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

[Parture]

I read that page. It all sounds quite speculative at best. They say there are as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists. Which one is right?

There is nothing about imaginary time being cyclic anyway mentioned on that wiki page, so you are just concocting silly theories to reject God.

Time as a spatial dimension doesn't change the fact if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. For example, this world didn't just come here from nothing. It had a cause. The north pole has a cause.

The article agrees with what I said, for it said, "But when visualized with imaginary time, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in spacetime."

So a cause is needed. Time can't just come into being from nothing.

[Yrost]

You didn't understand the article at all.

"But when visualized with imaginary time, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in spacetime." This means that using imaginary time, the big bang is not the beginning of our universe. It references no causal agents.

Imaginary time isn't proven, but it explains actual phenomenon that can not be explained with real-time and excludes a need to explain it with a god or gods which don't explain any phenomenon.

Imaginary time, just might be the actual reality and real time is the illusion.

[Parture]

"Any other point in space time" is always causal, so placing the big bang in the universe still exhibits required causation. Since causation exists in your admittedly unproven imaginary time, there would be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Consequently, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause that is outside of itself, outside of time, imaginary time, space, matter and antimatter. This is whom we call God.

[Yrost]

No... points in time say nothing about cause. Furthermore imaginary time has no beginning nor end. Infinite regress does not apply.

[Parture]

Since all we see in time is causal, time is intrical to the causal process. There is not really just only time and only space, but it is space-time. Your admittedly unproven imaginary time still has beginning and end (the wiki page doesn't say otherwise), so infinite regress is a problem, because infinite regress is not possible, and that leaves you with a dead theory.

[Yrost]

You didn't understand the math on the page, I see. Then this article explains it simpler for you.
http://www.suite101.com/content/imaginary-timenot-what-you-think-a21794

Hartle and Hawking clearly state that Imaginary Time has no beginning or end and that it is probably what real time actually is without the illusion that's created by our minds.

It's not proven, but that's from proper scientific standards. In these standards your god isn't proven either. From your standards, imaginary time is proven, because it explains the problems you have, it explains infinite regress as imaginary time is a traversal dimension, it has no beginning nor end and can exist for infinity just like actual space does ^^.

Lastly, your assertion that everything has a cause isn't proven either. What causes electromagnetism?

[Parture]

I guess you didn't read that article very well, as was already said our earth just didn't happen all by itself, so the north pole didn't just happen all by itself. There is a cause from the stars.

Even if time had no beginning in your imaginary universe, you would have happened already anyway, having had an eternity to do so, so this proves clearly there cannot be infinite regress. Hence, the cause of the universe must be that which is outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

As was said before, if something is without a cause from nothing, that violates all the laws of science since that which does not exist can't produce anything and flies in the face of the trillions and trillions of causes we do observe, so surely you are mad. It's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one hoping you could still one.

And of course, you don't need to be all-knowing like God to know if God exists, since obviously you will never be God. To realize how pretentious you are, even if there was one last thing you didn't know you would still hold out it could disprove God. There is such a thing as false humility and I think we are seeing it in you.




(http://www.suite101.com/content/imaginary-timenot-what-you-think-a21794#ixzz10xeqBkvz)

[Yrost]

You're still applying causal concepts from real time to imaginary time. Imaginary time has no beginning nor end. Therefore there can be no infinite regress. All cause and effects in time as we perceive are an illusion created by imaginary time.

[Parture]

Time and imaginary time would both have causation. There is nothing you were able to show otherwise to overturn the trillions of causes we see in nature, and no hard evidence for something from nothing. There is nothing in the articles you presented me that it would be without cause.

The website says imaginary time is unproven. Even if imaginary time exists with no beginning or end, it still needs a cause, for nothing in nature is without a cause. That is our overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If imaginary time is real, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, so your faith is a failure. An infinite regress round and round in imaginary time could not go on forever in the past, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Imaginary time in no way shape or form suggestions the time we do observe is illusory or non-causal, so you are reaching in desperation. When you drop an apple, it's because causally gravity is at work and you released it with your hand.

You see atheists have to devise insane ideas to match the insanity of rejecting God as well as shut their minds down to the trillions and trillions of causes in nature with no hard evidence something happens from nothing. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, this proves who the uncreated, timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator is.

[Yrost]

Wrong... your god remains completely unproven. There isn't a single shred of evidence that your god exists. You want to believe it based on complete tautology and circular reasoning, but this is just a part of your mind that's trying to protect yourself from the dying belief in your imaginary friend. The use of the term "imaginary" here, is not mathematical.

But lol, regardless of these clear facts, you'll still continue in your denial based on nonsense. You'll rename this nonsense and call it "proof" and then think that this will work in the real world, while everyone else laughs at you. Your attempts are truly ridiculous, however you do bring up one valid correlation. Why do we exist? This has been asked since Mesopotamian times and has been answered by thousands of different religions world wide.

It's nice to know now that science shows us that time itself is an illusion. That everything has simply always existed.

Your arguments have been utterly destroyed. I think my work is done here.

[Parture]

Wrong... your god remains completely unproven. There isn't a single shred of evidence that your god exists. You want to believe it based on complete tautology and circular reasoning, but this is just a part of your mind that's trying to protect yourself from the dying belief in your imaginary friend. The use of the term "imaginary" here, is not mathematical.
I am glad you can't show any tautology or circular reasoning. His yoke is easy, I find this no difficulty or problem whatsoever to know that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in all the universes you proposed and types of time, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Contrariwise, you would never have happened because eternity would have kept on going before it could ever have gotten to you. Since nature therefore needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, this uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Why don't you study Hilbert's Paradoxical Hotel of Infinity? This may help you wake up from the deep dark slumber you are in. I am still waiting also from you for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.


But lol, regardless of these clear facts, you'll still continue in your denial based on nonsense. You'll rename this nonsense and call it "proof" and then think that this will work in the real world, while everyone else laughs at you. Your attempts are truly ridiculous, however you do bring up one valid correlation. Why do we exist? This has been asked since Mesopotamian times and has been answered by thousands of different religions world wide.Ignore your vague talk, to answer your question, Why do we exist? we exist to give glory to God and fellowship with Him in that glory, like a great leader surrounds himself with great people. It is only in Christianity do we find God enter into His creation personally and selflessly willing to pay for the sins of the world. God wants to receive those who truly receive Him as He is, Who takes up Himself the sins of the world. If you are too selfish to receive the love of God, then surely you don't think you can be with God, but must go to Hell. And no other religion has the resurrection proof which is the best proof of all. I am glad people in history ask questions. I am not sure how that is an argument you are making of any kind. Perhaps you can elaborate. But know God is choosing a people for Himself He selected before the foundations of the world. The rest such as yourself go to Hell.


It's nice to know now that science shows us that time itself is an illusion. That everything has simply always existed.

Your arguments have been utterly destroyed. I think my work is done here.I am glad you can't find any credible scientists who think time is an illusion. You're watching too many movies. Since nature is always seen to have a cause, nature could not always have existed for you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You lose.

Don't run away from reality, it's not healthy for you.

[Yrost]

Nature is not always seen to have a cause. You have yet to prove this with anything other than the tautology of saying. "Trillions and trillions of causes". You're saying that you're proving that all things are seen to have a cause because all things need cause. This is tautological and false.

Again, time at the quantum level provides no problem with infinite regress.

Christianity isn't healthy for human beings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJksLRtberQ
http://www.myth-one.com/memorial.htm

[Parture]

Trillions and trillions of causes is not a tautology but a fact we observe which is powerful evidence along with no hard evidence for something coming from nothing.

Yes, all things need a cause in nature because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt with trillions and trillions of causes in nature. It's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one. Surely you will lose and find yourself in Hell one day.

Quantum level exhibits the same problem as the rest of nature, if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Atheism is not healthy for you because it denies the solution to your sin problem (e.g. sinning bearing false witness against Christians or claiming people are Christians who are not) so you remain in your sins and shall die in your sins. Sin leads to death and the second death which is Hell. How sad for you, for you know not what you do.

All you need do is ask yourself, Would Jesus do that? If the answer is No, according to the Scriptures, then you are just like the Satan that great accuser who also can't prove his accusations.

[Yrost]

No... at quantum levels time breaks down into a mere dimension like space. There is no beginning or end. There is no backwards or forwards. It's very simple.

Nitrogen-14 atoms spontaneously form from Carbon-14 atoms. There is no cause proven for this, therefore making your causes argument unproven.

[Parture]

There is no evidence time breaks down. There is no evidence time has no beginning. You admit your theory is unproven according to all the links you give me that say it is unproven. There is no evidence time doesn't go forward. There is no evidence something happens from nothing. You have to prove it. Just because you can't see the cause, doesn't mean there is no cause.

What we can prove is that there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. Therefore, this necessitated infinite regress, but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. The cause for the universe must, therefore, be outside of time and space. This is whom we call God and we know Who is He by Christ, because of the proof of His resurrection and you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Nobody can, because the past two thousand years all possibilities have been exhausted.

This proof is so important because it leaves everyone without excuse. It is something we all intuitively know.

Praise the Lord!

[Yrost]

There is
You haven't read anything on Quantum Mechanics have you?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/thesis.html

[Parture]

I was told that there are as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists, so I don't place much stock in so many conflicting beliefs that really fill people's own personal bias. I do think it is disingenuous to try to disprove God with that which is most complicated rather than trying to do so in stuff more well known. Suffice it to say, what we can discern with complete confidence is that we always see causation in nature, so that leads to infinite regress. Therefore, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

So the universe needs a cause that is outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is the God who I humbly submit myself to in reverence through Jesus Christ who fully reveals Himself to us by the proof of His resurrection and working in us to know all things sum up in Christ. God graced me with this knowledge because I sought Him out with all my heart and soul. May you do the same.

I can see the problem the future holds as those who are anti-God will come up with bizarre quantum theories to aid in their hostility, but they are of course mad as a hatter. We explore the universe not to try to disprove God, but discover more of His wondrous glory.

When I ask myself how would I have created the universe? I would have done it exactly the way God does. I can't even think of something that could be better. It's perfect. Have you this same reverence for God? Ask yourself the same question. What would you remove or add? Do you think you could improve on it? Let me know.

[Churchwork]

It's clear Hawkings in his latest book is trying to find a way to prove God does not exist, but not with much success. How big a hole do you think Hawkings will dig for himself?

You do need God to explain the universe, because if the universe always existed, you would have happened by now, having had an eternity to do so. Never forget those words.

Even Hawkings admits the universe had a beginning at the south pole. How did this time regime come into existence? Empty space isn't nothing. It needs a cause as well. Hawkings doesn't look back far enough.

Vacuum space doesn't exist prior to the universe. Hawkings doesn't address the fundamental issue where this time regime comes from. You can't start with the space dirt.

Hawkings ironically is proving a Creator because he doesn't know what occurred before the bottom of the south pole and concedes the fine tuning is truly miraculous. Many worlds are used to explain fine tuning. We are just lucky we are in the finely tunned one that many worlds produce. But then where do the many world comes from? Never ending nonsense! How can someone so smart be so dumb? Truly, God is no respecter of persons.

Scientists and philosophers are not fooled by Hawkings anti-reality agenda. He actually said both young earth creationism and the 13.7 billion year old universe are true. Endless contradictions. Satan is the author of confusion. The evil spirit dwells within the heart of Stephen Hawkings.

Occam's Razor needs to be brought in to save the day. Get rid of your worlds, get rid of your south pole, get rid of your imaginary time. Very simply we have the universe and the Creator of the universe.

[Churchwork]

"I don't know any Christian who would disagree with these options,...not those who are going to Hell as you are,"
According to Pope John Paul II the Bible doesn't say I'm going to hell and the last survey I saw said that over three fourths of Christianity agrees that I'm not. That you're kicking me out for taking a position held by most of Christianity is very telling, you really should have heard of this before now.

Certainly you must wonder why the scientific community doesn't take the proofs you're using seriously. It must be very strange to think you have a definitive proof for god and wonder why people don't accept it.

The problem is your inability to listen to people with opinions other than your own. It's why this place is an echo chamber reinforcing the correctness of your flawed proofs instead of a place where you can get the criticism necessary to revise them. Instead your left thinking that there are no "naturalistic" explanations for the creation of the universe. A position which is demonstrably wrong:

"The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-Universe.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html)

Since it's clear that your going to kick me out at this point I'm off to re-post this conversation in a number of other forums. I kick the dust off my feet and leave you with 1 Peter 3:16 to contemplate the ridicule and insults you've used throughout this exchange in the hope that you'll act toward others in the future in a more Christian manner.

"But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ." (1 Peter 3:16 NLV)

Firstly, the Pope is not a Christian and the Bible speaks against the Roman Church. But I already said that which you overlooked. Secondly, none of those people you put in your poll are Christians, for Christians know Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone and that most people are going to Hell. Hell is wide and vast. Compare that the New City which is only 1379 x 1379 miles. Jesus is the one defines Christianity and He says you are "condemned already" (John 3.18). I am on team Jesus not your hateful team.

Most of the scientific community agrees something can't come from nothing whether they are Christian or not, and they agree necessarily then there must exist an infinite regress in such a case so you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Hilbert's Paradoxical Hotel is often cited. Some may not like the conclusion, but it is inescapable that then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. That's frustrating for you I know, but that's reality.

The problem is you don't listen, that's why you keep avoiding these points, so you sound like a clanging bell. Evidence is what matters but you have no evidence for your silly theories. Hawkings admits imaginary time is admittedly unproven. He himself admits there is nothing before the south pole and nothing before the singularity, so why should there be anything rather than nothing? You can propose any silly theory you like but if it is not backed by some evidence really what is it worth? The evidence is we have trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself from nothing.

Stephen Hawkings is wrong. He is not fooling the majority of the scientific community with His Grand Delusion. It's widely known he is searching far and wide to explain the universe without the need for God, but since Hawkings is unable to disprove this proof, then he is wrong. Sending me the same link again that doesn't address the problem I have to keep repeating back to you reflects badly upon you and the weakness of your stance.

You're still misreading 1 Pet. 3.16. Why don't you address how you misread this verse rather than repeat the same mistake? Again, you're a clanging bell of nonsense. Satan whom you follow is the author of confusion and great accuser, so you can see how you take after him, as he doesn't make sense and can't back up anything just like you.

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Pet. 3.16). Since I have told you the truth I have a good conscience, but you don't and so you should be ashamed. I would be ashamed if I were you. So you're like this rogue cell in the body that doesn't adhere to the body, replicating itself, unruly, and infecting the whole body. This is you. So you can see why we have to throw people in jail for life and God has to lock you up in Hell for eternity, because you are unhealthy to be around.

The responsibility of a Christian is to tell you these truths whether you like them or not. That's all we can do. Now the choice is yours to decide whether to accept reality or remain delusional.

By the way, you also also given a false quote of that verse since no manuscripts agree with that particular NLT interpretation. It doesn't start off with "do this in a gentle and respectful way". That is not to say we don't, just that you have actually misused this verse by adding to the text that which is not there. Think about that. Think about the motivation behind why you do that. You're actually accusing Jesus.

Clearly you are going to Hell. This is part of the gospel.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3.18-20).

Why accuse Jesus of being disrespectful and not being gentle? Why should Jesus respect you for calling Him a liar? Why should He be gentle with you because you hate Him? Rather, He should be firm and bold in explaining to you that you are a bad person who belongs in Hell. How sad for you this is the type of person you want to be. I truly feel sorry for you, for you know not what you do.

p.s. Since you keep selecting as one of the options in your profile a gift for the Church as defined in the Bible yet you are not a member of the body of Christ, clearly you are being dishonest, and that's not good. How can you be a gift for the Church when you call Jesus and the disciples' liars? That makes no sense at all. Morever, you still have not found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. How much bigger a hole do you want dig yourself?

[Churchwork]

A great verse to show Jesus exists outside of time and space is Matthew 8, "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (v.20). That is to say, outside of time and space the uncreated Creator does not exist in some domain, but there is just God Almighty, so when He enters His creation and people forsake Him, He likewise has no home on earth to make His abode as He keeps getting run out of town by those who are antichrist like atheists.

[Yrost]

I've linked you to enough sources to show you that time does not work in the fashion you want to believe it does.
Furthermore, causation is not always seen in nature. Saying that it is, is a lie.

[Parture]

You don't need to be all-knowing to know all things like God does to know nature always needs a cause, for that obviously would be pretentious since you will never be all-knowing. So stop erecting yourself above God like Satan does. You would always keep holding out for the explanation, thus invalidating all previous explanations, since they always need an explanation. Once you have the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation.

It is enough to observe the trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, to know the universe always has a cause. Therefore, since the universe always needs a cause that leads to infinite regress, but infinite regress is false, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This is how we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space which make up our universe.

When you compare a universe that always existed with the Creator of the universe, you come to realize that the latter always wins out, because that which has no life can't generate that which does have life. You can mix the universe up any way you want for eternity and it still would never produce even the simplest living cell. You continue to prove this more and more every day because you can't generate life spontaneously from non living matter. To produce a mind you need a mind. To produce conscience, conscience is needed. To generate free will, you need free will. To be able to say, "You are my God", God must give God-consciousness. Amen.

Since the links you provide admit your theory of time is unproven, how is that evidence? So you are just lying to yourself. It's really just false humility. Anyone could introduce any theorem they like, but if you got no evidence then get off the pot. Who would ever think you were being humble if you knew all things except one last thing yet still held out that one last thing could disprove the proof I gave you? Vanity of vanities!

The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems prove that a cosmological singularity is inevitable, and therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be oscillating from eternity because it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Stephen Hawking notes about this that, "The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems led to the abandonment of attempts, mainly by the Russians, to argue that there was previously a contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Almost everyone now believes the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang."

Even with Hawking's latest book, he admits that time began to exist at the bottom of the badminton shoot. For something to begin to exist needs a cause. This is what your imaginary time would indicate, as Hawking admits, there was nothing before the badminton shoot, so he admits he has a problem, because a time regime began, yet he shuts his mind down to the necessity of a cause. Space itself can't spontaneously generate time. There must be a legitimate cause. Since the bottom of the badminton shoot requires a beginning, then it needs an explanation. Anything that has a beginning needs a cause, whether you think time exists at that point or before that point or after that point is irrelevant. So the point of time or no time is irrelevant since that which brings in time necessarily must be supernaturally timeless and beyond time, transcending time and space.

You just can't win. And the more we learn about science, the more your arguments seem sillier and sillier. Hope this helps.

[Yrost]

God is also unproven and has no empirical observations to support such. Imaginary time has empirical observations to support it.

Nevertheless, time breaks down at the quantum level. This is observable and observed. Until you explain how quantum time works, you can not make arguments about infinite regress or beginnings.

There is no reason to believe that anything is caused by anything other than the 4 fundamental forces. Science does not show us that everything has a cause.

[Parture]

The proven empirical observations are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something that comes that which has no energy. The links you give for imaginary time not only concede it is unproven, but Hawking himself conceded in his recent book that empirical time had a beginning at the south pole or bottom of the badminton shoot, so it needs a cause.

Even if time breaks down, it needs a cause, since energy always has a cause in nature. You do not need to know all things. You don't need to know even if any of the many quantum theories are true, for the evidence we do have is more than sufficient as trillions and trillions of causes is more than ample, and no evidence something comes from nothing.

This is science and it shows us everything in science, therefore, must have a cause. Science is not presuming something to be true when you don't have evidence to be sure it is true.

To deny lifting your arm has a cause due to your muscles, oxygen to your muscles, and your will to move your arm is quite delusional. Or, saying trees grow because of the big bang but there was no cause of photosynthesis from our sun to the leaves.

[Yrost]

Muscles, oxygen and trees growing are all due to the 4 fundamental forces in nature. Saying there are trillions of causes is a lie.

Imaginary time is unproven, but is a valid method of understanding how time works. Besides, before you make any assertions about time you need to explain how time works at the quantum level.

There is no evidence that everything has or needs a cause, there are phenomenon that are not known to have a cause, assuming there is one is just that, an assumption. Using it as proof of something is insignificant, deceptive and fallacious.

[Parture]

Just because muscles need the laws of nature to exist doesn't mean there is no causation between lifting your arm and muscles. To deny the trillions of causes in nature is a lie. If your muscles are not a cause of lifting your arm, then neither are the 4 fundamental forces of nature, because the forces of nature have a cause also as do all the amazing constants, quantities and variables in nature.

Even more, there can not only be 4 fundamental forces of nature since we observe things in nature that can't be attributed to those 4 fundamental laws like seeing Jesus alive from the dead and how nature can't overturn the evidence it can't always have existed (since you would have happened already).

I am glad you admitted imaginary time is unproven and could be imaginary, so it can't be admitted into evidence, and therefore, it is not a valid method. You do not need to know anything about quantum theory to know God exists since there are as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists.

The burden is on you to show something in nature happens all by itself and since you can't do that, then you fail, even prove that you are going to Hell. There are no phenomenon in nature to be without a cause, so asserting this without evidence is wrong. There is evidence of only causation since we observe trillions and trillions of causes and even you admit, there are forces of nature that are causal, and they need a cause also.

Clearly your pseudo-science is a result of your desire to be eternally separated from God. How sad for you.

[Yrost]

Fundamental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) interactions, such as with the fundamental causes, are deemed fundamental because there are no simpler causes to explain them.

Your muscles contracting and moving are a cause of lifting your arm, but your muscles are only a product of fundamental interactions. Therefore saying muscles are the cause is the same as saying fundamental forces are the cause.

We can not, today, observe Jesus being raised from the dead, the splitting of the moon by Muhammed or any of the miracles of Vishnu and Ahura Mazda. So they can not be explained scientifically and remain a part of faith. Not science.

Imaginary Time is not proven, but it is mathematically valid and explains the workings of Quantum Mechanics well. Imaginary time IS Imaginary.

Radioactive decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) is spontaneous and causeless. This is my evidence of something in nature happening without a cause.

I did not say that the fundamental causes in nature are causal. As a matter of fact fundamental interactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) are called fundamental because they can't be explained as happening due to other interactions.

[Parture]

Fundamental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) interactions, such as with the fundamental causes, are deemed fundamental because there are no simpler causes to explain them.
These fundamental laws that are irreducibly complex would have a cause because a non-mind can't produce a mind. And they don't explain why we will this or that, why we feel this or that, why we have self-consciousness since these fundamental laws do not, and why we have God-consciousness when those laws can't have that.


Your muscles contracting and moving are a cause of lifting your arm, but your muscles are only a product of fundamental interactions. Therefore saying muscles are the cause is the same as saying fundamental forces are the cause.You have to ask yourself why did the fundamental laws just all of a sudden commence a world we can live in? You got no answer. Abiding in laws is not the same thing as saying there are these causes.


We can not, today, observe Jesus being raised from the dead, the splitting of the moon by Muhammed or any of the miracles of Vishnu and Ahura Mazda. So they can not be explained scientifically and remain a part of faith. Not science.The faith you have is counter-scientific, because you violate the laws of nature and science. Scientifically and psychologically, we know all naturalistic explanations for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and appearances are impossible, so that is how we know there necessarily exists the cause outside of time and space.

I agree we can't concede any miracles by those others because they were not multiply attested in various group settings like for Jesus' resurrected. And since the moon bears no record of being split by NASA we can be confident either Muhammad or those with Muhammad were liars. I am comfortable with that.


Imaginary Time is not proven, but it is mathematically valid and explains the workings of Quantum Mechanics well. Imaginary time IS Imaginary.It would not be mathematically valid if it is false. Obviously, in in that case, you have some unforeseen mathematical error. Imaginary time is imaginary and that is why it is admittedly unproven. Either way, an always existing imaginary time can't produce a mind for it has no mind.


Radioactive decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) is spontaneous and causeless. This is my evidence of something in nature happening without a cause.You haven't shown radioactive decay is causeless, you just asserted it. There are many things we don't know the cause of, but we don't mindlessly and arrogantly then say they happened all by themselves from that which does not exist. That which does not exist can't cause anything. It should be readily apparent how dumb the atheist's arguments have to be to hold onto atheism.


I did not say that the fundamental causes in nature are causal. As a matter of fact fundamental interactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) are called fundamental because they can't be explained as happening due to other interactions.Fundamental laws are like programs that run and interact with each other, but all the events within them are causal, so there would be an eternity going on of cause and effects in them since they always existed in your mind, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Big problems with your silly theories.

[Yrost]

How do you justify that a non-mind can't produce a mind? Doesn't DNA (a non-mind) produce minds everyday? And what about brain evolution?

No one says that these fundamental forces appeared randomly for no reason.

NASA has never tried to test if the moon was ever split and Muhammed's miracles were multiply attested and there were multiple attestations to those multiple attestations. Here they are:


Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 209)"
Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: "During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, 'Bear witness (to thus).' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830)"
Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)"
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: "The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 832)"
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split (into two places). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 210)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split (into two pieces). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 211)"
Narrated Abdullah: "Five things have passed, i.e. the smoke, the defeat of the Romans, the splitting of the moon, Al-Batsha (the defeat of the infidels in the battle of Badr) and Al-Lizam (the punishment)' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 345)"
Narrated Abdullah: "Allah sent (the Prophet) Muhammad and said:--
'Say, No wage do I ask of you for this (Qur'an) nor am I one of the pretenders (i.e. a person who pretends things which do not exist). (38.68) When Allah's Apostle saw Quraish standing against him, he said, "O Allah! Help me against them by afflicting them with seven years of famine similar to the seven years (of famine) of Joseph. So they were afflicted with a year of drought that destroyed everything, and they ate bones and hides. (One of them said), "And they ate hides and dead animals, and (it seemed to them that) something like smoke was coming out of the earth. So Abu Sufyan came to the Prophet and said, "O Muhammad! Your people are on the verge of destruction! Please invoke Allah to relieve them." So the Prophet invoked Allah for them (and the famine disappeared). He said to them. "You will revert (to heathenism) after that." 'Abdullah then recited:
'Then watch you for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible.......but truly you will revert (to disbelief).' He added, "Will the punishment be removed from them in the Hereafter? The smoke and the grasp and the Al-Lizam have all passed." One of the sub-narrator said, "The splitting of the moon." And another said, "The defeat of the Romans (has passed)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 349)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "Five things have passed: Al-Lizam, the defeat of the Romans, the mighty grasp, the splitting of the moon, and the smoke. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 350)"
Narrated Ibn Masud: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah's Apostle said, 'Witness this miracle.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 387)"
Narrated Abdullah: "The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts. The Prophet said, 'Witness, witness (this miracle).' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388)"
Narrated Ibn Abbas: "The moon was cleft asunder during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 389)"
Narrated Anas: "The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to show them a sign (miracle). So he showed them (the miracle) of the cleaving of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 390)"
Narrated Anas: "The moon was cleft asunder into two parts. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 391)"
"Abdullah said that five signs have (become things) of the past (and have proved the truth of the Holy Prophet): (Enveloping) by the smoke, inevitable (punishment to the Meccans at Badr), (the victory of) Rome, (violent) seizing (of the Meccans at Badr) and (the splitting up of) the Moon. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6721)"
"Abu Ma'mar reported on the authority of Abdullah that the moon was split up during lifetime by Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in two parts and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear testimony to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6724)"
"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6725)"
"Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that the moon was split up in two parts during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). The mountain covered one of its parts and one part of it was above the mountain and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6726)"
"Anas reported that the people of Mecca demanded from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) that he should show them (some) signs (miracles) and he showed them the splitting of the moon. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Anas through another chain of transmitters. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6728)"
"Anas reported that the moon was split up in two parts and in the hadith recorded in Abu Dawud, the words are: 'The moon was split up into two parts during the life of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6729)"
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the moon was split up during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6730)"

There's no scientific proof that Jesus's brain cells actually died, so we can't tell if he really did die or if he swooned and woke up later. Nor is there scientific proof that the actually existed. Nor that the disciples existed.

Again, Imaginary Time is Imaginary. I've already attested to that.

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation. The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle." It's spontaneous. Since you claim that everything has a cause, you have to prove your claim. So what is the cause of this spontaneous emission?

Fundamental interactions is where it gets interesting, because quantum mechanics is what describes these interactions and as this article describes we do not understand exactly how time works at that level. The current explanation for how time works is called Imaginary Time. The article says that Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

In this sense, infinite regress is not an issue.

[Parture]

How do you justify that a non-mind can't produce a mind? Doesn't DNA (a non-mind) produce minds everyday? And what about brain evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html)?
What about it? There is information in the DNA, organized information. How does this information come about? There is no case where organized information in this world did not come about by a mind. DNA needs protein, but protein needs the DNA, so underneath there is more going on -- the Giver of life. The Bible says life is in the blood, deep down, even deeper. Remember, there are 10 dimensions and strings that need a cause. Even the dark energy that is causing the universe to expand exponentially, we can only see down to the 10^25 level with our greatest telescope, but in relation, our calculations tell us it goes down even farther at least to 10^133 level. And nothing we have ever seen in nature can spontaneously generate life. The lesser can never form the greater. Something can't come from that which does not exist.


No one says that these fundamental forces appeared randomly for no reason.Something comes from nothing for a reason? You're being coy. What reason is there something comes from nothing when that which doesn't exist is without anything including reasoning? You realize how nonsensical you sound right? Likewise, what reason is there for an always existing universe? At any rate, your always existing universe has no mind and a mind is needed. The lesser can never form the greater. The universe has no self-awareness, so it can't produce beings that do. That's what evidence tells us, the evidence we observe in everyday nature.


NASA has never tried to test if the moon was ever splitSomeone would have noticed a massive fissure across the moon at some point or Muslims would have tried to prove it, but none of that is forthcoming. Do you know why? Because nobody really believes it. Nobody goes and checks Elvis' grave either, because when you are dead, you're dead. I would guess if the moon split there would be major catastrophe on earth as a result as the relationship of the moon and earth is very finely balanced. There was no such catastrophe at the time. The silliness of your arguments really expose your desperate measures you need to take. You're not challenging me. You're very shallow to me.

So there is only two possibilities. They lied and people accepted a lie, or an illusion took place with the clouds and lighting and so forth. No big deal. Maybe a falling star crossed the moon's path. In the Quran there is a chapter called: "AL-QAMAR" or "THE MOON"... This chapter starts as follows: 1 The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. Wow! That's all you got to say about it? That was not very descriptive at all. Such a global event would have been recorded by many. Muslim scholars have tried to discredit it, because they know it never happened in the way many are trying to suggest. I am not saying it didn't split in other ways. Since that is a viable option, there is no issue. These are naturalistic explanations. And can hardly be compared to Christ.

The writings of the NT are within a few decades of their events, not over 200 years later, so reports of those seeing the split moon are not that credible, but we can grant they saw the moon split, but simply not in the way we would think. With the span of 200 years, you can get some embellishment. With Jesus you can't embellish resurrection. It's resurrection. You can embellish a split moon from an illusion to it physically actually breaking apart. So your story fails. It also fails the test of up close and personal.

I think you are going about this all wrong. If you were to try to disprove Jesus' resurrection, you would simply need to find a naturalistic explanation, rather than comparing Jesus to a moon. And I think you are starting to do more of that now but the theories you have tried are fully destroyed.


Muhammed's miracles...What miracles? Muhammad never performed any miracles. He says he is greater than Jesus but Muhammad performed no miracles. Plus, he was as vague as could be about his split moon. Miracles have more substance than that.


There's no scientific proof that Jesus's brain cells actually died, so we can't tell if he really did die or if he swooned and woke up later. Nor is there scientific proof that the actually existed. Nor that the disciples existed.All you need to do is poke your heart with spear so all the water and blood come out and see if you live. But before doing that make sure you get someone to scourge your back down to the bone and walk a good distance with thorns in your head carrying a heavy cross. Then get someone to nail your feet and hands, let yourself go unsupported with your legs for more than 12 minutes (scientifically, the heart stops at this point, it suffocates). And make sure the people that are in charge of ensuring your death will be beaten badly if not put to death for letting you live.

We don't doubt Aristotle or Plato or Tiberius lived, yet Jesus has tonnes more sources about him than anyone in antiquity, so you don't need scientific proof. The life of Jesus is surrounded by the 12 Apostles, their writings and works, so well multiply corroborated, so if you deny the existence of Jesus and the disciples, you would have to deny every person who ever lived in history, since the standard for the disiciples and Jesus far outweigh anyone else. I don't know any historians who are that obnoxious. Not even Muslims are that belligerent.

Furthermore, Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah to the disciples and he would be a liar, which wouldn't convince anyone He resurrected, so your Swoon Theory is thrown in the garbage with everything else you have said. Why be such a dullard? How are you searching God out with all your heart and soul? I don't see it in anything you are saying, so that explains why God withholds salvation from you. In fact, all I have said is in part God's grace working to reach you.


Again, Imaginary Time is Imaginary. I've already attested to that.

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?The Wiki page says it is unproven so it is not accepted into evidence. Whether real or not is irrelevant anyway, because it needs a cause since a non-mind can't produce a mind. That's what the evidence tells us. You can't get abiogenesis to work, so you lose. You can't explain why an uncaused timeless universe would just arbitrarily produce time. You can't explain the meaning behind an uncaused universe. It's all meaningless to shut your mind down and corrupt yourself more by dropping your moral standards even further. This is how Satan is using you. In the next few years you will take the mark of the beast ensuring your permanency in Hell.


The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus) loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation). The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle." It's spontaneous. Since you claim that everything has a cause, you have to prove your claim. So what is the cause of this spontaneous emission?Just because it doesn't collide we know there are other processes since the nucleus is not irreducible. You don't need to know everything in the universe to know the universe always has a cause, since we have trillions and trillions of causes in nature which is more than enough preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're contradicting yourself, because you demand you have to be all-knowing to know if God exists. Obviously, you are not God so that is a contradiction.


Fundamental interactions is where it gets interesting, because quantum mechanics is what describes these interactions and as this article describes (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/thesis.html) we do not understand exactly how time works at that level. The current explanation for how time works is called Imaginary Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time). The article says that Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

In this sense, infinite regress is not an issue.Since imaginary time is admittedly unproven and imaginary, you can't bring it into evidence. You're just speculating. Let's work with just the evidence. However, even if imaginary time was not imaginary, it would still pose the problem it has no mind, so it can't create sentient beings. That is that.