Alright i will come to the bible in a second.
Quote:
Since time did not always exist, it must have a cause outside of time, being uncreated, for that which exists outside of time and space is uncreated. This is the nature of God being uncreated. When people say they believe in God they are saying they believe in the uncreated Creator.
No it can not have a cause outside of cause and effect which is a paradox and unnecessary. The Problem you are stating is the unmoved mover. Or the Beginning of Time. There was no before the singularity. The singularity was the beginning of time and not outside of it. There is no Infinite regress problem with the singularity. it did not exist an infinity long, it existed one fraction of a second, with nothing before, then expanding.
Quote:
The mind that exists outside of time and space is spirit, not natural, so you can't impose rules on the supernatural mind of God from the natural. That's illogical.
If you want people to believe it you have to tell them the way it works. Do not just say "God", "Magical" or "Supernatural" But be specific and describe it with things that can be proven. Saying it is the uncreated creator won't get you far because in Physics we have the gravitational singularity which has no past. We have no reason to believe that there is anything supernatural. It seems like pure nonsense.
Quote:
A spirit has no body of nature. This is what we mean when we say spirit. Since the spirit of God created time and space, you can't impose these natural restrictions on the creator of those natural restrictions.
An excuse to believe something that makes no sense is not evidence.
Quote:
Time can't always have existed because if it did, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so; and you would never existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Again If you insist on a beginning of time or an unmoved mover, I have presented you the singularity, which came before the big bang. And the Singularity does not need a cause because its the uncaused cause.
What do you define as Nature? Cause and effect can't have a cause outside of cause and effect which is a paradox. If your argument is that "Magical cause and effect" causes "Normal cause and effect" Then it is just religious nonsense. You need to be a little bit more specific.
Quote:
The lesser cannot produce the greater such as self-consciousness can't be produced by the natural alone in its elements. Likewise, bricks can't produce houses without a mind. The mind of humans is greater than the bricks and the house. The idea (and the mind that has that idea) of a house is required which is greater to take bricks to build a house. The house itself is not greater than the brick but just a bunch of bricks put together. You could say the brick is greater than the house because the house can't exist without the brick. And a house can't have self-consciousness so when comparing the greater to the lesser, a mind is definitely greater than the brick and the house.
But atoms are not made out of moleculess. Obviously we are made out of smaller things. Anyways something greater is required to bring humans into existence. It is our Environment and Evolution. But it does not require a Mind. Its the magic of natural selection and Evolution and our Universe. I think that your argument is religious and philosophic nonsense.
Quote:
"Some researchers chose neutral terms to describe the experimental cell. Some played down the development. I don't think it represents the creation of an artificial life form," said biomedical engineer James Collins at Boston University. "I view this as an organism with a synthetic genome, not as a synthetic organism." So still nobody has been able to generate replicating life from the elements mishmashed together from the elements, and "no one has duplicated the team's experiment" the article said. I liken this to forcing a non-sperm cell into an egg. What happens is all kinds of abnormalities occur in virtually 100% of cases unlike the existing rate of about 4% through natural child birth due to sin. Similarly, placing some synthetic code can perform some function but it is more robotic than life. It would not be actual life. Man can synthesize a synthetic genome but not as a synthetic organism. And to do what has been done required the mind which is greater. What man also has not been able to do is mishmash the elements together to reproduce replicating life as nature would have done if it could.
If it has an artificial Genome and an artificial cell it is still an organism. It does not behave robotic it behaves perfectly natural.
I think at this point i want to address your argument about the chances of life coming into existence. You told me there were not enough Atoms in the universe. I think that it does not matter because the chances of a self replicating molecule becoming a cell are made possible by chemical bonding plus the environment a molecule is currently in. It was experimentally shown that in the early earth's atmosphere proteins, amino acids and self replicating molecules could easily form.
And if you already know that evolution happened stop saying a mind is needed to create a mind because it is your intuition. Science is sometimes counter intuitive and "A mind is needed to create a mind" is simply the excrement of theologians.
Quote:
A mind needed to create a mind doesn't presuppose a mind, but requires a mind, because the lesser can't produce the greater. A natural mind has in its nature causation to develop the mind. It is dependant on causation. I believe in evolution, but where does evolution come from you keep avoiding. Your argument is still broken because as we have seen nature can't always have existed, nor can it start up from nothing, so it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God who intelligently designed with His mind.
My argument is not broken because a cause outside of cause and effect is a paradox. Except if you use the terms "Magical cause and effect" and "Natural cause and effect" In the same sentence. But you see that your Argument becomes religious pseudoscientific nonsense then. And again if you insist on an "unmoved mover" it is the singularity. Since something outside of time can not cause something.
Quote:
Nature with infinite density can't exist because that requires an infinite regress which is impossible, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so; and you would never have existed, because that past infinity would still be going on never to reach this point. That's a contradiction too to say something has no spatial dimension and also infinite dimensional density.
Inform yourself before you talk nonsense. Infinite density does not require infinite regress. Density is calculated by dividing the mass through the volume. Sometimes in physics you are allowed to divide by zero. Because the singularity had 0 volume and some mass: Density = M/0. If matter gets compressed to zero volume it becomes infinitely dense. That does not have anything to do with infinite regress or infinite mass. It is not a contradiction. No don't scream because we divide by zero there. It does not matter what density it has, Matter is compressed to 0 spatial dimensions.
Quote:
The cause and effect of nature is brought into being by God. Remember, God exists outside of nature, so in bringing nature into being, He brings in the cause and effect of nature also. A singularity needs a cause. It can't come from nothing. Since time had a beginning it needs a cause. A singularity can't split without time so the universe would never have existed. And to be able to split, it must come into existence which means it needs a cause outside of itself. Compare your timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator in which He has a mind to create a mind. A singularity compared to God doesn't compare at all. Compare all the claims for the ultimate cause and only Christianity wins out over the causeless singularities and other alleged uncreated Creators. See where you shut your mind down? You claim time began ad hoc like starting at chapter 2 in a novel. You forget that for something to begin, it requires a cause. The caused and the created are the same thing. God caused His creation. That which is caused is what God created. Accept since nature needs a cause outside of itself, that cause is uncaused that created.
So you claim there is a Magical cause and effect and a natural cause and effect. Yes good luck proving it. This time do not find excuses for it but actually prove it. Cause and effect are no proof for God. If you insist on an unmoved mover you have the singularity.
Quote:
In your singularity you propose no time, but that is a doublestandard because you accuse the uncreated Creator of being without time so as not to be able to create. Your doublestandard shows the error of your ways. What I accept since nature can't always have existed is it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Then I logically proceed to find out who the uncreated Creator is. I find it is God of the Bible because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You strengthen my faith in Christ. Since everything in nature has a cause then cause is in focus. Don't try to obfuscate away from this fact. However big or small an interval is from two points is irrelevant to our discussion since causation still remains the feature of nature that leads inextricably to the uncreated Creator. This is in fact the point of Rom. 1.20. The proof I give you is the proof of Scripture. Whether you hear it from my own words or the word of God in His 66 books, it is the same proof.
First of all the interval does matter. There is a big difference between zero and any bigger than zero in this case. It makes a whole new Image.
Of course singularity is at the beginning of time and within time. The singularity changed into what we have today. Since cause and effect does not need a cause outside of cause and effect, because this would be a paradox, an unmoved mover inside of time like the Singularity makes perfectly sense. And no not everything in, what is it that you call Nature, Physics? Not everything had a cause. At the beginning of time there was a singularity, which was not outside of time, but within. This singularity did not have a cause. Most of the people in the bible were hallucinating and similar to todays crystal worshipping esoteric wood knocking superstitious people. The difference is that they took them serious. Rom 1.20 provides no evidence. A divine natura wow. so what? We don't have reason to think that there is a divine nature.
Quote:
There are no resurrected persons in Jewish culture or other cultures before Jesus. Jesus was the first. If there were these alleged resurrections then you could quote a source for at least one of them but you don't. Please stop making allegations you are unwilling to provide evidence for since that is just your flesh spouting out whatever it mindlessly self-declares. Don't be a dullard! Overassuming is your biggest problem. That's the nature of your flesh that needs to die on the cross with Christ.
In cultures before jesus there was osiris for example. In Hinduism there was also krishna. In the mayan culture there was Quetzalcoatl.
Quote:
He never deals with the proof nature can't always have existed, for if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. He doesn't address this. And a past eternity would still be going on to never reach this point. And he can't find a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. If he had, again, you would be able to produce it but you don't and he doesn't. I find you and Carrier to be exceedingly boring since most of what you say is non-evidential and does not challenge the evidence I have given you and him. Our conversation would be interesting if you addressed these proofs of the 4 Step Proof for God.
People that have common sense. Don't try to prove to a historian something with philosophy. And what you call proof for God, is an ancient problem that is no Problem thanks to the Singularity. Nothing was before it. And Again even if there was, You have no proof that it is God. Theologians just come up with those Arguments like cause outside of time and infinite regress and they solve it with magic. That is not sufficient. Magic never solves the problem.
Quote:
t is a logical absolute that God made you in His image with free will and that you have free will it can't be altered. You can never become a being without free will. To deny the existence of free will is Calvinistic and delusional.
I am not a calvinist, i do not believe in God.
Logical absolutes can not be created. Thats why they are called logical absolutes.
You think there is a being outside of time. If it is outside of time it would be able to know everything that is going to happen making freedom of choice an illusion. If it does not know what we are going to choose it is not outside of time, because the next point in time is uncertain before you can see it.
It is healthy to question if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. And if you can change the way that time and space is going or not. I do not believe in magic so i do not believe that we can alter the way the universe is going.
Quote:
Singularities need a cause and they don't compare to the uncreated Creator who proved Himself. A singularity is part of nature that needs a cause outside of itself.
Again what is nature? And cause and effect can not have a cause outside of cause and effect. When you say infinite regress is impossible you have to accept that not everything needs a cause.
Quote:
Since the big bang can't come from nothing and nature can't always have existed, obviously, the ultimate source for the big bang is outside of nature, being uncreated. This is the nature of God and requires a mind because a mind is needed to create a mind. 6000 years ago God breathed in the breath of life into the body from dust (Gen. 2.7) to form a living soul. This living soul was Adam and Eve, the first two God-conscious persons who made in God's image would never cease to exist. Man became a living soul with a spirit and body: a tripartite being as God is.
70% Of your argument is religious nonsense. The big Bang comes from a singularity.
Quote:
I don't say you need an eternity but that is what many atheists propose is an infinite regress of cause and effects. But as we have seen that is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, and you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on as is the nature of eternity. For time to change it needs a cause. Time doesn't change without a cause. How silly.
Quote:
I don't say you need an eternity
Quote:
never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on as is the nature of eternity
As i said before it does matter that the interval is zero.
I think that humans can not imagine an Infinity simply because they see everything having a beginning. But your intuition does not count in science. But the unmoved mover is not a problem.
Quote:
The proof is in our history who God is. You are free to shut your mind down to this as Richard does. 99% of all Biblical texts are the same and no major doctrinal differences exist. The proof of Scripture for who God is is the resurrection proof. You're free to shut your mind down to this proof, but just know that you strengthen the faith of Christians because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Praise the Lord! That's what I truly love is this ultimate proof.
Your arguments about cause and effect are invalid. As for the bible. I think that they had a condition that made them hallucinate can make them hallucinate roughly the same thing. Not exactly but they can think that they hallcuinate the same thing through communication and other factors.
You should debate with a historian about history you don't argue with him about physics. But you don't even do that. You are bringing up the ancient problem of infinite regress or an unmoved mover which hasn't been solved yet.
And again i am open to the possibility that something was behind the big bang but i don't think it had a Mind and Intention to create us because "A mind is needed to create a mind" Is something philosophical and as i pointed out the chances of us existing are not made possible by the numbers of atoms but by chemical bonding. We are able to create organisms and evolution can do it too. We know that the building blocks of life are proteins and that they and amino acids too formed in the early earths atmosphere.
Perfect solution to this discussion:
I have a better Idea to solve this. You prove that something supernatural exists without the bible since we seem to be on a disagreement here. I think that if something supernatural exists and is omnipresent you should be able to prove it experimentally and not by reading a religious book. I don't think that you can prove that God exists with actual science. I don't mean history and i don't mean philosophy.