have most Biologists.

But that is only for a Deistic and NOT a Theistic, personal, biblical sort of god. The one of the Christians and the mooslims.

they have nothing. Nothing! Except of course for their respective holy books, which are mostly blond-ridden works of mythology, and not to EVER be confused with an actual science, or even a history book.

Good thread!

Drew.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:26:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Not if Time also began with the Big Bang.

As it probably did, since it is NOT merely a linear passing of events but rather a Physical entity--and a part of the Fabric of the STC.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 4:56:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 2:19:18 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:45:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:38:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem
Not on eternalism.

Why not? Causality still applies whether the universe had a beginning or not.

because without God, all actions are deterministic.
Non-sequitur.

well if God doesn't exist, the mind emerged from the physical. So either our mind is physical, and therefore deterministic, or our mind is metaphysical and a product of the physical (leaving an interaction problem). So I guess you could argue that dualism is one way to grant free will under an atheistic worldview but it doesn't make much sense for the physical to affect and interact with the meta-physical.


Since when is the BB the beginning of the universe?

it might as well be.

"The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov...

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

The big bang is the beginning of expansion. Space does not need anything to expand into other than itself.
The singularity that is hinted at is more or less referring to a stage of the universe where we have no clue what's going on other than the fact that our modells completely fail.

It's quite funny how Hawking appeals to Popper when he says "The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory" considering Popper's falsificationism was rejected on the basis that it renders all of science unscientific. Starting with cosmology.

The Big Bang does refer to the expansion but it's widely accepted, even by atheists, that there's no reason to believe it wasn't the beginning of the universe.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 4:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Not if Time also began with the Big Bang.

As it probably did, since it is NOT merely a linear passing of events but rather a Physical entity--and a part of the Fabric of the STC.

Then that would render eternalism false (if all causes are required to occur in time). Otherwise nothing could've caused the Big Bang.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Why is infinite regress a problem?
Why do humans insist that something which is most likely eternal and infinite must have a beginning?

An eternal God runs into the same infinite regress problems as an eternal universe.

If humans insist that all things must have a beginning, they are basically implying that infinity, eternity and something without boundaries cannot exist.

If something infinite and eternal does exist, why does it need to be an invisible supernatural character? If the character is a personification of something that does exist in reality, logically we should all be able to see and understand that eternal thing in reality. The name or label you apply to it is irrelevant. Either something eternal and infinite exists or it does not.

Then on the other hand it could be that it appears to exist and also appears to not exist at the same time. It is this illusion of appearing to exist and not exist at the same time which creates confusion in humans minds which cannot comprehend the illusion.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:14:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

Constantly recycling matter seems to be the most logical solution and means the universe as a whole had no beginning at all in spite of consisting of things which appear to have a beginning and end.
It would mean all things are eternal yet appear to be finite.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:17:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:10:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Why is infinite regress a problem?
Why do humans insist that something which is most likely eternal and infinite must have a beginning?

An eternal God runs into the same infinite regress problems as an eternal universe.

If humans insist that all things must have a beginning, they are basically implying that infinity, eternity and something without boundaries cannot exist.

If something infinite and eternal does exist, why does it need to be an invisible supernatural character? If the character is a personification of something that does exist in reality, logically we should all be able to see and understand that eternal thing in reality. The name or label you apply to it is irrelevant. Either something eternal and infinite exists or it does not.

Then on the other hand it could be that it appears to exist and also appears to not exist at the same time. It is this illusion of appearing to exist and not exist at the same time which creates confusion in humans minds which cannot comprehend the illusion

If an eternal God could create something out of will, then they don't have the same problem.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:19:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.

It is not illogical in the context of eternity and infinity or in the context of Energy which cannot be created or destroyed, recycling itself eternally.
It is only illogical in the context of finite thinking which believes all things must have a finite beginning and end.

Plenty of illusions can support illusions but don't be fooled by those illusions.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:25:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:14:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.

There is ample evidence for a torus universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And no evidence that disproves it.

ALL options are illogical. A Universe created by an eternal, omnipotent being is illogical as well. The only "logical" option is that nothing exists at all,and that is not a real option, because things exist.

All I am saying is, God is an unessessary complexity if the Universe is eternal,and the evidence doesn't exclude that option.

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.

How is the law of cause and effect violated in a universe which eternally recycles itself? Life is the cause and Life is is also the effect which is eternal and has always existed.
It makes no difference what you label that which has existed for all eternity. If that thing is both flesh ( physical, visible ) and spirit ( energy, invisible ) We should be able to see it in visible form as well as not see it in the invisible form even if we can still observe the effects of the invisible powers and forces.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:32:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:25:51 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:14:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:53:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:43:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

The evidence can just as easily suggest an eternal torus universe. This universe would be constantly recycling matter. There would be no real beginning or end.

I disagree. We have evidence that the cosmos are expanding and gravitational waves have been found that support the Big Bang theory. It's also compatible with Einstein's general theory of relativity. An eternal and cyclical universe requires an infinite amount of preceding causes for any action to occur. It's illogical.

There is ample evidence for a torus universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And no evidence that disproves it.

ALL options are illogical. A Universe created by an eternal, omnipotent being is illogical as well. The only "logical" option is that nothing exists at all,and that is not a real option, because things exist.

All I am saying is, God is an unessessary complexity if the Universe is eternal,and the evidence doesn't exclude that option.

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.

How is the law of cause and effect violated in a universe which eternally recycles itself? Life is the cause and Life is is also the effect which is eternal and has always existed.
It makes no difference what you label that which has existed for all eternity. If that thing is both flesh ( physical, visible ) and spirit ( energy, invisible ) We should be able to see it in visible form as well as not see it in the invisible form even if we can still observe the effects of the invisible powers and forces.

If your mother had an infinite amount of mothers, do you exist along infinity? Were you never born? Both are illogical.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:36:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 2:19:18 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:45:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:38:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem
Not on eternalism.

because without God, all actions are deterministic.
Non-sequitur.


Since when is the BB the beginning of the universe?

it might as well be.

"The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov...

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

The big bang is the beginning of expansion. Space does not need anything to expand into other than itself.

Expansion of what? How can infinite space expand at all? It has no boundaries to expand. Expansion implies an increase in size. You cannot increase infinity.

The singularity that is hinted at is more or less referring to a stage of the universe where we have no clue what's going on other than the fact that our modells completely fail.

Obviously science has no clue because they simply reject anything that the scientists decide makes no sense when it comes to trying to fit it into their finite boxes.

It's quite funny how Hawking appeals to Popper when he says "The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory" considering Popper's falsificationism was rejected on the basis that it renders all of science unscientific. Starting with cosmology.

When science rejects old or new ideas due to them not fitting in with current theories, it does indeed render science unscientific.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Not if Time also began with the Big Bang.

As it probably did, since it is NOT merely a linear passing of events but rather a Physical entity--and a part of the Fabric of the STC.

What if it's not finite. What if Time is eternal and infinite?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:17:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:10:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Why is infinite regress a problem?
Why do humans insist that something which is most likely eternal and infinite must have a beginning?

An eternal God runs into the same infinite regress problems as an eternal universe.

If humans insist that all things must have a beginning, they are basically implying that infinity, eternity and something without boundaries cannot exist.

If something infinite and eternal does exist, why does it need to be an invisible supernatural character? If the character is a personification of something that does exist in reality, logically we should all be able to see and understand that eternal thing in reality. The name or label you apply to it is irrelevant. Either something eternal and infinite exists or it does not.

Then on the other hand it could be that it appears to exist and also appears to not exist at the same time. It is this illusion of appearing to exist and not exist at the same time which creates confusion in humans minds which cannot comprehend the illusion

If an eternal God could create something out of will, then they don't have the same problem.

What if this "God" has no will of its own but is simply a self sustaining force ( energy) which appears to create and destroy itself at the very same time?
What IF this God IS ALL that exists today and has ever existed? That includes ALL that humans judge as positive as well as ALL that humans judge as negative?

Is your God some person who is separate from ALL or is your GOD ALL and IN ALL ?

Is Mother Nature separate from Nature or is she Nature itself?
Is God separate from ALL or is God ALL ?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:56:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:32:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:25:51 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.

How is the law of cause and effect violated in a universe which eternally recycles itself? Life is the cause and Life is is also the effect which is eternal and has always existed.
It makes no difference what you label that which has existed for all eternity. If that thing is both flesh ( physical, visible ) and spirit ( energy, invisible ) We should be able to see it in visible form as well as not see it in the invisible form even if we can still observe the effects of the invisible powers and forces.

If your mother had an infinite amount of mothers, do you exist along infinity? Were you never born? Both are illogical.

Then stop thinking illogically.
Yes I exist in infinity.
Yes I was born and Yes I die daily. I live and die at the very same time.
I have a mother who had a mother who had a mother etc etc etc in infinite regress for all eternity.
I was born and also became a mother of a child who became a mother of a child who will also one day become a mother.
I am merely a tiny piece of matter/ energy in an eternal cycle in which an infinite amount of mothers continue to reproduce children who end up also being mothers and fathers.
I am energy which cannot be created or destroyed. I was invisible energy before I was born ( became visible ) and I will again be invisible energy after this visible matter dissipates and becomes food which is consumed by the visible matter around it.

Eat me.
I AM food for thought.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:56:24 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:32:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:25:51 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.

How is the law of cause and effect violated in a universe which eternally recycles itself? Life is the cause and Life is is also the effect which is eternal and has always existed.
It makes no difference what you label that which has existed for all eternity. If that thing is both flesh ( physical, visible ) and spirit ( energy, invisible ) We should be able to see it in visible form as well as not see it in the invisible form even if we can still observe the effects of the invisible powers and forces.

If your mother had an infinite amount of mothers, do you exist along infinity? Were you never born? Both are illogical.

Then stop thinking illogically.
Yes I exist in infinity.
Yes I was born and Yes I die daily. I live and die at the very same time.
I have a mother who had a mother who had a mother etc etc etc in infinite regress for all eternity.
I was born and also became a mother of a child who became a mother of a child who will also one day become a mother.
I am merely a tiny piece of matter/ energy in an eternal cycle in which an infinite amount of mothers continue to reproduce children who end up also being mothers and fathers.
I am energy which cannot be created or destroyed. I was invisible energy before I was born ( became visible ) and I will again be invisible energy after this visible matter dissipates and becomes food which is consumed by the visible matter around it.

Eat me.
I AM food for thought.

Did you exist before your mother gave birth to you? Ask that question to your mother ad infinitum.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:12:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 5:38:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Not if Time also began with the Big Bang.

As it probably did, since it is NOT merely a linear passing of events but rather a Physical entity--and a part of the Fabric of the STC.

What if it's not finite. What if Time is eternal and infinite?

As Forrest Gump once said concerning a matter of metaphysics and Eschatology...

"I think maybe it's both." LOL.

Just my own humble opinion here, but DO think that as far was we're concerned, Time began with the Big Bang. AS it is a part of the STC that was created with it.

But I am also beginning to like the Multi-Verse Hypothesis, which talks about not only multi-dimensions--11 the last time I checked!--but also multiple universes. Each of them "popping" into existence with their own respective Big Bangs, and then expanding and expanding until gravity fails to hold them together.

And then the process begins all over again. Infinitely. Think of the surface of a boiling kettle of water.

Far a while conventional wisdom among Cosmologists said that our Universe's expansion would end in a Big Crunch. That is, expanding to a point and then collapsing upon itself into a huge black hole or some sort.

But that was before we discovered Dark Energy. Which along with Dark Matter we now believe comprises some 90% of the Universe. We discovered Dark Energy a decade or so ago when we saw that the galaxies were expanding away from each other faster than our then-known laws should allow them. It seemed there was some extra force pushing them away from each other.

Hence: Dark Energy.

So......we have our own time in our Universe, as it is created with our own Big Bang. But there is also an "infinite Time" that overarches all the Multi-verse. This is beyond our comprehension--just like being dead is. As we have gone our entire lives living with a finite and linear time which is merely a passing of events with a past present and future.

Our primate minds--evolved though they are--are simply not wired to accept a notion such as infinity, or infinite regress.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:02:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:56:24 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:32:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:25:51 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:24:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

That says nothing about the universe being eternal. All it shows is the hypothetical shape of the universe.

I agree though, any explanation for how we got here is going to be bizarre. The most supported maintstream theory is the Big Bang, so while the evidence doesn't exclude an eternal universe, it's not the most supported. Even if the universe WAS eternal, the law of cause and effect is violated. If God created the universe the law of cause and effect is not violated because it wasn't created deterministically.

How is the law of cause and effect violated in a universe which eternally recycles itself? Life is the cause and Life is is also the effect which is eternal and has always existed.
It makes no difference what you label that which has existed for all eternity. If that thing is both flesh ( physical, visible ) and spirit ( energy, invisible ) We should be able to see it in visible form as well as not see it in the invisible form even if we can still observe the effects of the invisible powers and forces.

If your mother had an infinite amount of mothers, do you exist along infinity? Were you never born? Both are illogical.

Then stop thinking illogically.
Yes I exist in infinity.
Yes I was born and Yes I die daily. I live and die at the very same time.
I have a mother who had a mother who had a mother etc etc etc in infinite regress for all eternity.
I was born and also became a mother of a child who became a mother of a child who will also one day become a mother.
I am merely a tiny piece of matter/ energy in an eternal cycle in which an infinite amount of mothers continue to reproduce children who end up also being mothers and fathers.
I am energy which cannot be created or destroyed. I was invisible energy before I was born ( became visible ) and I will again be invisible energy after this visible matter dissipates and becomes food which is consumed by the visible matter around it.

Eat me.
I AM food for thought.

Did you exist before your mother gave birth to you? Ask that question to your mother ad infinitum.

Yes I existed in her womb before she gave birth to me. She existed in her mothers womb before she gave birth to her and that works ad infinitum.
We were all in the seed of the seed before it.
We are the "wheel" in the middle of the "wheel". We are the Life in the middle of the Life which gives us Life and takes away our Life at the same time.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 7:23:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:12:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 5:38:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:39:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Mainstream scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. An eternal universe run into an infinite regress problem because without God, all actions are deterministic.

Not if Time also began with the Big Bang.

As it probably did, since it is NOT merely a linear passing of events but rather a Physical entity--and a part of the Fabric of the STC.

What if it's not finite. What if Time is eternal and infinite?


As Forrest Gump once said concerning a matter of metaphysics and Eschatology...

"I think maybe it's both." LOL.

I know that is correct. It is both at the same time.

Just my own humble opinion here, but DO think that as far was we're concerned, Time began with the Big Bang. AS it is a part of the STC that was created with it.

As far as YOU are concerned, that is obviously what you believe even though there is no absolute way to prove it.
You need to have FAITH to believe in the BB being the origin of the universe. It takes as much faith as belief in God as the origin of the universe.
IF the universe is energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it has no origin but has simply always existed and always recycles itself.

IF Time is eternal as well as APPEARING to be finite there is no way it has a finite beginning of itself any more than infinite space has a beginning of itself. To believe it does it the same as believing infinity has a beginning and end. It is sheer foolishness.
Any finite beginning or end is a man made measurement which is subject to human perception and relative to Earths movement in space which is limited to human understanding and reasoning but not limited in the sense of having any physical boundaries. Any "boundaries" in space are imagined by humans which place invisible boundaries on things. The measurement of time in human perception is a measurement of a very tiny part of infinity but can never be a measurement of all of infinity due to infinity having no beginning or end.
Infinity is made up of an infinite amount energy which keeps recycling itself through visible and invisible forms. The visible forms are measured by humans and seem to have various ages, sizes weights etc. However, the invisible cannot be aged. You cannot take energy which cannot be created or destroyed and claim it is "X" years old. IF you do you are claiming it once did not exist and was created at a specific point in time.

IF ALL things are simply recycled energy which cannot be created or destroyed then the ages of all things in existence are an illusion due to all things being energy and simply existing without beginning and end because their energy cannot be created or destroyed.

But I am also beginning to like the Multi-Verse Hypothesis, which talks about not only multi-dimensions--11 the last time I checked!--but also multiple universes. Each of them "popping" into existence with their own respective Big Bangs, and then expanding and expanding until gravity fails to hold them together.

Any multiverse hypothesis is science fiction and nothing but speculation. When space has no boundaries you cannot add more space that has no boundaries due to the original space being infinite. The multiverse idea is trying to add infinity to infinity . Foolish humans cannot even prove our own universe has a boundary in the first place. Any boundary in space is imaginary. However, obviously humans love to speculate.

And then the process begins all over again. Infinitely. Think of the surface of a boiling kettle of water.

Something that has no boundaries cannot expand.
A kettle of boiling water has boundaries.
The surface of water has boundaries.
Space has no boundaries. If you believe it has, please show them to me. Anyone can imagine imaginary boundaries but where are the physical boundaries? They are non existent as far as we know till someone decides to explore space and find the beginning or end if it. I doubt that will ever happen in all eternity since no man will ever live long enough to do it.
However, we can figure it out if we are indeed intelligent energy which cannot be created or destroyed. How long our bodies last is irrelevant to the math.

Far a while conventional wisdom among Cosmologists said that our Universe's expansion would end in a Big Crunch. That is, expanding to a point and then collapsing upon itself into a huge black hole or some sort.

But that was before we discovered Dark Energy. Which along with Dark Matter we now believe comprises some 90% of the Universe. We discovered Dark Energy a decade or so ago when we saw that the galaxies were expanding away from each other faster than our then-known laws should allow them. It seemed there was some extra force pushing them away from each other.

Hence: Dark Energy.

How about.... Hence an illusion which is fooling people who are trying to fit the illusion into current theories ?

So......we have our own time in our Universe, as it is created with our own Big Bang. But there is also an "infinite Time" that overarches all the Multi-verse. This is beyond our comprehension--just like being dead is. As we have gone our entire lives living with a finite and linear time which is merely a passing of events with a past present and future.

Being dead might be beyond my comprehension. However it is not beyond my imagination.
I can imagine that to be dead would be the same as it was before I knew what it was like to be alive.
I imagine it is simply a state of unawareness.
I imagine it is a state of subconsciousness or unconsciousness from which you never gain consciousness.

Our primate minds--evolved though they are--are simply not wired to accept a notion such as infinity, or infinite regress.

Yours might not be but mine apparently is since I have no trouble accepting that possibility. It actually makes the most sense to me.
Maybe my mind has evolved a higher intelligence than the primate minds which cannot accept that notion of infinity and eternity and all things being energy which was never created and can never be destroyed but simply IS and always WAS and always will be.

I understand it is difficult for undeveloped minds to accept things which can only be understood by developing maturity.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sky..

A couple of issues I have with your post....

You claim that it takes as much faith to believe in the BB as it does in god.

I disagree. Vehemently. The Big Bang theory has been backed up for years by scientific discoveries. Ever hear of CBR? Cosmic Background radiation? Discovered some 50 years ago (!) by a couple of Bell Labs techs? And then the COBE satellite? Which was in space for years and sent back reams of data. All of it supporting the BB.

And those wonderful Hubble pics. Thousands of them. Over more than a decade. All the pics it took of galaxies receding and nebulas and supernovas also fully supported the BB. In the facts of the galaxies receding as well as their disrances and velocities.

Ever hear of the Red Shift? It too proves the BB.

So years of scientific research has done nothing to call into question the veracoty of the BB. You called Dark Energy Sci fi. Why? What makes you think that? Because it flies in the dace of your beliefs?

Hmm...Many people, especially religious types, think erroneously that the science community is in cahoots with each other, some sort of evil cabal, bent on destroying the Creationists' views.

This is as wrong as it could be. Scientists LIVE for finding NEW and disruptive theories that can overturn previously held ones. Thus, if some cosmologist COULD find something to overturn conventional wisdom, like the BB, doncha think he would?

Yes. But so far, over decades, nobody has. I wonder why.

But with faith in god...it has NONE of this support. Not a shred of the science findings and discoveries that have been made to support BB. The belief in god does not even have an arguable hypothesis! NOTHING outside of its own holy books. To cite these as proof is called circular logic. the worst type of logic.

Lastly..you referred to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when you said energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Sorry, but that applies only to a closed system. Which the Universe--or Multi-verse--certainly is NOT!

I asked once but I do not think you answered. What is your belief as far as the Origin of the Universe? What type of Creator do you believe in, if any?

thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.