The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

rybak303
Troll
Posts: 9
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

I have often heard creationists say that everything in existence must have been caused by something else thus leading to a chain of causes all the way to God Himself. To which atheists respond, “Then what caused God to be in existence?” But this passage from C.S. Lewis refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

 

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

 

Furthermore. . . . .

 

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature. Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away. Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence. Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
rybak303 wrote:

rybak303 wrote:

 But this passage from C.S. Lewis refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

 

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

 

 

If you think a little bit more, then you might be able to see that this "passage from CS Lewis" clearly refutes the concept of afterlife. Smiling

ALSO, 

"rybak" translates as "fisherman" from Russian.  Is it on purpose?

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Another cosmological

rybak303 wrote:

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

C.S. Lewis is right in observing that it is a mistake as everything needing a cause, but it odes not requires a "unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause" precondition to have such things. Read below for more explanation. 

rybak303 wrote:

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature.

The Big Bang illustrates the beginning of the universe, not necessarily the beginning of Nature.

Also, because time is relative, time is contingent upon nature, rather than nature upon time...that is to say that a timeless nature is not an absurdity, rather a necessity.

rybak303 wrote:

Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away.

This is not true. You should probably read up on some physics, particularly quantum physics before asserting this.

rybak303 wrote:

Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence.

Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

This is non-sequitor. What does freewill have to do with interdependence in nature? Are you suggesting that interdependence creates some sort of determinism? I really don't see the connection here.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
wow... so much fail, so little time

The problem with this is that you are prescribing attributes to things when we see no evidence for those attributes even existing anywhere. You can say that your imaginary friend is _____, but if we never see _____ anywhere outside of our imaginations and fiction (other people's imaginations) what evidence would we have that this attribute is even possible, let alone happening. Your first piece of "evidence" is this:

C.S. Lewis via rybak303 wrote:
“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

In this instance, it is inferred that there is something that is, and I quote "unlimited, unchanging, necessary", yet we have no evidence that these attributes are even possible or happening anywhere. You then posit that this thing is happening outside, yet somehow a guiding part of, the universe and this somehow gives you the okay to inject magic into anything you don't understand and/or cannot explain. It does not. Using magic to "explain" anything is an intellectual cop-out and does nothing to ACTUALLY learn about and understand the thing or things in question. Now on to the rest of the problems.

rybak303 wrote:
Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything).

No it doesn't. It was the beginning of this universe. The Big Bang Theory only deals with what happened starting from right after the universe began. It never states that there was nothing before it, or that all of time began at that point, only that this universe began at that time.

rybak303 wrote:
And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature.

Why must it exist beyond the universe? If it doesn't exist here, why does it need to exist? And that's just if there isn't infinite time. I still don't see how this all is going to prove magic is real.

rybak303 wrote:
Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole.

And your evidence for this is? You have none? Yeah... I thought so.

What evidence do you have that humans, and only humans, can act of their own volition and everything else is an automaton? And what exactly is it that we do that is independent of the whole? Or are those just more assertions you are making with no evidence to back them up?

rybak303 wrote:
Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence.

This is getting tiring but I will ask again. Do you have any evidence for these baseless assertions or are you still talking out of your ass? Why do you think that magic is necessary for animals to have ideas and act upon them?

rybak303 wrote:
Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

Oh, more magic? Yeah I expect that from people who don't understand the depths of their own ignorance.

Rybak303, you are so interested in making sure that you haven't been wrong all these years that you are just playing with words. Look, I can do it too!

"I have never seen from another person's perspective, therefore I have no evidence that they have minds, therefore I live in a world of mindless zombies!"

That didn't make it so though. And your little word gymnastics didn't make it so either. I'm sorry that I have to tell you that we as humans really are not the center of the universe, which you seem to think, but we're not. And if you want people, especially here, to take your beliefs and arguments seriously, then at least one piece of evidence would be nice. You know, so we can tell that you actually are conscious of reality and not just lost in the world of your mind.

You could really do with a good reading of http://talkorigins.org/. I think it will answer a lot of your questions. Plus, it isn't nearly as rude as I am!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
rybak303 wrote:Only limited,

rybak303 wrote:

Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause.

Why?

rybak303 wrote:
The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

How do you know that?

rybak303 wrote:
Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang)

Is the Big Bang a definite beginning?

rybak303 wrote:
Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole.

Define free will.

Prove that humans have it and no other organisms do.

Show that this allows him to be independent of the system.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You are quoting C.S.

You are quoting C.S. Lewis?

Put down your CrakerJack box, the shiny object prize in it, may look pretty, but it is a choking hazard.

This is old and nothing but philosophy, dead and debunked and a worthless tactic still used by believers today.

Would you buy this same line of logic if Lewis wasn't arguing for the Christian god, but instead Allah?

 

Let me make this short and sweet for you.

 

There is no such thing as an invisible magical super brain with magical super powers, by any name. Call this being "Allah/God/Yahweh/Vishnu/Thor/Posiden blah blah blah.........It is all made up garbage. Humans like the idea of a super hero that will swoop them off of the train tracks and defeat the villain.

Science knows that our fate is already predictable. Even if we don't kill ourselves off other things are factors that could. Disease, pollution, climate change, meteors to name a few. But even without all that, long after humans go extinct the sun will expand and fry our planet killing all life on it.

Just as there was no one around to claim the existence of Allah 2 billion years ago, 5 billion years from now Jesus will be part of the same nothingness that humans were prior to our existence.

All claims of the super natural will die with our species because there will no longer be anyone around to market the claims to the next generation.

This reality may frighten you, but it does not frighten me.

What is fatalistic to me in humans, is the attitude that this life is unimportant and the "afterlife" matters, which divides humanity and allows us to make excuses to do horrible things to each other.

This is all we have, there is nothing horrible about accepting reality. Making up fictional super heros and  falsely believing them to be fact, is a deadly placebo that has been the scourge of humanity since the first god's were invented by early humans.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ObsesoR
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-08-17
User is offlineOffline
 Don't waste your time,

 Don't waste your time, this guy is a troll and will not respond. Cut-paste and leave.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ObsesoR wrote: Don't waste

ObsesoR wrote:

 Don't waste your time, this guy is a troll and will not respond. Cut-paste and leave.

It is still not a waste of time because other believers, who may not post, may end up reading this, plus "newbie" atheists who may be new to their position and can educate themselves as to why they reject god claims. Simply saying to oneself "This doesn't  make sense to me" is not solid ground.

There are tons of things atheists should learn.

Infinite regress(problem with)

Fallacy of Pascal's wager

Ocham's razor

Bentrand Russel's teapot

Epicurus's problem with evil

The difference between the credible tool of scientific method, verses the mere marketing of theism.

 

AND books every atheist should read.

 

The God Delusion

God The Failed Hypothesis

God Is Not Great

Letter to a Christian Nation

1984(why fascism is bad)

Animal Farm(why fascism is bad)

Infidel(example of oppression of women in Islam)

(off the top of my head, many more I don't have the time to list)

 

And just like playing chess it is important to know your opposition's arguments.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
rybak303 wrote:

rybak303 wrote:

 

 

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.

 


 

 

C.S. Lewis and his logic always gets a good laugh from me. This is just unsubstantiated speculation (I do not see the correlation with never-changing and unlimited and requiring no cause), circular reasoning and special pleading (the necessary being part).


 

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:AND books

Brian37 wrote:

AND books every atheist should read.

The God Delusion

Hahahaha, are you kidding?

That book has to be one of the most unsophisticated pieces of tripe to ever hit the market.

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Hahahaha, are you kidding?

That book has to be one of the most unsophisticated pieces of tripe to ever hit the market.

 

I wasn't impressed either...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's true delusion is a loose piece of work

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AND books every atheist should read.

The God Delusion

Hahahaha, are you kidding?

That book has to be one of the most unsophisticated pieces of tripe to ever hit the market.

 

But it raises many points worth considering and it's nowhere near as ridiculous, unfounded and full of tripe as the bible is. 

All creationists should be forced to read Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale. At least then they might understand what they say they don't believe in.

Dawkins is a good biologist, even if his god delusion is an apple bob.

God is still a delusion produced by a fervent longing for something that cannot be proven to be there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


OhMan
atheist
OhMan's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2010-08-02
User is offlineOffline
What's wrong with the God

What's wrong with the God Delusion? I enjoyed it, and thought the logic was sound?

 

Of course I am asking fellow atheists why they dislike the book, I don't need to ask a theist. Sticking out tongue

 


d3rya11
Posts: 9
Joined: 2010-08-18
User is offlineOffline
I truly enjoy reading your

I truly enjoy reading your posts!

and yes, humans do require something to save them when theyre in trouble. Religions have covered every angle. If youre in trouble, pray. If the issue goes away, then God answered your prayers. If the issue did not go away, Relax, it was god's will and it's all part of his master plan for you.

It is impossible to show the contradictions to a believer who is not willing to see the contradiction.

Forget the afterlife, I can't understand how anyone can make sense of a God who created the souls in a way where they were capable of doing evil and disobeying him, and felt the need to place them on earth to give them "free will" to prove that he is all mighty and all knowing about where they will end up in the afterlife. In other words, their god needed to be reassured about his greatness on a daily basis so that in the end he can turn around say "see I told you so, I knew you were going to end up in hell, I just wanted to prove it to you by letting you do all the things that got you into hell "

 

The favourite response from Muslims is, "we are on earth to be tested, not for god's sake because god already knows whether we are sinners or saints (apparently the verdict is written on our forheads whilst were in our mothers womb - this is mentioned in the hadiths) , but we are here for our sake. So that on judgement day we can't say to god , god why burn us in fire? why not give me a chance to prove to you i could be good" apparently, our souls have already asked for the chance to prove to god otherwise, so here we are proving him right, here, out of our own request, and here acting out out of our own "free will'.

I cant understand how we could even have the courage to question such a might being as to why he is placing us wherever he does in this supposed after life. since when did we have such authority to question god and his actions?

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Hahahaha, are you kidding?

That book has to be one of the most unsophisticated pieces of tripe to ever hit the market.

 

I wasn't impressed either...

Then again, you didn't like it because he published a ranting opinion outside of his field of expertise.

Do you have the same opinion of Christians who do that or is your ire limited to atheists?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
d3rya11 wrote:I truly enjoy

d3rya11 wrote:

I truly enjoy reading your posts!

and yes, humans do require something to save them when theyre in trouble. Religions have covered every angle. If youre in trouble, pray. If the issue goes away, then God answered your prayers. If the issue did not go away, Relax, it was god's will and it's all part of his master plan for you.

 

 

          Religions cover every angle because if ANY of THEIR dogma was in the least TRUE theY would NOT HAVE to redevelope and cover "Every Angle" can you NOT see the stupidity of such arguments.

 

 

 

It is impossible to show the contradictions to a believer who is not willing to see the contradiction.

 

 

               EVEN YOU ADMIT THERE ARE CONTRIDICTIONS,  what more can we add?

 

 

 

Forget the afterlife, I can't understand how anyone can make sense of a God who created the souls in a way where they were capable of doing evil and disobeying him, and felt the need to place them on earth to give them "free will" to prove that he is all mighty and all knowing about where they will end up in the afterlife. In other words, their god needed to be reassured about his greatness on a daily basis so that in the end he can turn around say "see I told you so, I knew you were going to end up in hell, I just wanted to prove it to you by letting you do all the things that got you into hell "

 

 

                   There is no god,  there is no afterlife;  we are here this is it. Get real.

 

 

 

 

The favourite response from Muslims is, "we are on earth to be tested, not for god's sake because god already knows whether we are sinners or saints (apparently the verdict is written on our forheads whilst were in our mothers womb - this is mentioned in the hadiths) , but we are here for our sake. So that on judgement day we can't say to god , god why burn us in fire? why not give me a chance to prove to you i could be good" apparently, our souls have already asked for the chance to prove to god otherwise, so here we are proving him right, here, out of our own request, and here acting out out of our own "free will'.

 

 

                  If  "it is truely written" then why do so meny muslim proclaim   "Allah directed me";  oh  I forgot "Allah told me so"  btw there is no Allah just your imagination.

 

 

I cant understand how we could even have the courage to question such a might being as to why he is placing us wherever he does in this supposed after life. since when did we have such authority to question god and his actions?

 

 

                 We carry the authority to run our own lives weather religios like the idea or not; fuck them!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AND books every atheist should read.

The God Delusion

Hahahaha, are you kidding?

That book has to be one of the most unsophisticated pieces of tripe to ever hit the market.

 

Why? Because you can't get your invisible super hero independently confirmed by people with no horse in the race?

Dawkins isn't basing his book on myth written by unscientific people in a tribal goat herding past by ignorant people who had no clue what DNA or an atom was.

You have as much evidence for your pet god as the Egyptians did for Horus. Dawkins is merely calling bullshit bullshit and a comic book a comic book.

We cant stop you from believing in Santa for adults, and we won't stop you.

Please don't pretend that myths written thousands of years ago have any credibility in an age of cell phones and neurobiology.

Thor didn't make lighting and your god is as pretend as Thor.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Bibles cost money too. Not

Bibles cost money too. Not only are we suppose to worship this dude but we gotta pay a good bit of money to find out why.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dawkins definitely lets his

OhMan wrote:

What's wrong with the God Delusion? I enjoyed it, and thought the logic was sound?

 

Of course I am asking fellow atheists why they dislike the book, I don't need to ask a theist. Sticking out tongue

 

 

emotions go in Delusion - railing against the evils of the abrahamic faiths (it was just after 9/11, remember, and we were all a bit wounded), a move which pissed the jews off. They don't like being lumped in with the 2 others. He got slapped around for this by respectable folks like Robert Winston, the author of Human Instinct, who like many jews is almost completely rational with an overlay of moral tradition I find it hard to criticise.

Dawkins arguments, not surprisingly, were considered philosophically weak by critics. His knowledge of bible history isn't great, either. It's not that I disagree with him, mind you. Delusion just left too much uncovered, allowing christians to use the flaws to ignore the points that were correct. I prefer Earl Doherty when it comes to the contrivances of christianity but Doherty's not considered scholarly enough by those with nine degrees in theological manufacture - despite the fact his opponents are insisting magic jesus was real.

Christians can't touch Dawkins on biology and that's where I think his great strength lies. They are left with droning on about things like theory of mind and the supposed weaknesses of materialism in accounting for mind and the advent of the big balloon.  For mine, the most important thing about Delusion was that some one wrote it. I enjoyed the sense of outrage and disgust in the book - it mirrored my own feelings to a high degree. Reading Delusion was a polarising and legitimising experience. It was a doorway to vocal resistance.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Bibles cost money too. Not only are we suppose to worship this dude but we gotta pay a good bit of money to find out why.

The entire canon is available on biblegateway.com, free of charge.  I'm pretty sure that it's also available at your local library.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Bibles cost money too. Not only are we suppose to worship this dude but we gotta pay a good bit of money to find out why.

The entire canon is available on biblegateway.com, free of charge.  I'm pretty sure that it's also available at your local library.

 

See? Was I even talking to you? I didn't quote you. Just making a statement and you take every chance you get to take a stab at me. Grow up!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is the bible for you, Rebecca.

 

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Bibles cost money too. Not only are we suppose to worship this dude but we gotta pay a good bit of money to find out why.

The entire canon is available on biblegateway.com, free of charge.  I'm pretty sure that it's also available at your local library.

 

See? Was I even talking to you? I didn't quote you. Just making a statement and you take every chance you get to take a stab at me. Grow up!

 

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

See? Was I even talking to you? I didn't quote you. Just making a statement and you take every chance you get to take a stab at me. Grow up!

I wasn't taking a stab at you.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I should also add that the

I should also add that the bible is really pretty cheap. Hotel rooms give them away for free but it tends to be hit or miss as to which version, even with the Gideons. Also, any church will give you one for free. Again, you get whichever version that specific group is into. I know that the Salvation Army uses the NIV, Anglicans (at least the churches led by straight white married men) use the KJV 1611 and lots of other protestants use the NKJV.

 

Really though, it matters little since they are all translations from the textus receptus of about 1540 or so.

 

Then too, even when you do fork over cash at a book store, it is pretty cheap. I think the last time I went that route, it cost like $5.

 

Possibly more interesting links:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

 

http://www.nag-hammadi.com/

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
True... Irrefutable proof of

True... Irrefutable proof of god's existance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Sparxxx


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Standard Reply

I'm making a standard reply to "temporal first cause" type arguments.

 

The "temporal first cause" type arguments note that the universe is finitely old, and then ask "what caused the universe to start existing?"  This question is a red herring for two reasons.  First, the universe always existed even though it is finitely old.  This is because "always" means "at all points in time."  Time itself is part of the universe (part of spacetime), and thus time itself is finitely old.  There is no need for something to cause the universe to suddenly start existing because there is no point in time at which the universe did not exist (even though it is still finitely old).

Second, the existence of a lower bound does not imply the existence of a minimum.  In other words, the finite age of the universe does not logically necessitate a finite causal regress.  It is logically possible to fit an infinite number of causal links in a finite amount of time, just as it is logically possible to half the distance from here to the moon an infinite number of times within that finite distance.

Furthermore, causes occur before their effects.  As such, it is impossible to cause time to start existing.  To do so would require a before time, yet without time there simply is no before.  Since time and space are intricately linked (it's called spacetime for a reason), whenever you have time you also have space.  And quantum effects ensure that whenever you have space and time, you also have quantum fluctuations, which means you get matter and antimatter.  All of this occurs spontaneously without any sort of cause.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:I'm making a

Zaq wrote:

I'm making a standard reply to "temporal first cause" type arguments.

 

The "temporal first cause" type arguments note that the universe is finitely old, and then ask "what caused the universe to start existing?"  This question is a red herring for two reasons.  First, the universe always existed even though it is finitely old.  This is because "always" means "at all points in time."  Time itself is part of the universe (part of spacetime), and thus time itself is finitely old.  There is no need for something to cause the universe to suddenly start existing because there is no point in time at which the universe did not exist (even though it is still finitely old).

 

That reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Time, space and matter came into being with the Big Bang. Beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed. That demands for a explanation. If the was absolutely nothing beyond the Big Bang, there would remain absolutely nothing . No universe would come into being. 

 

Second, the existence of a lower bound does not imply the existence of a minimum.  In other words, the finite age of the universe does not logically necessitate a finite causal regress.  It is logically possible to fit an infinite number of causal links in a finite amount of time, just as it is logically possible to half the distance from here to the moon an infinite number of times within that finite distance.

 

That argument misses the whole point. Its not about haw many times you can slice time inside our universe. Its about what cause our universe into being .

Furthermore, causes occur before their effects.  As such, it is impossible to cause time to start existing.  To do so would require a before time, yet without time there simply is no before.  Since time and space are intricately linked (it's called spacetime for a reason), whenever you have time you also have space.  And quantum effects ensure that whenever you have space and time, you also have quantum fluctuations, which means you get matter and antimatter.  All of this occurs spontaneously without any sort of cause.

 

I can perfecty imagine , a timeless being, to will a universe from eternity, to enter into a a time dimension, and cause the universe. 

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't think real

I don't think real scientists say it all started from "nothing" unless by nothing you mean something such as an exploding black hole.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:  I can

angelobrazil wrote:

 

 

I can perfecty imagine , a timeless being, to will a universe from eternity, to enter into a a time dimension, and cause the universe. 

 

 

Me too it's called imagination. I can also imagine Q from star trek snapping his fingers bringing us into existence, I can also imagine our universe being a microscopic bit of scum in an an aliens toilet and his universe being the same to anothers in some endless chain that some how wraps back around it's self.

But really, a man entering a "time dimension" and causing a universe does seem wacky as all get out. Where did this man come from? He looks like us so is he currently at a space starbucks somewhere ?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:angelobrazil

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can perfecty imagine , a timeless being, to will a universe from eternity, to enter into a a time dimension, and cause the universe. 

 

 

Me too it's called imagination. I can also imagine Q from star trek snapping his fingers bringing us into existence, I can also imagine our universe being a microscopic bit of scum in an an aliens toilet and his universe being the same to anothers in some endless chain that some how wraps back around it's self.

But really, a man entering a "time dimension" and causing a universe does seem wacky as all get out. Where did this man come from? He looks like us so is he currently at a space starbucks somewhere ?

 

you have certainly a better explanation on hand. do you ? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:robj101

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can perfecty imagine , a timeless being, to will a universe from eternity, to enter into a a time dimension, and cause the universe. 

 

 

Me too it's called imagination. I can also imagine Q from star trek snapping his fingers bringing us into existence, I can also imagine our universe being a microscopic bit of scum in an an aliens toilet and his universe being the same to anothers in some endless chain that some how wraps back around it's self.

But really, a man entering a "time dimension" and causing a universe does seem wacky as all get out. Where did this man come from? He looks like us so is he currently at a space starbucks somewhere ?

 

you have certainly a better explanation on hand. do you ? 

What is your drive for an explanation? It is obviously a weak one considering you are willing to believe such drivel as religion offers rather than actually research it.

Making a claim that a random magical being created everything just because you don't know is very small. I don't know either but I'm not going to guess a leprechaun did it and carry on as if it were true because I think* it is.

Oh hey I can't find my shoes, a magical gnome must have carried them off..oh nevermind there they are under the coffee table. dur

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:What is your

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: robj101

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I don't need an explanation to justify my believe, or the lack there of. You on the other hand should ask for an explanation as to why churches are taking your hard earned money and doing nothing with it, except driving around new cars, fine homes etc... I am not here celebrating ignorance, but rather freedom from a rediculus religion and it's choking tight grip it keeps on it's followers.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I don't need an explanation to justify my believe, or the lack there of. You on the other hand should ask for an explanation as to why churches are taking your hard earned money and doing nothing with it, except driving around new cars, fine homes etc... I am not here celebrating ignorance, but rather freedom from a rediculus religion and it's choking tight grip it keeps on it's followers.

 

how about keep on topic, instead of making generalized acusations, which nothing have to do with the subject on debate ? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:robj101

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I asked what is YOUR drive for an explanation, not mine. Nice way to twist it around.

You obviously are not looking for explanations if you believe goddidit. You are more than likely here to tell us about how goddidit.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:angelobrazil

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I asked what is YOUR drive for an explanation, not mine. Nice way to twist it around.

You obviously are not looking for explanations if you believe goddidit. You are more than likely here to tell us about how goddidit.

 

once God has been declared as the best answer, the requested explanation has been given. You however have provided no answer at all so far. 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:robj101

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I asked what is YOUR drive for an explanation, not mine. Nice way to twist it around.

You obviously are not looking for explanations if you believe goddidit. You are more than likely here to tell us about how goddidit.

 

once God has been declared as the best answer, the requested explanation has been given. You however have provided no answer at all so far. 

I think a leprechaun did it. Prove me wrong.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Rob, arguing with an

 

 

epistemologist is going to get you nowhere. You're not allowed to drop anchor over the known facts - you have to adopt some position based on what we know and if that's a fairy godfather, there you are. I have a brother who takes this position. He derides all of science because it cannot yet explain theory of mind. I'm not sure if Angelo embraces dualism but he might and this means all our honest unknowns put us at a serious disadvantage.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:That

angelobrazil wrote:

That reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Time, space and matter came into being with the Big Bang. Beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed. That demands for a explanation. If the was absolutely nothing beyond the Big Bang, there would remain absolutely nothing . No universe would come into being. 

.

.

.

I can perfecty imagine , a timeless being, to will a universe from eternity, to enter into a a time dimension, and cause the universe.

I think you need a fact check here. Now this may be what constitutes "physical" but I don't know that I'd call it "nothing", but there are certainly natural explanations for what existed beyond the Big Bang.

And Zaq is right-- eternal existence and finite age are perfectly tenable if time came to existence subsequently after the Big Bang.

Such natural explanations do not necessarily demand a "timeless being".

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

epistemologist is going to get you nowhere. You're not allowed to drop anchor over the known facts - you have to adopt some position based on what we know and if that's a fairy godfather, there you are. I have a brother who takes this position. He derides all of science because it cannot yet explain theory of mind. I'm not sure if Angelo embraces dualism but he might and this means all our honest unknowns put us at a serious disadvantage.

 

 

 

 

 

The ability to admit to not knowing is better than to make a wild baseless claim imo.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
An explanation does not

An explanation does not become justified simply because it is the only proposed explanation. It still requires positive evidence. If there is no evidence, the honest answer is always 'I don't know.'

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you completely.

robj101 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

epistemologist is going to get you nowhere. You're not allowed to drop anchor over the known facts - you have to adopt some position based on what we know and if that's a fairy godfather, there you are. I have a brother who takes this position. He derides all of science because it cannot yet explain theory of mind. I'm not sure if Angelo embraces dualism but he might and this means all our honest unknowns put us at a serious disadvantage.

The ability to admit to not knowing is better than to make a wild baseless claim imo.

 

It's just such a tiring thing arguing the point, over and over. I just want to call theological non-cognitivism on the entire thread.

Does any know what the godly are actually talking about? I simply have no idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:angelobrazil

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What is your drive for an explanation?

 

because its essential to form our world view. If you don't care to find explanations, what are you doing here, at this website ? celebrating your ignorance ? 

I asked what is YOUR drive for an explanation, not mine. Nice way to twist it around.

You obviously are not looking for explanations if you believe goddidit. You are more than likely here to tell us about how goddidit.

 

once God has been declared as the best answer, the requested explanation has been given. You however have provided no answer at all so far. 

I think a leprechaun did it. Prove me wrong.

 

i am not here to prove anything.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

epistemologist is going to get you nowhere. You're not allowed to drop anchor over the known facts - you have to adopt some position based on what we know and if that's a fairy godfather, there you are. I have a brother who takes this position. He derides all of science because it cannot yet explain theory of mind. I'm not sure if Angelo embraces dualism but he might and this means all our honest unknowns put us at a serious disadvantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, i believe in dualism. what do you mean, this puts you on disvantage ?


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: I think

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

I think you need a fact check here. Now this may be what constitutes "physical" but I don't know that I'd call it "nothing", but there are certainly natural explanations for what existed beyond the Big Bang.

And Zaq is right-- eternal existence and finite age are perfectly tenable if time came to existence subsequently after the Big Bang.

Such natural explanations do not necessarily demand a "timeless being".

 

and what gives you that certainty ? 

if not a timeless being, than it would be IN time. If in time in a higher dimension, that IN time would need to be beginningless. YOu cannot have however infinity by successive addition of time.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi there Angelo

angelobrazil wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

epistemologist is going to get you nowhere. You're not allowed to drop anchor over the known facts - you have to adopt some position based on what we know and if that's a fairy godfather, there you are. I have a brother who takes this position. He derides all of science because it cannot yet explain theory of mind. I'm not sure if Angelo embraces dualism but he might and this means all our honest unknowns put us at a serious disadvantage.

yes, i believe in dualism. what do you mean, this puts you on disvantage ?

 

How's it going over in Brazil?

Look - most of us atheists would argue mind is ultimately an emergent property of the mirror neurones in the human brain - self is a self projection - we manufacture a sense of self when we consciously need one. Perhaps others have other ideas. As a theist who embraces dualism you may well believe mind is separate to the physical world - that the philosophy of epistemology is the most expressive and reasonable definition of the fundamentals of reality as we currently know them. You may even argue that without theory of mind in the first instance, there can be no knowledge at all.

Faced with this argument, any attempt by a rationalist to elevate an objective scientific process into the path of the concept of 'mind' is going to be fraught. Consider that we barely understand the processes of a living cell. We have no idea how the genome works in truth. It's not a set of rules. The genome operates in three living dimensions and appears to be fuelled by interactions with other genes and the environment itself.

We need to understand all possible genomes and all possible permutations of interaction between genomes and environments to project its operation. My brain quails at comprehending it. 

Then there's the mind itself. Recent experiments suggest it might a huge parallel processor, with every individual cell working independently and the whole communicating via some sort of orchestrated electrical symphony. Electrically, the brain chirps and sings to itself like a fish at between 50 and 100Hz. No one knows why. And we know almost nothing about the brain's subtle chemical operations.

Furthermore, scientific analysis has not uncovered the seat of self. We have no idea how the various physical modules are brought together in a single interface in the mind's eye, with additional sensual inputs multicasting in real time, and multiple inputs streaming from short and long term storage simultaneously, often unconsciously. 

Given the scientific process has not given us the answers we are forced into admitting that at present we aren't clever or knowledgable enough to understand what we are. Our desire for proof makes it impossible to establish with certainty that mind and reason are cultural outcomes of any human brain raised in a supportive and stimulating environment while being spoon-fed a cognitive framework through language along with vast amounts of information from the moment of birth.

You on the other hand, suffer no such discomfort. It doesn't matter whether we understand or not from your perspective. Your argument doesn't depend on proving anything - it's more a matter of conceiving that something can possibly be. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:and what

angelobrazil wrote:

and what gives you that certainty ? 

if not a timeless being, than it would be IN time. If in time in a higher dimension, that IN time would need to be beginningless. YOu cannot have however infinity by successive addition of time.

No one is positing an "infinity by successive addition of time".

"Eternal" is not a temporal referent in a timeless state. Rather it could simply refers to something that just existed logically prior to the Big Bang. That's what Zaq was getting at.

What about that requires a timeless being?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Perhaps on a stage he has

 

Perhaps on a stage he has set up himself we would be at a disadvantage, anyone could make up some stuff and make it near impossible for you to win as long as you are willing to play their game. This seems more like mind game carp though.

I don't mind what if's and maybe's as long as we are not making firm decisions based on them. Theories or idea's are fine but if you can't test it or observe it it's not really much use it's just a bunch of conjecture and we can throw that back and forth like a ball all day.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

and what gives you that certainty ? 

if not a timeless being, than it would be IN time. If in time in a higher dimension, that IN time would need to be beginningless. YOu cannot have however infinity by successive addition of time.

No one is positing an "infinity by successive addition of time".

"Eternal" is not a temporal referent in a timeless state. Rather it could simply refers to something that just existed logically prior to the Big Bang. That's what Zaq was getting at.

What about that requires a timeless being?

 

If it were something that logically existed beyond the Big Bang, than you have two possibilites : either it was eternally in time, without a beginning, then you have the dilemma of a successive addition. If you  mean eternal of a timeless  eternity, than you have two options. Either this timeless something was mechanical, or it was a conscient being, which willed our universe  from timeless eternity, and decided to create our universe. If you suppose a mechanism without will, than someone had to trigger that mechanism , to create the universe. And you need to add, what you try to avoid. A sentient person with will. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

and what gives you that certainty ? 

if not a timeless being, than it would be IN time. If in time in a higher dimension, that IN time would need to be beginningless. YOu cannot have however infinity by successive addition of time.

No one is positing an "infinity by successive addition of time".

"Eternal" is not a temporal referent in a timeless state. Rather it could simply refers to something that just existed logically prior to the Big Bang. That's what Zaq was getting at.

What about that requires a timeless being?

 

If it were something that logically existed beyond the Big Bang, than you have two possibilites : either it was eternally in time, without a beginning, then you have the dilemma of a successive addition. If you  mean eternal of a timeless  eternity, than you have two options. Either this timeless something was mechanical, or it was a conscient being, which willed our universe  from timeless eternity, and decided to create our universe. If you suppose a mechanism without will, than someone had to trigger that mechanism , to create the universe. And you need to add, what you try to avoid. A sentient person with will. 

Angelo, don't you then have the problem of a being that simultaneously exists inside and outside of time and space?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Angelo, don't

jcgadfly wrote:

Angelo, don't you then have the problem of a being that simultaneously exists inside and outside of time and space?

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673

 

So on the view I propose, God exists timelessly without the universe with a timeless intention to create a universe with a beginning. He exercises His causal power, and time as a result comes into being, along with the first state of the universe, and God freely enters into time. It all happens co-incidentally, that is, together at once. This is, I own, a mind-boggling conclusion, but makes better sense to me than the alternatives.