The Unthinking Atheist

[Parture]

Re: sum1otosh1
http://www.youtube.com/user/sum1otosh1

When it comes to the biblical stories I suggest you read the actual bible. The new testament's 'eye witness' accounts were from people who weren't there and they are ALL DIFFERENT. I'm not talking minor differences. I'm talking the difference between seeing the dead saints of the old testament rise from their graves and take a wander round a village and not seeing a bunch of zombies walking round a village.

Why can quantum particles not exist in the same way that you believe your god does?
If your god can then quantum particles can. Stands to reason.

But I feel the biggest failure on this logic is the fact that you say " am only talking about obsevable nature. Everything in nature needs a cause, but that requires infinite regress, but infinite regress can't be true, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so" Now this fails on the grounds that you are only talking about observable nature yet you are adding an unobservable element to it. With that in mind I would say that you are trying to eat your cake and have it too. I could add any number of supreme beings into your equation and they would be just as reconcilable with your god hypothesis and have just as much evidence. Let's say Odin did it shall we.

However the actual existence of quantum particles explains this process without diverting from anything that we already know and has already been proven.

Your mention of this world famous lawyer winning 245 cases in a row "The lawyer in the Guiness book of records who won the most cases in the row (245) said the case for the life, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus is the best proven case he has ever seen."

Do you not see the fallacy in that argument? A good lawyer is the one who wins the most cases, not the one who gets to the truth the most. So he managed to condemn or acquit 245 people successfully ..... all that shows is he either had 245 easy cases, all the evidence or he's a fantastic liar. Going by what we know of lawyers, going by what I know of the legal system and going by what I know of law I can quite happily say the odds are that he was a fantastic liar. He could have acquitted 245 rapists or one rapists 245 times. That doesn't mean the guy didn't do it, just means they couldn't prove it. So bullshit alert is on defcon 1.

To say I would've happened already. Who says I didn't? Who says I haven't occurred a thousand times? The M theory or multiple universe theory states that it is highly likely that ours isn't the only universe and that each universe could quite easily accommodate another me. Try another one? Ok if you insist. A cyclicle universe is also another option, one that expands and contracts in an almost elasticated fashion, time being what it is would begin to slow, travel backwards then expand again meaning there would be many mes.

On top of that, who said eternity? The universe, to the best of my knowledge, isn't necessarily infinite therefore time isn't necessarily infinite, therefore eternity is simply a concept to help understand huge amounts of time.

However, existing outside of time is a bit of a problem here. Nowhere in any of the bible translations does it say that your god exists outside of time, that was just something someone made up when they were asked who created your god. Existing outside of time does not negate the need to be created, if you go via the creation route, the infinite regress problem is still there whether you're inside or outside of time. You claim existence then that which exists needs to show certain attributes, existence is not a debatable area, either something exists or it doesn't. Inside time, outside time? You may aswell say inside the house or outside the house. The paradox that you create when you say god is outside time is that what you're saying, in essence, is that god created himself as you can probably see this cause a causal paradox. Because in creating yourself you must first have already been created by yourself in order to create yourself you must create yourself to create yourself but you can't create yourself as you have not been created. Just a little flaw in the argument, but one worth mentioning.

Please, I urge you, read your bible, then read historical accounts of the period. Not christian "historical" accounts, actual historical accounts. None of it happened.

I have read the Bible from beginning to end very meticulously, so I guess you are wrong.

Notice the resurrection of Lazarus and those who came out of their graves were not zombies but fully functioning souls and were related to Jesus' resurrection, not independent of His work. They lived fully good lives before going to rest again. The testimonies of seeing Jesus alive from the dead were multiply corroborated recounting the same incidents from different Apostles as well as different incidents, since there are 12 different resurrection appearances in various group settings. There are no resurrections in the Old Testament so not sure what you are talking about. Jesus is the only one since only God can resurrect, and it is all about Jesus give us resurrection life.

Quantum particles always exhibit cause so if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself: outside time and space. This is whom we call God.

TO REPEAT: Very clearly then, f everything we have ever seen or calculated requires a cause in nature this leads to infinite regress, yet infinite regress in time and space is impossible because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Just because we can't know all things, for many things are too complicated or small to detect IN NATURE, doesn't mean they don't have a cause, for the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. How silly to think something could come from nothing, that which does not exist, for it doesn't exist. Nothing always comes from nothing. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing! A 1 billion pound gorilla can't make you go shopping at your nearest grocery store. Do you know why? It doesn't exist. Stop pretentiously holding out to be all-knowing in hopes to one day disprove God, for you will never be all-knowing like God. Pride begets the fall.

Now that you have conceded the uncreated Creator exists, it would be prudent to compare. Remember, any claim on God must be personal, accessible and intelligent. And he must effectively deal with sin. Your Odin doesn't personally enter creation, he is not accessible because he is known by almost no one. Furthermore, he doesn't effectively deal with sin nor does he prove his existence by the best proof of all: the resurrection proof. So your Odin hardly compares to God of the Bible. And where is it said Odin is the uncreated Creator anyway, so you fail on all these accounts.

As to that lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 245 cases in a row, I think he must have won cases he might have lost if the other council did a better job. You miss the point though. The point is based on his vast experience and strong ability to use all the law avails him with corresponding evidence, the easiest case to prove would be the case for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Christ because it is the best evidenced. You should not assume the lawyer is a liar. He is just doing his job with the best evidential procedures he is obligated to provide his client. We all deserve adequate council and should not be denied it. Now of those 245 cases, if the case for Christ is the best evidenced, surely it is the best proven and therefore having the highest probability of any case for being true; so much so, we can be confident therefore, if evidence means anything, truly Jesus is God. Otherwise, we could prove nothing in this life, and I am sure no sane person would conclude we can't.

Even if there were multiverses and you could have existed in multiple reincarnations or in other universes or expanding and contracting cycles, all of them would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so there could not be an infinite regress in nature. Therefore, again, very clearly we see, the universe(s) always needs a cause that would be outside time and space: outside of nature itself. Once you posit an infinite regress these mathematical problems arise blowing a hole right through your silly speculative theories all to try to reject your Creator and avoid spending eternity in Hell.

I am glad though you are thinking this through to realize as you said "The universe, to the best of my knowledge, isn't necessarily infinite therefore time isn't necessarily infinite..." Since time, matter and space of the universe didn't always exist, it needs a cause that would be outside of time and space. This uncaused cause is whom we call God who is timeless, spaceless and immaterial.

The Bible does say God is timeless so since the timeless God has been proven and Jesus is proven to be the creator of all things by His resurrection and testimony, we know Jesus to be the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. "All things were made by him (including time); and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1.3).

Infinite regress needs time to be true, but since nature can't always have existed, then infinite regress is false. Outside of time must be the cause, Whom is without infinite regress because He is outside of time. So that which is outside of time can bring time into existence and that is exactly what He does.

No, God is not creating Himself as you say, for since the uncreated Creator is proven to exist (in the proof above), He is uncreated; that is to say, He always existed outside of time and space. That which is uncreated has no cause. That which is created needs a cause. Regarding your analogy of the house, you got it. God is outside the house of creation, and all that is outside the creation is God Himself: the Triune God. Think how illogical that is to say God created Himself. Why would God need to create Himself if He already always existed? Since you can't show any paradox but only assert one, you got nothing; your faith is blind, so why should anyone believe you? You must break down the proof for the uncreated Creator. Unless and until you do so, we can be confident you will never be able to do so because it's a perfect proof: that is to say, each step along the way necessitates the the next piece of evidence to make it a perfect proof. You can be confident God doesn't have to create Himself since He always existed. No need to create that which always existed.

Maybe you haven't read the Bible from Genesis 1 straight through to Revelation chapter 22 and so that is why you have a lot of crazy ideas, a very shallow understanding of reality. Why put up a Chinese Wall between you and God? This is the independency, disobedience, and hostility that all men are born into. Read the Bible to help you with your stinkin' thinkin'.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

[Yrost]

if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already

How do you know this?

[Parture]

How do you know this?

I already said, "having had an eternity to do so." One fact necessarily leads to the next.

[Yrost]

What's the problem with that?

[Parture]

What's the problem with that?

Why do you think there is a problem with that?

[Yrost]

Are you saying that with an eternity of regress there will be no present?

[Parture]

Are you saying that with an eternity of regress there will be no present?

Absolutely. You can look at it from two ways. If you propose an infinite regress, there would have been an eternity going on before now, so you would never come into being. Contrariwise, if there was an infinite regress you would have had an eternity to have happened already. These are just some of the inherent contradictions with infinite regress. I like Hibert's Paradoxical Hotel. I am just taking your premise for eternity and showing the conclusion would be you would not exist as well as the inherent contradictions cited. You cannot both have happened already and could never have existed.

[Yrost]

Okay, but do you understand that this only applies to our understanding of real-time, which breaks down at the quantum level to imaginary-time?

Imaginary time has no beginning nor end.

[Parture]

I am glad imaginary time is just imaginary like imaginary billion pound gorillas.

I particularly like the fact that even in imaginary time if time always would have existed, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so imaginary time is false. See I proved your delusion to be false.

[Yrost]

Imaginary time isn't imaginary in the fantastical sense. The term "Imaginary" is a mathematical notion as in "Imaginary" Numbers.

However, I'm not here to tutor you on mathematics, but simply teach what this imaginary time is. Imaginary time is cyclic, it has no beginning nor end, in this sense it repeats itself. Imaginary time is almost like a spatial dimension, meaning that you can go backwards and forwards along it. Think of a starting point like the North Pole, it isn't really the beginning or end of the world, thus imaginary time has no beginning or end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time