Atheists are Dullards Which is Why They are Atheists

[Peter]

Re: chickfangen @ Youtube


If your god does not need a cause and is timeless, we can apply this to a multiverse
A multiverse exists as time and space. God exists outside of time and space. Since the cause is timeless, spaceless and uncaused your multiverse theory falls on its head.


We never have seen evidence and we never have seen the real face and there is really no reason to believe it.
It's illogical you demand to see that which you can't see which is timeless and spaceless. But by the evidence which you don't challenge we know God exists. We even have God's Son enter His creation and prove He is God by the resurrection proof which can't occur naturally.


It could be everything and does not need a personality (don't invoke the bible its written by hallucinating people)
The proof I have given you makes no mention of the Bible, but simply observing nature we know God exists. The Bible states this as the proof also in Rom. 1.20. But God is so gracious He even goes beyond that and gives us the resurrection proof of God the Son.

The DM-4 psychology manual says there is no such thing as group hallucinations, so you're trying to invoke them is delusional on your part.

You are not God so God is not everything. Again, your arrogance and self-exaltation is showing its true colors.


Alright lets discuss the synthetic bacterias now.
Your desire to make synthetic bacteria real bacteria has not been accepted by the scientific community. At best it is just putting machinery into a cell to make it look real like adding an mechanical heart. Moreover, in order to form a real bacteria you would need to do so unintelligently by mixing and mashing of atoms to randomly produce a replicating organism.

There has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to even make that possible. I realize you disagree with theoretic physicists who state these facts, but I will concede to their intelligence and not yours since you just don't have the credentials and what they say makes sense.

[Chickfangen]

Are you parture from youtube?

If i would say that the multiverse causes time and space in no time (just like you claim your god does), would you still say it needs a cause?
Your theory states that "god" whatever that is, creates something out of nothing.

But what if the multiverse was always there and never came from nothing? This is just my theory but it makes more sense than god.
I don't know where this theory came from but i heard it from peter atkins: The universe is a separation of opposites and the total combined mass of this universe equals zero.

No, you are invoking the bible by speaking about jesus, etc etc. I heard this argument about mass hallucinations do not happen (except if everyone takes drugs of course). I don't care about the bible, 100% of it is written by humans and the historical "evidence" for jesus is no scientific evidence for god. Maybe there was a man called jesus christus, maybe there was not. Today people see dead people in the streets. Would you say they are jesus?

Bacterias that were made in the lab are real bacterias. They are made out of the same organic matter as every other bacteria. They are no nanobots.

This calculation states that there have not been enough "interatomic interactions" (could you tell me what that word means please?) to create proteins and cells and humans etc. If this would be true, we would not be there.

A self replicating molecule depends always on its environment. Obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form amino acids and there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form bigger and bigger molecules, namely macromolcules through mutation. Nature probably didn't just put thousand amino acids together and created proteins but those formed over time.

A few other, not really relevant things that are wrong in this calculation. 10^80 atoms are estimated to be in the OBSERVABLE universe. It is assuming how many interatomic interactions there are in one second. It is also assuming that according to evolution nature just puts thousands of amino acids together and forms a protein. Nobody said this happened. Again it happened slowly over time.

I do not know the source of this calculation but it appears to me that it came from a christian mathematician, not a theoretical physicist. This person is smashing facts and unknown variables together and claims there haven't been enough "interatomic interactions" in the universe.

The problem with this calculation is that it is using cosmology, math and chemistry to disprove evolution.

Parture, your arguments are not very intelligent as well. You called smallness a unit and couldn't explain the logic of free will.

[Parture]

Thanks Peter for your opening comments.


If i would say that the multiverse causes time and space in no time (just like you claim your god does), would you still say it needs a cause? Your theory states that "god" whatever that is, creates something out of nothing.
The problem is your timeless multiverse occupies space, but we have already determined that space needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. And you are confused about creation. God creates not out of nothing but from out of Himself He creates this wonderful universe with its four dimensions of space and time, or 10 dimensions, or is it 11 now, using M theory.


But what if the multiverse was always there and never came from nothing? This is just my theory but it makes more sense than god. I don't know where this theory came from but i heard it from peter atkins: The universe is a separation of opposites and the total combined mass of this universe equals zero.
A mind is needed to create a mind, but your mindless and pointless always existing universe has no mind. Mindlessness makes no sense at all. You probably heard it from Lawrence Krauss. He has been universally rejected as a crackpot going off the deep end. He garners no respect from the scientific community in his something from nothing videos. If the universe is zero then it should never have existed, since something can't come from nothing.


No, you are invoking the bible by speaking about jesus, etc etc. I heard this argument about mass hallucinations do not happen (except if everyone takes drugs of course). I don't care about the bible, 100% of it is written by humans and the historical "evidence" for jesus is no scientific evidence for god. Maybe there was a man called jesus christus, maybe there was not. Today people see dead people in the streets. Would you say they are jesus?
The proof for God doesn't invoke Jesus. No mention of Jesus is given. Romans 1.20 gives the same proof I have given you. However, the Bible does confirm who this God is, for it is Jesus by the resurrection proof. When people take drugs they hallucinate different things, so again your group hallucination theory is false. The evidence for Jesus is very scientific and meets all necessary historical criteria to be true. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, you concede Jesus is God even if you don't want to admit it. The burden remains on you. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any ten figures combined, so if you are going to throw out Jesus from the historical record, you will have to throw out Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, etc. There are no accounts of groups seeing dead people alive in the streets. Group hallucinations are impossible.


Bacterias that were made in the lab are real bacterias. They are made out of the same organic matter as every other bacteria. They are no nanobots.
No bacteria has been created from just the elements of the elemental table mixed together. You're delusional. Abiogenesis has not been proven. It would be all over the news. Do you see how you are willing to believe a lie? All man has been able to do is take a bacteria body and replace some of its motor functions or implant RNA or DNA into it to cause it to function. But nobody has been able to produce these DNA strands from the elemental table.


This calculation states that there have not been enough "interatomic interactions" (could you tell me what that word means please?) to create proteins and cells and humans etc. If this would be true, we would not be there.
When you take all the atoms that ever existed multiplied the number of generously assumed interatomic interactions per atom this is still not enough to produce the first replicating organism. Therefore, the Divine presence is needed to enact it to form our body from dust (Gen. 2.7) over billions of years (1.1).


A self replicating molecule depends always on its environment. Obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form amino acids and there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form bigger and bigger molecules, namely macromolcules through mutation. Nature probably didn't just put thousand amino acids together and created proteins but those formed over time.
There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to produce the simplest living organism. Since man can't reproduce this alleged abiogenesis then to claim it is true is wild speculation contrary to the existing evidence we have thusfar.


A few other, not really relevant things that are wrong in this calculation. 1080 atoms are estimated to be in the OBSERVABLE universe. It is assuming how many interatomic interactions there are in one second. It is also assuming that according to evolution nature just puts thousands of amino acids together and forms a protein. Nobody said this happened. Again it happened slowly over time.
It is not assuming the number of interatomic interactions per second, but scientists are universally agreed this is the maximum number of interatomic interactions per second of 1012. 1080 is the number of atoms not in the observable but the known universe. This is pretty accurate stuff. Nature would have to put 200 amino acids together as a protein, not in a second, but within 13.7 billion years. It can't do this let alone 1000 proteins for the simplest life form.


I do not know the source of this calculation but it appears to me that it came from a christian mathematician, not a theoretical physicist. This person is smashing facts and unknown variables together and claims there haven't been enough "interatomic interactions" in the universe.
I don't know if he is a Christian, but this is the agreed scientific conclusion by most theoretical scientists such as by John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days (http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6712), pp. 224-25. The numbers of 1080 is widely accepted.


The problem with this calculation is that it is using cosmology, math and chemistry to disprove evolution.
You're so confused. I believe in evolution. We are not disproving evolution. We are proving evolution can't even begin because you can't produce the first replicating organism. You're not too bright are you?


Parture, your arguments are not very intelligent as well. You called smallness a unit and couldn't explain the logic of free will.
You don't need to explain how God gave us self-consciousness and God-consciousness to know it is exist for it is self-evident, I think, therefore I am. I believe God exists so I have this faith. And you don't need to be God to know free will exists. Our free choices are exhibited daily. How arrogant of you. You will accept nothing less than you being God to know if God exists? How obnoxious!

I don't recall saying anything about smallness of a unit. Perhaps elaborate in what you are talking about.

[Chickfangen]

I quote from a message you send me on youtube, among other not very intelligent arguments.

They say the smallness of things below goes to at least 10 ^120 which is far smaller than just neural connections. We can only see with the strongest telescope as far as 10 ^20. How humbling this is!

This is by far the most dumb thing i have ever read. You confuse a telescope with a microscope and 10 ^ 120 of what? And tell me how is this even relevant?

Lets continue the argument.

Before we discuss the multiverse i will have some things to clear up.

We do not know how big the universe is. 10 ^ 80 are there in the known universe.
Even though it might be true, could you tell me where you get the 10^12 number from?

And there is one thing that you didn't consider. A self replicating molecule forms by the forces of its environment. Even if this calculation is correct, it does not have to mean that self replicating molecules can not form.
One question. Why is it impossible for a simple self replicating molecule IF the environment is right. This calculation does not involve the environment. With this dumb calculation you could disprove that the earth exist, but obviously it exists.

Its all about the molecules environment, can you come up with a calculation for this? There are more variables to be considered than variables that fit in the brain.


About the synthetic bacteria, you realize that you can change the rna to make the bacteria form different structures and cells? We can produce everything a bacteria is made of as far as i know. And you have not considered the following, science can not produce everything that nature can produce, but will be more and more advance. There is nothing supernatural about bacteria or human cells. In future they will be created and they already can be tampered. No need for god here. Biologists already know how they form. Nothing supernatural.

About the multiverse. Whether it occupies space and time or not, it contains everything. If your claims are right about the uncreated whatever then it could be a multiverse, containing space and time, just like you claim your "god" does. Space and time is within the Multiverse.

Lets conclude that
Macromolecules form over time according to their environment.
Cells of bacterias can be tampered.
If you claim that a multiverse has to occupy space and time (although i said that it could be space(s) and time(s) itself) then what makes you think the uncreated occult thing that you are falsely describing as god does not? We conclude the multiverse can exist.
About the mass hallucination, that was a joke. But the point is that people still see dead people walking on a street and the book is 100% written by humans. Because humans make faults we should not trust the bible.

[Parture]

I quote from a message you send me on youtube, among other not very intelligent arguments. This is by far the most dumb thing i have ever read. You confuse a telescope with a microscope and 10 ^ 120 of what? And tell me how is this even relevant?
That doesn't originate from me but from various scientific literature that say the smallness of things goes down to a factor of 10120. Actually, I believe it is now 10125 according to scientific calculations. We can only visibly see down to the 1020 using existing telescopes. The largest telescope can see down to the minute smaller than microscopes.


There is nothing supernatural about bacteria or human cells. In future they will be created and they already can be tampered. No need for god here. Biologists already know how they form. Nothing supernatural.
Nobody has ever been able to produce abiogenesis. To continue to think man has already done so is delusional. It would be all over the news and the case would finally be settled. Such is not the case.


About the multiverse. Whether it occupies space and time or not, it contains everything. If your claims are right about the uncreated whatever then it could be a multiverse, containing space and time, just like you claim your "god" does. Space and time is within the Multiverse.
If your silly little multiverse always existed you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would have never existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. Thus, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space being uncreated. God does not exist in space time unlike your silly multiverse. You admit "space and time is within the [silly] multiverse." Remember, the uncreated being proven is outside of space and time, unlike your silly unwarranted multiverse.


But the point is that people still see dead people walking on a street and the book is 100% written by humans. Because humans make faults we should not trust the bible.
The Bible was written by humans, but is God's word because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit for posterity. This is proven because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the Apostles' eyewitness testimony in various group settings. The Bible is as God intended for it to be past down. There is something wonderful about God Himself not writing it down with His own hands, but enjoys the participation of humans and relaying those visions and intuitive messages in our conscience in passing down His word in 66 books.

Since God is personal and relational this would make sense.

[Chickfangen]

Convincing.. How many meters is one smallness? Maybe you should invent other units like bigness. Write me a PM so i know the conversions. But that's irrelevant.
And you usually see small things with microscopes not telescopes, just so you know.

If you say "god" created time and space within itself, a multiverse can cause time(s) and space(s) within itself. The problem is that you have double standards there. Again no need for a god here.

Cells of bacteria and we are made out of atoms, just like everything else that breathes (as far as we know). The cells themselves are nothing special. We know what are in those cells. Proteins, water and other non living stuff. Everything living is made out of non living matter.

And you are again wrong, The smallest protein consists out of 20 amino acids. You can combine those molecules in many different ways. According to its environment, protein cells are just the most efficient way of staying alive. Can you imagine how much energy that would cost for human equipment to create cells? But it is possible. Don't you think so?

Again those self replicating molecules have formed more complex and complex. This proves that in the right environment can result in bigger and bigger molecules from where it all started.

You think the infinite regress problem applies to the multiple universe. Wrong. A multiple universe is the description of the existence of everything. It does not change so it does not have an infinite regress problem. All the universes are already there, if you could take a look at them from the multiverse.

Because from this perspective it is being static, it is more logical than a god, because you say your god can make decisions and what not. Before you can provide a scientific proof for god you need to explain free will and how god operates. Else no scientist will take you serious. You will also have to proof that we are in its image and it cares about us.

About the bible its like saying ufos exist because so many people have witnessed them and you can not find a naturalistic explanation for them.
The bible is not to be taken authentic. Its written by humans and they make faults and there is no proof that they were communicating with a real god or something like that.

Do you believe in the big dragons the chinese witnessed? You can not find a naturalistic explanation for this.

[Parture]

Convincing.. How many meters is one smallness? Maybe you should invent other units like bigness. Write me a PM so i know the conversions. But that's irrelevant. And you usually see small things with microscopes not telescopes, just so you know.
Stars don't look small to you? We are discussing factors from the normal viewing eye. This doesn't come from me, but already accepted scientific findings.


If you say "god" created time and space within itself, a multiverse can cause time(s) and space(s) within itself. The problem is that you have double standards there. Again no need for a god here.
You have a doublestandard, because you change your mind from a universe with space time to one without. You keep invoking these new rules you have no evidence for. A universe has time and space. Your fantasy universe is a mindless one, but a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser can't create the greater.


Cells of bacteria and we are made out of atoms, just like everything else that breathes (as far as we know). The cells themselves are nothing special. We know what are in those cells. Proteins, water and other non living stuff. Everything living is made out of non living matter.
We know we are not just physical beings but also soulical and spiritual. We know that matter alone can't produce self-consciousness and God-consciousness. They are just bouncing atoms.


And you are again wrong, The smallest protein consists out of 20 amino acids. You can combine those molecules in many different ways. According to its environment, protein cells are just the most efficient way of staying alive. Can you imagine how much energy that would cost for human equipment to create cells? But it is possible. Don't you think so?
200 amino acids is the minimum average possible for a protein, and 1000 proteins for the very simplest life possible. Since nobody has ever been able to create a cell from the elements, the evidence suggests you are wrong.


Again those self replicating molecules have formed more complex and complex. This proves that in the right environment can result in bigger and bigger molecules from where it all started.
Yet none can combine to produce replicating life without God's intervention and without a mind.


You think the infinite regress problem applies to the multiple universe. Wrong. A multiple universe is the description of the existence of everything. It does not change so it does not have an infinite regress problem. All the universes are already there, if you could take a look at them from the multiverse.
Everything in a universe is subject to the law of cause and effect, so you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, and you should never have existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point.


Because from this perspective it is being static, it is more logical than a god, because you say your god can make decisions and what not. Before you can provide a scientific proof for god you need to explain free will and how god operates. Else no scientist will take you serious. You will also have to proof that we are in its image and it cares about us.
The scientific evidence for God was already given by showing nature can't always have existed, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. You do not need to know how free will works or anything else about God to know He is uncreated. That sole fact remains. You don't even have to worry about if we are made in His image. We can figure that out later. First acknowledge the uncreated Creator.


About the bible its like saying ufos exist because so many people have witnessed them and you can not find a naturalistic explanation for them. The bible is not to be taken authentic. Its written by humans and they make faults and there is no proof that they were communicating with a real god or something like that. Do you believe in the big dragons the chinese witnessed? You can not find a naturalistic explanation for this.
While people witness many things they can be explained away. And they are not up close and personal as Jesus was with His Apostles He spent 3 years with after which they testified to seeing Jesus alive from dead in various group settings, personally interacting with Him, even touching His side. They never changed their minds and were martyred for this testimony.

The Bible is taken as authentic. The burden remains on you to show otherwise.

"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)

The word of God has no faults. That's why you can't show any. You know this is God's word because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the original of the disciples' eyewitness testimony in various group settings.

I find no group attestation of a big dragon documented like we have the for the testimony of the Apostles in multiple group settings. Silly boy.

[chf2]

This will probably be the last word i am posting in this forum, but its worth it.

You are comparing the size of stars with the size of atoms.

For a choice you need cause and effect. If cause and effect are time and god is timeless it has no choice.
At the end everything is predestined or atleast static.

If you say that god has an infinite past and an infinite future and it is timeless and contains us we can use the same description for a multiverse.

Whatever there is at the end of the existence it most likely is static. It maybe has no past and no future and no time and contains time and space.

The multiverse theory seems pretty plausible because a multiverse is all the universes viewed from outside. It has no cause and no effect and is the source of all existence if you want to describe it like this. So its basically uncreated. Just the whole bunch of universes and all there is together.

And by the way mass hysteria was observed a few times. And i can come up with a naturalistic explanation for what happened with jesus. People back then were not as smart as we are today, so they explained everything with god, like you do.

And there are group witnesses and myths about dragons and ufos. Many people claim to have seen them. Lets not forget the snake god from the mayas. Or the gods from the mahabharata. Those books are all equally false. All are impressive and have a lot of eye witnesses. I don't see any reason to believe what ancient books say. They have no worth except for historians and religious people.

Long story short cause and effect means time, if god is timeless he can not make decisions since decisions would involve cause and effect.
A mind is not required to create a mind, logic is required to create a mind. Perfect examples are computers. They are more stupid than humans are.

[Parture]

You are comparing the size of stars with the size of atoms.
Not at all. What is in view is magnification.


For a choice you need cause and effect. If cause and effect are time and god is timeless it has no choice.
At the end everything is predestined or atleast static.
A choice naturally occurs in time. God has afforded us all our free choices. God outside of time and space created all possible choices for us in any given scenario. Since God transcends time and space He can do this, and He is not limited by His creation.


If you say that god has an infinite past and an infinite future and it is timeless and contains us we can use the same description for a multiverse.
Timeless space that is mindless fails to compare to God's mind outside of space since a mind is needed to create a mind.


Whatever there is at the end of the existence it most likely is static. It maybe has no past and no future and no time and contains time and space.
Since you admit nature has an end in the past then it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Indeed, God is unchanging. He is perfect outside of time and space. Since you want to invoke infinite regress by saying "contains space and time," obviously this can't be 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 never to reach this point. The concept of eternity is contradictory because infinity - 2 = infinity and infinity + 2 = infinity. Addition and subtraction break down. Infinite regress, therefore, is just an idea in man's imagination, but has nothing to do with reality.


The multiverse theory seems pretty plausible because a multiverse is all the universes viewed from outside. It has no cause and no effect and is the source of all existence if you want to describe it like this. So its basically uncreated. Just the whole bunch of universes and all there is together.
Everything in nature is seen to have a cause. So is true for any multiverse you want to imagine.


And by the way mass hysteria was observed a few times. And i can come up with a naturalistic explanation for what happened with jesus. People back then were not as smart as we are today, so they explained everything with god, like you do.
Mass hysteria is based on beliefs so it is not the same thing as eyewitness testimony in various group settings. This is why the proof of Scripture is so powerful. In fact, the lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 245 cases in a row said the case for the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and deity of Jesus is the best proven case he has ever seen.

We explain everything today with God as well, since nature can't just start up all by itself nor always have existed so God is the source. You didn't actually provide a naturalistic explanation just by saying they believed in God to account for their eyewitness testimony in various group settings. Whether they believed in God or not, the fact remains they maintained their eyewitness testimony to the day they died, and people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie. They were all martyred except John. And in fact John was almost killed several times as well without changing his eyewitness testimony of being with Jesus in person on many different occasions with the other Apostles.


And there are group witnesses and myths about dragons and ufos. Many people claim to have seen them. Lets not forget the snake god from the mayas. Or the gods from the mahabharata. Those books are all equally false. All are impressive and have a lot of eye witnesses. I don't see any reason to believe what ancient books say. They have no worth except for historians and religious people.
Certainly individuals can hallucinate individually, but there is no such thing as group hallucinations cited in history with multiple corroborating evidence of testimony like we have for the Apostles. Unless you can produce your alleged eyewitnesses like we have for the Bible you're just blowing smoke. If you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitnesses then you are effectively conceding Jesus is God. Praise the Lord!


Long story short cause and effect means time, if god is timeless he can not make decisions since decisions would involve cause and effect. A mind is not required to create a mind, logic is required to create a mind. Perfect examples are computers. They are more stupid than humans are.
God is the creator of cause and effect. He is not restricted by your petty rules. Since the lesser can never produce the greater, a mind is required to create a mind. God is perfectly logical, the most logical being there has ever been. Computers could never produce a human being.

[Churchwork]

The advantage we theists have over atheists without knowing anything else is they still can't after all this time produce replicating life from mixing the elements together as the universe would (abiogenesis). Their continued failure year after year with a seemingly exponential increase in knowledge is evidence not for atheism but against atheism and for theism all else being equal. They should be getting closer to their goal of abiogenesis, not further away.

[Parture]

A mind can not work without cause and effect. and cause and effect can not have a cause outside of cause and effect. That's a paradox again.

and i think you know that evolution is true so evolution resulted in a mind.

But you can try to explain me how a mind does not need to have cause and effect first to work. Its impossible.

If your theoretical god does not have to be under the influence of cause and effect then time and cause and effect is not a universal law (or even beyond this universe) then it is not an universal law, since i am talking about all universes.

One universe may create another if that is possible, but the universe to start with would either be working because cause and effect or simply be a constant universe. not moving. But then it could have no mind.

And by the way Mass hysteria was sometimes observed so you are wrong. There is a possible earthly explanation for jesus "miracles". The same reason why i do not bother finding reasons for disproving jesus is one amongst the many reasons i do not believe in the wonders of this book. Its old and inaccurate.
A natural mind can't work without cause and effect, but a mind outside of time and space is not limited by such natural laws. It would be illogical to impose a natural law upon a supernatural or non-natural entity since they have different constraints.

Evolution could not exist without a cause for it to begin with with the first replicating organism. It's funny how atheists shut their mind down to this little problem of theirs. They usher in evolution without thinking about a cause for it.

How does God operate without the natural law of cause and effect? By existing outside of nature. This is a law of existing outside of time and space.

If you want to try to introduce an infinite regress of cause and effects of universes creating universes, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you should never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. So that blows your theory. Infinite regress is just an idea in one's imagination, but has no basis in reality.

By the way mass hysteria is a delusion (of a belief). While mass hallucination (involving the eyes) is impossible since there are no records in history of supporting such an event multiply attested in various group settings. Hence, it is not in the DM-4 manual. Why do you think psychiatrists and psychologists are wrong in creating this manual? People hallucinate individually, but their hallucinations are never the same in groups.

The burden remains on you to disprove the evidence that the eyewitness Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus and multiply attested being with Him during this time and for 40 days after His death in person and even touched him physically. Truly a miracle since it is non-natural.

Appreciate the fact that you are expressing your desire to be eternally separated from God by going to Hell as you wish. God will give you what you want in this regard. How truly sad for you. And once you die and are resurrected you won't change your mind. You see free will is not truly free if you don't have this free choice to want to be eternally separated from God and actually be eternally seprated from Him.

What an amazing God He is!

[Chickfangen]

A natural mind can't work without cause and effect, but a mind outside of time and space is not limited by such natural laws. It would be illogical to impose a natural law upon a supernatural or non-natural entity since they have different constraints.

Evolution could not exist without a cause for it to begin with with the first replicating organism. It's funny how atheists shut their mind down to this little problem of theirs. They usher in evolution without thinking about a cause for it.

How does God operate without the natural law of cause and effect? By existing outside of nature. This is a law of existing outside of time and space.

If you want to try to introduce an infinite regress of cause and effects of universes creating universes, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you should never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. So that blows your theory. Infinite regress is just an idea in one's imagination, but has no basis in reality.

By the way mass hysteria is a delusion. Mass hallucination is impossible since there are no records in history of supporting such an event multiply attested in various group settings. Hence, it is not in the DM-4 manual. People hallucinate individually, but their hallucinations are never the same in groups.

The burden remains on you to disprove the evidence that the eyewitness Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus and multiply attested being with Him during this time and for 40 days after His death. Truly a miracle since it is non-natural.

Appreciate the fact that you are expressing your desire to be eternally separated from God by going to Hell as you wish. God will give you want you want in this regard. How truly sad for you.

I never said anything about infinite regress. However cause and effect can not have a cause outside of cause and effect. Everyone would agree with me on this because it would be a paradox. So a mind outside of cause and effect causing cause and effect is impossible. It first needs cause and effect to exist. However you can explain me how being outside of nature (could you define nature for me more) helps your theoretical god to circumvent cause and effect? Anyways when you say your god can circumvent cause and effect somehow you admit that it is possible for everything else that is theoretical to circumvent cause and effect. It could be really the most unlogical thing but still existent when you add the description (not following known natural laws) to it. So HOW does your god have a mind without cause and effect? Its really unlogical. Supernatural is not a scientific explanation.

But lets continue. You can reverse an algorithm so you can reverse the time space continuum. If infinite regress is a problem then to point zero if not then you can circle it. But its mathematically representable. Anyways someone called jesus christus or similar may have existed but that does not mean that he is really the son of god. Freedom of choice also do not exist.

You wonder how we percept time. Lets imagine time and space as a set of frames. Until your Brain next thought occurs a lot of frames in the continuum are skipped making it work on a certain speed and calculating according to its memory.

Long story short. You are trying to prove god with natural laws like cause and effect while saying things like it has a mind and has free will and is supernatural. So what is supernatural? Explain me HOW it can have a mind and free will without being the result of an ordered cause and effect. Furthermore causing cause and effect which is a paradox.

A self replicating molecule can come into existence in the right environment. At the beginning it does not have to be something very complex. In colder or hotter environments different molecules can come into existence.

It depends always on the hallucination and the event that triggers the hallucination. mass hysteria is not a delusion since it has been observed. Again the reason i do not bother to disprove that jesus was the son of god which was highly unlikely, is the same reason i do not declare this book as a source of truth. its because it is ancient. Mass stupidity is real. and Thousands of years of misunderstanding can cause what we know today as the bible.

Your god can not exist because he would need logic and cause and effect in order to have a mind. And again you can apply this strange supernatural-rule to any other thing you call the cause of the universe. If this supernatural rule is real.

[Parture]

I never said anything about infinite regress. However cause and effect can not have a cause outside of cause and effect. Everyone would agree with me on this because it would be a paradox. So a mind outside of cause and effect causing cause and effect is impossible.
A self-induced alleged paradox is not a real paradox. You're just not thinking properly about cause and effect. Sure you spoke of infinite regress when you spoke of universes creating universes. That's infinite regress. The cause and effect of nature is not the same as cause and effect of the uncreated Creator creating outside of time and space since the former is natural while the later is supernatural. The latter is divine; the former is non-divine. Do you see the mistake you are making? You're imposing natural laws on a supernatural being which is completely illogical. Since the supernatural brought the natural into being the supernatural is not bound by the natural, but the natural follows the design of the supernatural. So a mind outside of cause and effect of nature exists!


It first needs cause and effect to exist. However you can explain me how being outside of nature (could you define nature for me more) helps your theoretical god to circumvent cause and effect? Anyways when you say your god can circumvent cause and effect somehow you admit that it is possible for everything else that is theoretical to circumvent cause and effect. It could be really the most unlogical thing but still existent when you add the description (not following known natural laws) to it. So HOW does your god have a mind without cause and effect? Its really unlogical. Supernatural is not a scientific explanation.
What you are proposing is an infinite regress of cause and effects in the supernatural realm, but the problem with this is that there can be only one uncreated Creator, since you would have to ask where these other supernatural entities or objects come from since something can't come from nothing. God's prerogative to create outside of time and space is His will. The scientific explanation for the uncreated Creator existing outside of time and space, causeless, is that nothing in nature can exist from nothing, nor can it always have existed for reasons we have gone through many times. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This is how you know the uncreated Creator exists who through His own prerogative created this universe and man made in His image. This takes humility to accept.


But lets continue. You can reverse an algorithm so you can reverse the time space continuum. If infinite regress is a problem then to point zero if not then you can circle it. But its mathematically representable. Anyways someone called jesus christus or similar may have existed but that does not mean that he is really the son of god. Freedom of choice also do not exist.
You had the free choice to type what you just typed. Take an experiment. Go outside and sit in the middle of the street for one minute, something you would never do normally, to show you have the free choice to do this. We know Jesus is the Son of God because He proved it by the resurrection proof. Pretty simple.


You wonder how we percept time. Lets imagine time and space as a set of frames. Until your Brain next thought occurs a lot of frames in the continuum are skipped making it work on a certain speed and calculating according to its memory.
Cause and effect.


Long story short. You are trying to prove god with natural laws like cause and effect while saying things like it has a mind and has free will and is supernatural. So what is supernatural? Explain me HOW it can have a mind and free will without being the result of an ordered cause and effect. Furthermore causing cause and effect which is a paradox.
God said in Romans 1.20 we prove His existence scientifically through naturally proven laws. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, nature needs a cause outside itself. That which is outside of time and space is supernatural, that is, non-natural. We observe our free will every day. And a mind is needed to create a mind since the lesser can never produce the greater. Cause and effect does not originate the uncreated Creator, for the uncreated Creator is uncreated, non-originating. That's illogical to say cause and effect caused the Creator when the uncreated Creator always existed. How silly. A supernatural mind and free will has none to answer to but Himself since He is uncreated. So no paradox. Supernaturally causing the cause and effect of nature is perfectly reasonable and how I would design creation if I were God. God is not limited by your puny desire to make the natural bind the supernatural. Funny.


A self replicating molecule can come into existence in the right environment. At the beginning it does not have to be something very complex. In colder or hotter environments different molecules can come into existence.
Bottom line: you can't recreate the first replicating organism by sloshing the elements together since you are not God and it requires God's divine spark of life.


It depends always on the hallucination and the event that triggers the hallucination. mass hysteria is not a delusion since it has been observed. Again the reason i do not bother to disprove that jesus was the son of god which was highly unlikely, is the same reason i do not declare this book as a source of truth. its because it is ancient. Mass stupidity is real. and Thousands of years of misunderstanding can cause what we know today as the bible.
Mass hysteria is observed to be a delusion because it has no rational basis. Hallucination is a delusion also, but it is individually experienced visually. While people can have a mass delusion they can't have a mass hallucination as no such accounts in history exist.

The Scriptures using all historical methodology are deemed to be accurate to the eyewitness Apostles testifying to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings, for which there is no naturalistic explanation because people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie and group hallucinations are impossible. If you shut your mind down to this evidence, you can throw out all documents in history as though time began after 100 AD. But who would be that belligerent except someone such as yourself going to Hell? Since the Scriptures by the Apostles document their testimony with the highest of historical standards then accept it. It is the highest standard of proof we have. The lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 245 cases in a row said the case for the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and deity of Christ is the best proven case he has ever seen. The most famous lawyer of the 19th century who was said to have produced more jurisprudence than all the lawyers of western Europe combined said the burden according to the law is on you to show otherwise.

Atheism is mass stupidity. Thousands of years of this stupidity is asinine.


Your god can not exist because he would need logic and cause and effect in order to have a mind. And again you can apply this strange supernatural-rule to any other thing you call the cause of the universe. If this supernatural rule is real.
God is logical, but since He is outside of time, He is not bound by natural cause and effect since He created it. The amazing thing I think about God is that because He exists outside of time and space is He can touch, enter, affect any point along the timeline of time for eternity into the future. That blows my mind, but He can do it because He exists outside of time and space being uncreated.

You can certainly compare whose claim of the uncreated Creator is the correct one to which you should find the only faith that is the correct one is Christianity because of the resurrection proof which none other have. Praise the Lord!

[Chickfangen]

A cause outside of cause and effect is a paradox whether you like it or not. Without involving the supernatural word of course.

I think i will restart this discussion on a more sophisticated way than last time.

First i will argue about causality then i will make Comments on the Bible.

We have first of all three possibilities for the cause of the universe.

Note that of them must be true. God however does not fit there since you claim he can defy the rules of cause and effect.
First you need to accept that Logical absolutes can not be created. Not even by "God". Then you can argue whether god is the logical absolute or not. But since a mind can not exist beyond time, god probably does not exist.

First possibility:

Time had a beginning (singularity)

I will now argue about the first possibility, time had a beginning in the singularity.
What was the singularity? It was the Moment when the universe had zero spatial dimensions and infinite density.
However time = change or cause and effect. And according to the big bang theory combined with our understanding of time itself being uncaused, Something out of nothing is perfectly plausible if you consider the possibility that nothing indeed has the potential to split into opposites. Or the possibility that the singularity was unstable, instantly changing. And the singularity was in no need for a God.

Time is a dimension of space or change of states. Imagine a universe with binary states, both of them would be contained by the dimension of time, while time remaining totally unchanged.

Or to demonstrate it

_______________________
|[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]|

This is how i mean it. The Dimension of time containing scalars of three dimensions of space. While this dimension itself does not change (therefore making itself eternally maintaining this state), the scalars in this vector space may differ from each other, eventually containing minds who evolved to have memory and being able to percept this change.

Asking when did time start would imply that there was time before time. Therefore the question itself is wrong.

Second possibility: Circular time might be possible (big bang big crunch and so on)

I will discuss the "would take an eternity to do so" argument in this topic.
If whoever is reading this post the idea of an uncaused beginning of time does not fit him, this Theorie might help.

IF the ends of the dimension of time can be linked together, time had no beginning, making us repeat all over and over again.

Why i think it might be possible is the reason that it is totally naive to say that between each cause and effect time passes. Time is the distance between two scalars in the dimension of time. The dimension of time shows that all states are simultaneously there, making the argument "would have an eternity to do so" naive and useless.

What we can conclude is that the only realm in which seconds exist is between the scalars in the dimension of time, making it occur all at once, existing eternally, since the never changing dimension of time contains every change of state. Seconds are actually a unit that humans invent and are mathematically and cosmologically irrelevant, since there are no seconds in logical absolutes.

Third possibility: There was something beyond the big bang and we do not understand what it was.

I am open to this possibility.
However theologians invented the idea that this is where god resides. Nonsense. No evidence for that. The truth of this conclusion is binary in the sense that either a mind exists beyond the big bang or not, which is most likely subjected to cause and effect. But christian theologians think that their God is almighty, so They assert really strange things. This is where theologians are stuck without evidence.



Now to the Bible:

I will give you a brief opinion on the resurrection, However Richard carrier and other historians have more to say than i. I am not here for discussing history and i will not base my beliefs on inaccurate history.

It is a fact that people who say they see god often hallucinate and this is what happens in the bible.

However most Historians are not psychologists that's why i suggest them to stay neutral on the existence of god, since there are many psychological phenomenons.

Furthermore in the age of superstition there were many stories of resurrections. And when i say many i mean many. Jesus "resurrection" appeared to Witnesses
more spectacular than the other "resurrections". It also had previous religious motives and this "resurrection" as it probably never happened that way, had the right condition to keep its place in History. There were stories of resurrections after Jesus resurrection. However the Amount of these stories being respected by the popularity decreased over the time until today where none of those stories are believed. Which advances in technology and psychology humanity does not take those miracles serious anymore. Taking these events as true events decreased over time from the dark ages until now.

About the Hallucinations. While common sense tells us that on high dosages of drugs, Individuals with zero interactions with each other can not hallucinate the same thing in every details, however through a failure of communication, earlier influences, group behavior and many many other stimulations, the apostles can hallucinate roughly the "same thing".

But as i said Richard carrier has more to say on this.

Since the only argument that is left for you now is History i will suggest you become an Atheist. Praise the singularity!

I will probably get banned again but it was worth it.

[Parture]

A cause outside of cause and effect is a paradox whether you like it or not. Without involving the supernatural word of course.
There is no paradox in the cause being uncreated. The cause of the universe is the uncaused cause who is always existing. He created the laws of nature of cause and effect, by causing them to come into existence from outside of time and space.


We have first of all three possibilities for the cause of the universe. Note that of them must be true. God however does not fit there since you claim he can defy the rules of cause and effect. First you need to accept that Logical absolutes can not be created. Not even by "God". Then you can argue whether god is the logical absolute or not. But since a mind can not exist beyond time, god probably does not exist.
I'll give you my fair assessment of your 3 silly options. He created the laws of cause and effect of nature so how is He defying those laws? A natural mind can not exist beyond time, but we are not talking about a natural mind that is part of nature. We are talking about a mind that is spirit that exists as proven outside of nature because nature can't always have existed, thus creation is from the uncreated Creator that requires a mind since a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser cannot produce the greater.


What was the singularity? It was the Moment when the universe had zero spatial dimensions and infinite density.
Nature can't have infinite density since it can't always have existed.


time itself being uncaused, Something out of nothing is perfectly plausible if you consider the possibility that nothing indeed has the potential to split into opposites. Or the possibility that the singularity was unstable, instantly changing. And the singularity was in no need for a God.
Time itself is caused since if it always existed 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, thus never reaching this point. Abide in logic no matter how much it doesn't exalt yourself and you won't go astray.

Your "nothing" can't split into opposites because it doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist can't split into anything. What can be split must exist, and that which does not exist can't be split.


Asking when did time start would imply that there was a before, before time. Therefore the question itself is wrong.

Before time exists the state of being of God brought time into being. God doesn't need time to bring time into being. How silly. Time is subservient to the uncreated timeless Creator. What a brutal contradiction that would be to think you need time to bring time into being, for time to be brought into being would imply it didn't exist before so it wouldn't be needed a priori to bring time into being.


Circular time might be possible (big bang big crunch and so on)

IF the ends of the dimension of time can be linked together, time had no beginning, making us repeat all over and over again.

Why i think it might be possible is the reason that it is totally naive to say that between each cause and effect time passes. Time is the distance between two scalars in the dimension of time. The dimension of time shows that all states are simultaneously there, making the argument "would have an eternity to do so" naive and useless.

What we can conclude is that the only realm in which seconds exist is between the scalars in the dimension of time, making it occur all at once, existing eternally, since the never changing dimension of time contains every change of state. Seconds are actually a unit that humans invent and are mathematically and cosmologically irrelevant, since there are no seconds in logical absolutes.

Circular theory breaks down, because one must ask what caused the circle. Where did it come from. If it always existed then you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, circles are contradictory, because the now can not be repeated nor can it have happened before because it is now. Whatever you think of the construct of time, the law of cause and effect is always in force. Therefore, the most useful fact of all in discussing nature is that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in multiverses or circular theory, which there is no evidence for and is just fanciful, you would have happened already. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on never to have reached this point.

Any theory you possess that breaks down like this can be considered false.


There was something beyond the big bang and we do not understand what it was.

I am open to this possibility. However theologians invented the idea that this is where god resides. Nonsense. No evidence for that. The truth of this conclusion is binary in the sense that either a mind exists beyond the big bang, which is most likely subjected to cause and effect. But christian theologians think that their God is almighty, so They assert really strange things. This is where theologians are stuck without evidence.
We know there is something beyond the big bang who is the uncreated Creator because the cause and effect of nature can't always have existed. If it had, 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, never to reach this point. This is the evidence for the existence of the uncreated Creator which you can find no fault with. This brings a person from being agnostic into theism like Antony Flew the most published atheist scholar of the 20th century. The question then becomes who is the correct uncreated Creator? Christianity proves itself true through the Bible because of the multiple testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, for which there is no naturalistic explanation, proving Jesus is God. Pretty simple so you are without excuse.


It is a fact that people who say they see god often hallucinate and this is what happens if the bible.
According to modern psychology and psychiatry there is no such thing as group hallucinations. People can hallucinate individually, but never the same thing in groups. So the problem still remains in your hands that you can find no naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Christians gave their lives to Christ because they gave into the evidence, whereas you shut your mind down like a zombie almost.


Furthermore in the age of superstition people there were many stories of resurrections. And when i say many i mean many. Jesus "resurrection" appeared to Witnesses
There was no person in history prior to Jesus claiming to be resurrected. That's why you can't produce any. It is immaturely just assumed on your part. There may be copycats after, but nothing before Jesus and nothing with the documentation of the multiple eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. It is always sketchy at best and limited so not very believable and has no religio-historical context anyway. Allowing people to dream of such a possibility doesn't invalidate it.

What is superstitious is infinite regress or something from nothing. Silly stuff.


the apostles can hallucinate roughly the "same thing".
They cannot hallucinate the same thing. We have 12 different group settings, each unique in their regard, and there was no conflict in their testimony. For example, there was not a situation where Peter said He ate the fish and John said He didn't in His resurrected state. That sort of thing.


But as i said Richard carrier has more to say on this.
I've spoken to Richard Carrier personally and he basically shuts his mind down on these key points that I have given you very much like you as if I am talking to zombies.


Since the only argument that is left for you now is History i will suggest you become an Atheist.
The argument is very much alive today, giving you the free choice to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles if one exists. If you can't, and you haven't, I suggest you give your life to Christ, otherwise you most certainly will go to Hell. It will be too late for you once you have died without giving your life to Christ.

I can't become an Atheist. I am a Christian once-saved-always-saved. Nothing can remove me from the love of God. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28). I am sealed for eternity with God.

Think how contradictory that is of you to even be an atheist because atheists claim God does not exist when they have no evidence for their claim admittedly. You should at this point at least be an Agnostic admitting you are not sure either way. You will need to enter this approach of humility before moving to becoming a theist. Small steps.


Praise the singularity!
Where did the singularity come from since it exists as part of nature? Nature always has a cause. Therefore, the singularity needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated since nature can't always have existed. 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 to never reach this point.

If you contend that the singularity had no time and you claim time is needed to cause things to happen then the universe would never have come into being if all is based on a timeless singularity which contradicts your own position that time must always have existed. Those who hold a doublestandard in contradicting themselves show the error of their ways as you do.


I will probably get banned again but it was worth it.
At least you know when you get temporarily banned due to infractions it was not for no reason at all.

[Chickfangen]

I will discuss with you all those arguments.

While i am claiming that the Singularity was not OUTSIDE of the dimension of time but rather at one scalar or just 0 in the dimension of Time, you claim your God is magical and cause something even though he is outside of cause and effect. But again when i am talking about absolute natural laws i am talking about logical absolutes. Or those who can not be changed and you still did not provide me with any evidence that god created them. You are just having a place for your God to be.

To the next nonsense argument:



He created the laws of cause and effect of nature so how is He defying those laws?

In the way that all minds we know work hand in hand with cause and effect and since a mind is a complex input output system while it is logical that everything outside of change (time) is static and does not change and definately does not have a Mind. Within the dimension of time, you can have minds as i explained to you already, the dimension of time, keeping this state forever can not have a mind. The dimension of time is not the unmoving mover but you claim your god to be. Therefore the dimension of time is more logical as i explained to you. So Either something does not do anything but just be there, or it is subject to change. You will have to deal with this argument.


A natural mind can not exist beyond time, but we are not talking about a natural mind that is part of nature. We are talking about a mind that is spirit Good luck proving such a thing as a medieval concept of spirit exist. A "spirit" if it exist would still be the subject of change, keeping it inside of the dimension of time.


..that exists as proven outside of nature because nature can't always have existed, thus creation is from the uncreated Creator that requires a mind since a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser cannot produce the greater.

1) The dimension of time (another dimension of space) is logical to always have existed since it does not change. Everything that changes or has a consciousness is not part of the unchanging dimension.
2) The possibility itself that before the singularity COULD (with a very small chance according to human knowledge) have been something, is not correlated with your claim that it was created by a mind, rather than caused by something else. You first need to accept this.

Furthermore the only arguments that are left now are "a mind is needed to create a mind".

Again this would be an Argument against Evolution!. However Evolution is proven. But then you take your god to the molecular level and say God is needed to create a cell. No its a self replicating molecule which gets more complex and complex. Self replicating molecules were already created and many theories were made about the self replicating molecule through evolution turning into things that more and more will resemble cells in the right environment.


The lesser cannot produce the greater. So bricks are made out of houses? Ridiculous.

Plus Scientists already created a fully working cell! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html
How great is this?

However "is a mind needed to create a mind?" is the wrong question since the word "created" presupposes a mind. However a mind is not needed to cause a mind since cause is usually independent from a mind. And again and again evolution is proven. I think i have broken down your argument very well.


Nature can't have infinite density since it can't always have existed.
Yes it can this is what we call a singularity. You are incredibly misinformed.

If the singularity had Zero spatial dimensions it had infinite density.



Time itself is caused since if it always existed 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, thus never reaching this point. Abide in logic no matter how much it doesn't exalt yourself and you won't go astray.

Your "nothing" can't split into opposites because it doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist can't split into anything. What can be split must exist, and that which does not exist can't be split.


Nice straw man. Cause and Effect being caused is totally nonsense.
I explained you already that there is the possibility that there was a total beginning of time where nothing was before the singularity. It does not involve infinite regress. The singularity was at one moment and because time began exactly there at the singularity, involving change it separated into opposites? Can you comprehend what i say? Time began and since time means change nothing separated into opposites. If you say again that the singularity can not split into opposites you prove for yourself that you do not know math. T

And this is why we should keep your kind of creationism out of physics lectures. However you are confusing with caused and created. Creation presupposes a mind, cause not.



Any theory you possess that breaks down like this can be considered false.

No and this is why. You presuppose speed. In the dimension of time, until one point reaches the next no time passes. Therefore there is no speed in this realm of cause and effect. Therefore "would have an eternity to do so" is invalid at this point. As i said there are no seconds other than distances between tho positions in the space time continuum. If point one is next to point two in the space time continuum, how much time passes between them? zero. I think you should know by now that time is irrelevant, making the argument "never reaching this point" useless since it presupposes that there is time inbetween cause and effect.



We know there is something beyond the big bang who is the uncreated Creator because the cause and effect of nature can't always have existed. If it had, 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, never to reach this point. This is the evidence for the existence of the uncreated Creator which you can find no fault with. This brings a person from being agnostic into theism like Antony Flew the most published atheist scholar of the 20th century. The question then becomes who is the correct uncreated Creator? Christianity proves itself true through the Bible because of the multiple testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, for which there is no naturalistic explanation, proving Jesus is God. Pretty simple so you are without excuse.


There were MANY self proclaimed ressurected messiahs and gods in the jewish culture, and in other cultures like the maya and india. And many many eyewitnesses.
You are confusing improbability with miracles.

Richard carrier has been bombarded many times with those arguments from people like craig and even some historians and he refuted them. I do not think he shuts his mind down but you shut your mind down as always with my arguments.

Also to the idea of freedom of will? Logical absolutes even disprove freedom of will, since they can not be altered, making free will an illusion.

Here are the facts:
1. Physicists know what singularities are. They even exist in black holes and are mathematically calculated to exist at the first point of time.
2. If there was a beginning of change at the position 0 on the timescale, then the singularity (0D, infinite density) began to spread out into negative charge and positive charge
3. I refuted your argument on a mind is needed to create a mind already, since evolution is needed to cause a mind. You need to accept this and change your argument to "a mind is needed to create an organism" before we can argue about how the organism could begin to exist.
4. There is a possibility that there was something behind the big bang which is not proven and unnecessary according to our knowledge because of the reason i explained you already.
5. Saying would need an eternity to do so is naive if you consider the fact that the logical link between cause and effect has no speed and the dimension of time does not change.


About the history i am not really here to discuss this. Richard carrier pretty much said it all and we know for a fact that a the accuracy in the different texts of the bible fluctuates.

[Parture]

While i am claiming that the Singularity was not OUTSIDE of the dimension of time but rather at one scalar or just 0 in the dimension of Time, you claim your God is magical and cause something even though he is outside of cause and effect. But again when i am talking about absolute natural laws i am talking about logical absolutes. Or those who can not be changed and you still did not provide me with any evidence that god created them. You are just having a place for your God to be.
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.


In the way that all minds we know work hand in hand with cause and effect and since a mind is a complex input output system while it is logical that everything outside of change (time) is static and does not change and definately does not have a Mind. Within the dimension of time, you can have minds as i explained to you already, the dimension of time, keeping this state forever can not have a mind. The dimension of time is not the unmoving mover but you claim your god to be. Therefore the dimension of time is more logical as i explained to you. So Either something does not do anything but just be there, or it is subject to change. You will have to deal with this argument.
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.


Good luck proving such a thing as a medieval concept of spirit exist. A "spirit" if it exist would still be the subject of change, keeping it inside of the dimension of time.
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.


1) The dimension of time (another dimension of space) is logical to always have existed since it does not change. Everything that changes or has a consciousness is not part of the unchanging dimension.
2) The possibility itself that before the singularity COULD (with a very small chance according to human knowledge) have been something, is not correlated with your claim that it was created by a mind, rather than caused by something else. You first need to accept this.
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 this would be an Argument against Evolution!. However Evolution is proven. But then you take your god to the molecular level and say God is needed to create a cell. No its a self replicating molecule which gets more complex and complex. Self replicating molecules were already created and many theories were made about the self replicating molecule through evolution turning into things that more and more will resemble cells in the right environment.
Since you can't produce the simplest replicating life then you are operating on blind faith. All the evidence we have suggests since we can't produce the simplest replicating life, therefore, life needs the input of the spirit of God to generate life. Bouncing molecules and elements alone can't produce self-consciousness and replicating life. It's never been done before. God exists outside of the natural realm of the molecular. Evolution itself needs a cause. Evolution too is not enough to have a spirit and soul as man has.


So bricks are made out of houses? Ridiculous.
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.


Plus Scientists already created a fully working cell! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html
How great is this?
"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.


However "is a mind needed to create a mind?" is the wrong question since the word "created" presupposes a mind. However a mind is not needed to cause a mind since cause is usually independent from a mind. And again and again evolution is proven. I think i have broken down your argument very well.
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.


Yes it can this is what we call a singularity. You are incredibly misinformed.

If the singularity had Zero spatial dimensions it had infinite density.
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.


Cause and Effect being caused is totally nonsense. I explained you already that there is the possibility that there was a total beginning of time where nothing was before the singularity. It does not involve infinite regress. The singularity was at one moment and because time began exactly there at the singularity, involving change it separated into opposites? Can you comprehend what i say? Time began and since time means change nothing separated into opposites. If you say again that the singularity can not split into opposites you prove for yourself that you do not know math. And this is why we should keep your kind of creationism out of physics lectures. However you are confusing with caused and created. Creation presupposes a mind, cause not.
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.


No and this is why. You presuppose speed. In the dimension of time, until one point reaches the next no time passes. Therefore there is no speed in this realm of cause and effect. Therefore "would have an eternity to do so" is invalid at this point. As i said there are no seconds other than distances between tho positions in the space time continuum. If point one is next to point two in the space time continuum, how much time passes between them? zero. I think you should know by now that time is irrelevant, making the argument "never reaching this point" useless since it presupposes that there is time inbetween cause and effect.
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.


There were MANY self proclaimed ressurected messiahs and gods in the jewish culture, and in other cultures like the maya and india. And many many eyewitnesses. You are confusing improbability with miracles.
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.


Richard carrier has been bombarded many times with those arguments from people like craig and even some historians and he refuted them. I do not think he shuts his mind down but you shut your mind down as always with my arguments.
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 (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476&p=8159#post8159).


Also to the idea of freedom of will? Logical absolutes even disprove freedom of will, since they can not be altered, making free will an illusion.
It 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.


1. Physicists know what singularities are. They even exist in black holes and are mathematically calculated to exist at the first point of time.
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.


2. If there was a beginning of change at the position 0 on the timescale, then the singularity (0D, infinite density) began to spread out into negative charge and positive charge
Time needs a cause for it to begin. It just doesn't start up from nothing. How silly. Boring. How magical.


3. I refuted your argument on a mind is needed to create a mind already, since evolution is needed to cause a mind. You need to accept this and change your argument to "a mind is needed to create an organism" before we can argue about how the organism could begin to exist.
Evolution doesn't start up from nothing, but it needs a cause. And a mind is needed to create a mind, since the lesser can't produce the greater. A mind is needed to create a replicating organism even an organism with a synthetic genome which is not a synthetic organism. Think of the creation of an organism with a synthetic genome as like the bionic man or woman. It is robotic, still without life, let alone life from mixing elements together naturally. It may even have the appearance of life like a really smart robot, but it is still lifeless.


4. There is a possibility that there was something behind the big bang which is not proven and unnecessary according to our knowledge because of the reason i explained you already.
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.


5. Saying would need an eternity to do so is naive if you consider the fact that the logical link between cause and effect has no speed and the dimension of time does not change.
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.


About the history i am not really here to discuss this. Richard carrier pretty much said it all and we know for a fact that a the accuracy in the different texts of the bible fluctuates.
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.

By the way, William Lane Craig is not a Christian. He is going to Hell with you, Richard Carrier and Antony Flew. He is a Remonstrant like the Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox and most other denominations that believe a person can lose salvation tomorrow rather than giving one's life to to the Jesus who keeps, humbly accepting we can't keep ourselves saved as God promises to keep us who are saved. We are saved "not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2.9). I am an OSAS Arminian. This is probably too confusing for you to understand since your spirit is dead to God.

The faith of such false Christians is not that unlike the religions of the world which also teach salvation is by works. Salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. How silly that would be if a sinner could save himself by works or rely on self-strength when considering how infinitely great God is. No man could bridge that gap by his works. No amount of work could save a person, neither Gandhi or Mother Teresa or the kindest most loving person that ever lived, for still that would not match up to having God's uncreated life. That which is born of the flesh is flesh without exception. This law is never violated ever! Only Jesus was perfect as only God could be. Amen.

[Chickfangen]

Alright i will come to the bible in a second.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.



"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.




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.





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.



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.



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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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.




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.

I don't say you need an eternity
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.



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.

[Parture]

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.
You're still mixing the cause and effect of nature with the ability of God to create. You're imposing natural laws on God which makes no sense since God exists outside of nature and transcends time. Your desire to have a singularity that always existed to replace God fails because you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened having had an eternity to do so so. And you should never have existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. If you claim your singularity had no time then your singularity did not always exist which begs the question what caused it. It would be subject to the law of cause and effect of nature if it always existed. If it took less than a second to create arbitrarily that makes no difference. Since you require time to create time, you would not exist because your timeless singularity could not initiate time for you to come into existence, otherwise you harbor a doublestandard against God. The additional problem is since a mind is needed to create a mind, a singularity can't create a mind for the lesser can't create the greater; that is to say, a singularity has no self-consciousness but man does. There are just too many holes to poke through with your view and no problems to speak of for the uncreated Creator being all-knowing, personal, omnipresent and transcendent. I am sure God is observing your antics showing your hostility to your Creator by your confused mind and mistaken assumptions. Mistaken assumptions are deadly, but more than that they are a reflection of your heart that you take them on as truth. You should be grateful for the sake of the elect you can't harm us in eternity future as you will be locked in Hell forever.


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.
You already know very specifically who God is. He is the Triune God of the Bible. How can the 66 books of God's word get more specific? Surely you are just being daft and ignorant quite like a zombie who just shuts his mind down. Christians condescend to you with the basics of the characteristics of God, one of them being uncreated. God is not natural. He is supernatural. Yet another descriptive term. You used the word magic. I never used that word. Magic to me is just slight of hand card tricks. Since you admit the cause of the universe is in your view a singularity that did not always exist, therefore, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Accept the conclusion to your premise. Follow through with it. Be a man. Otherwise you engorge yourself in nonsense. But with God all things make sense. He created why? Because He is glorious and thus, creates out of His glory. He makes man in His image. He creates personal beings because He is personal and shares His glory with us to fellowship with and partake in that glory. Praise the Lord! Your ad hoc creation from a non-existent singularity has the weirdo label stamped all over it. God trumps your idol of a timeless singularity that didn't always exist. That which didn't always exist has a cause. You stop short of the ultimate cause being God, namely God of the Bible. You're boring me as usual. Why not take more time to think through what you write? Double check it and triple check it.


An excuse to believe something that makes no sense is not evidence.
No excuses. The evidence is plain and clear. Since nature can't always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Pretty simple. That is evident. Your excuse is a vague responses like it "makes no sense" when it does make sense God would create a glorious universe out of His glorious being. Can't you see you are immersed in your own hostility which is why you are going to Hell. God makes Himself evident by simply observing nature such as the mountains and the stars (Rom. 1.20). They had a cause. Since infinite regress is impossible and something can't come from nothing, you know these sites to behold are the product of God's creation. How personal God is, He even enters His creation to pay for the sins of every human being who ever lived that whosoever believes in Him and receives what He did for us is born-again, given a new life, a new spirit, quickened by the Holy Spirit and permanently has the Holy Spirit residing in us, ousting the evil spirit. You have in your innerman's spirit that evil spirit. You think and walk and live by that evil spirit deep within the core of your being. He is what causes you to make all these efforts and irrational claims that are contradictory. You're living in your outerman, while your spirit remains dead to God. I highly recommend you read on the dividing of your spirit, soul and body (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm). Experience something other than the insanity of continuing to do what you have always done to get the same result you have always got.


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.
Again, I don't have to insist on anything. All I need to do is show the fallacy in you thinking. If you don't want time to have a beginning then 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 never to reach this point so you should never have existed. Since you claim your singularity always existed to replace God as the uncaused cause you must deal with the problems with that idea. A singularity that always existed because it is uncaused would mean 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, never to reach this point. And your singularity is lesser than its creation because a mind is need to create a mind. The singularity has no self-consciousness. But God, of course, does. You are confusing the natural with the supernatural. The supernatural supersedes the natural law of cause and effect since the supernatural created the natural law of cause and effect. It's super. You are commingling the two cause and effects, one being within nature an the other outside of nature. You are left with a paradox only if you commingle the two. Your mistaken assumptions are your downfall. And your mistaken assumptions are the result of your seared heart. God said though if you search Him out with all your heart and soul you shall surely find Him. Ergo, you don't search Him out with all your heart and soul. The word "magic" is in the realm of natural card tricks. The supernatural is outside of the natural, so you are misusing words. You need religion. "Pure religion is undefiled before God" (James 1.27) otherwise you have no purpose. That evil spirit in your innerman debases religion when God said it is good. The problem is not specificity, but your heart which is hardened by the evil spirit which throws around words like religion vaguely. If you want to be specific then be specific and try to find a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. If you can't find any then give your life to Christ and accept the uncreated Creator. Nothing that exists in nature or outside of nature (except the Triune God) exists without Jesus having created it.


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.
But where did I say atoms are made out of molecules? Environment and evolution alone can't have brought humans into existence because if there was an infinite regress of this environment and evolution, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, and you would never have existed because a past eternity would still being going on, never to reach this point. Therefore, your argument is philosophical nonsense and religious hostility.


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.
It's not an artificial cell. It is an actual cell with artificial genome that tries to do similar things, but it has no life. Recall too it required our mind to do this. Without our mind doing it, it would never have been done. Hence, it is not an organism. It's like taking out your brain and putting in your skull a robotic instrument that is really advanced and makes it seem like life, but of course, it is not. Your false organism does not behave perfectly natural. It is just a robot with an organic covering. Recall what the Bible says about this. When God breathed in the breath of life, directly creating man's spirit, the spirit made contact with the body making man a living soul with a spirit and body. Notice what is required for man's existence. It was God's Spirit to directly create man's spirit, and man did not become a living soul until that spirit made contact with the body form. It's beautiful. Replicating molecules don't have self-consciousness. And the simplest single celled life we know of does not have on its side enough atoms in the universe x interatomic interactions to even come into existence to produce even one amino acid of on average 200 protein molecules let alone the 1000 to produce the simplest life possible. So no matter how basic things were they were not basic enough to produce even one amino acid. You're confused about evolution. Evolution itself needs a cause. Evolution in God's foresight can produce the body from dust just like it says Gen. 2.7, but a body without self-consciousness of the soul and God-consciousness of the spirit just ceases to exist. Man's science is often counter to the intuitive spirit. So the Bible says, "Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20). Man's idea of science is not always right. There are things we are rationalizing through that we harbor, but that still small voice of the spirit says something is wrong. Scientists have made great strides by changing their approach on this basis. What they thought was logical was not logical at all and not scientific at all. Since the lesser can't produce the greater, therefore, a mind is needed to create a mind. Bouncing particles, strings and quarks are not enough to give us self-consciousness or God-consciousness. That's reality something you are not really fond of. Reality for you will be when you come before the Great White Throne and plead your excuses, God will respond by giving you what you want by sending you to Hell which you will be more than happy to, locking the door from the inside. You're a bad guy! We both know that about you.


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.
You keep commingling cause and effect of nature with cause and effect outside of nature. They are not one in the same. While God can bring time into existence, time can't bring God into existence because time didn't always exist. Pretty simple. Can't you see your religious hatred is the core of your illogical stance? Trying to impose natural laws on the supernatural is illogical. All we can say is that God's standards can't be less than our own and what is lesser can't create the greater. Therefore, a non-mind can't create a mind, for a mind is clearly greater than a non-mind. Praise the Lord for the Scriptures, for the Bible says the Holy Spirit will give me utterance to explain your problems. Your pseudoscience is just that half-truths meshed with reality. Since your unmoved mover is a singularity then you should have no problem accepting God as the unmoved mover, because there are too many problems with your unmoved move such as the problem of infinite regress and lesser creating the greater. These problems don't exist with God existing outside of time and space. Therefore, accept the logical conclusion that that which exists outside of time and space can cause time and space. If you don't want to accept it, you're simply voicing your disagreement with God when you come before Him. He will explain things far better than me, but the gist is the same that you worship your idols instead so God puts you in Hell as you wish. Whatever God will be to you when He brings you to the Throne you will rationalize Him away a some construct. But it really is God judging you and locking you in Hell for eternity.


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.
Infinite density does require infinite regress since it is infinite. It is a contradiction otherwise. Since you claim it always existed, it is subject to infinite regress. No way around it. All your vain attempts to reject reality keep blowing up in your face as they should because you can't turn a lie or a first mistaken assumption into a truth. It's impossible.


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.
I don't claim there is a magical cause and effect outside of nature because that which is "magical" exists within nature. You don't understand or appreciate the misuse of the word magical which is causing you some problems. We already proved the supernatural cause since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. And we know who the uncreated Creator is. He is Jesus, for He proved it by His resurrection proof and said nothing exists in nature without Him having created it. Pretty awesome! Your excuses don't cut it. Cause and effect of nature are a perfect proof of God according to Romans 1.20, and I was happy to apply it in principle. If you insist on an unmoved mover being a singularity then you will have to deal with the problem of infinite regress and something from nothing and the lesser being able to create the greater. Since you fail on all fronts logic and righteousness would have you accept God of the Bible. But you're not logical and you don't want to be, so to Hell you will go. Illogical people go to Hell. Logical people go to the New City with God and the Lamb at the center and no more need of the Temple on earth.


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.
Zero intervals makes no difference since if there is zero interval it still always existed. But if nature always existed 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, never to reach this point. Since your singularity you admit it is within time then you would have happened already because you claim time always existed. Therefore, cause and effect of time and nature need a cause outside of themselves, being uncreated, therefore supernatural. No paradox. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt so nature always observes cause and effect from its inception to all events. You're so confused. You claim time always existed within which exists the singularity, but then you claim the singularity does not have a cause. If it was within time then time is its creator. Your layers of things in time are getting so convoluted it reeks of desperation like a wild animal whose back is up against the wall. Your subset of time is just a singularity and whatever else, really quite irrelevant since the causation of time supersedes naturally and is subject to the infinite regress fallacy. As to your theory of hallucinations, people don't hallucinate the same thing taking crystal meth or other crystals. Here is a lie you harbor in your heart that you believe in group hallucinations when no such accounts exist in human history. It's not in the DM-4 manual. Is it not crazy to believe something that has never existed in history? Since the Apostles took serious their eyewitness testimony of Jesus they ate with, walked with, talked with and touched over 40 days in various different group settings, so should you since there is no naturalistic explanation to account for it. Romans 1.20 is your evidence for the uncreated Creator by observing nature; nature proves God's existence. You can say "so what" to God, but you're just expressing your desire to burn in Hell for eternity as you wish. It is a place devoid of God's presence. It's what you want naturally since you prefer to be a bad person. Whereas God will be with His people, His perfectly sinless chosen ones. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles and you can't overturn the proof of nature for God, you have every reason to not only accept the divinity of God but give Him your praise, worship and prayers. Amen.


In cultures before jesus there was osiris for example. In Hinduism there was also krishna. In the mayan culture there was Quetzalcoatl.
Again, you claim Osiris was resurrected but where is that said in the literature? Where was Krishna resurrected? Where was Quetzalcoatl resurrected? None of these characters were resurrected or proven to exist and this is why you can't produce any sources to such a claim let alone an ample supply of eyewitness testimony in various group settings like we have for the Apostles. Sense in your heart how you rail off claims mindlessly like a zombie yet are unwilling to go to sources to back up your flailing attempts. In the words of Gary R. Habermas, which I concur because I can't find any sources either, he said there are no resurrection accounts before Jesus. Period. He is the leading scholar on the resurrection claim. You're smarter than him?


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.
Historians are outside of the laws of philosophical truths? Surely you jest. God trumps your singularity because infinite regress is impossible, something can't come from nothing, and the lesser can't create the greater. You lose in your nonsense. The proof of God is nothing new under the sun. As it was then so it is now. Strings and quarks don't change that fact. You are appealing to natural laws of magic in your infinite regress theory, but they are just card tricks. Logic says if nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Logic is not the issue here, it is your heart dead to logic. Deal specifically with what is said here instead of throwing around derogatory terms like magic. Magic is natural, supernatural is not magical at all, but supernatural. That which is not natural is supernatural. Words have meanings for a reason to define what is and what is not. The Holy Spirit just put on my heart to saw that you are projecting your own condition, because you are trying to use magic tricks to usher in your singularity idol, but you are caught in your tricks because, obviously, something in nature can't come from nothing, nor always existed, nor can the lesser create the greater. 24 monkeys typing for eternity could never produce even one Shakespeare's play. Goofy.


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.
Having Calvinistic tendencies doesn't mean you have to believe in God, but points out that you don't believe in free will. Logical absolutes can be created. God created them. They are called logical absolutes because God made them so. They would not be absolutes if God did not create them. They can not be disproven. God is not evil. He says we have free will so we have free will and therefore, is not illusion. Even though you are dumfounded how God can do this, He does it. What a magnificent God! There is no conflict with God being all-knowing and our having free will. I don't know how God gives me self-consciousness and God-consciousness, but I know He does it. Likewise, He gives us free will and makes us in His image. These are also mysteries to me, but accept these facts gladly because He proved His existence to me and that He is righteous, holy and true and does not lie. Since God can touch all points in time instantly so that the past, now and future are just as real, then He can give us free will yet know all our choices. It is healthy to question things, and you can freely question anything you like even God's existence. God encourages you to do so to strengthen your faith in Him. He wants you to believe in Him not blindly but letting the evidence lead where it may as He designed it. The universe is deterministic. Deterministically God knows what's going to happen in the choices we will make by our free will. It is not indeterminate by God. God is all-knowing. To be all-knowing is deterministic. You do believe in magic because you try to rationalize your idols. Magic is just natural. The universe will go according to our free will, God's determination in His divine providence to that free will, foreknowing all our free choices. The future is comprised of the choices we make today, the intervention God makes tomorrow and so on. It is all perfect. I couldn't ask for more. Nor could you.


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. 70% Of your argument is religious nonsense. The big Bang comes from a singularity.
Again, nature is all this universe which includes your singularity. Cause and effect of nature can have a cause outside of nature. You know this as elementary since you know nature can't always have existed, start up from nothing and the lesser can't create the greater. Infinite regress is impossible because everything in nature needs a cause. This is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions of cause and effects. What's even more interesting is that if something didn't need a cause then it always existed again subject to infinite regress in time and space. 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, never to reach this point. 100% of your argument is religious hostility. All your movements and actions are to this aim. The big bang might have come from a singularity, but the singularity would have come from God, because a singularity can't always have existed or start up from nothing, and the lesser can't create the greater. You're as confused as you have ever been. God hardens your heart further like He did to the Pharaoh whose first active instance of hardening was in hardening his own heart first.


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.
As I said before, your zero interval theory falls on its head since there is still an infinite regress to your theory, and an infinite regress 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, never to reach this point. People can imagine an infinite regress like you do, and I can, but it is not possible because it is proven logically impossible. Your flesh can probably envision infinite regress more than a beginning actually, but it is the beginning that is reality. Your intuition is filled with the evil spirit so that is why you don't believe in science but pseudoscience. The unmoved mover is not a problem since He is not subject to these problems of your faith.


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.
Your arguments about infinite regress and something from nothing and commingling cause and effect of nature with the supernatural, and lesser creating the greater are all total nonsense. Since group hallucinations are a condition nowhere to be found in history and you can't produce any documented cases, clearly you are delusional in continuing to assume such a thing exists. No such communications or other factors have been shown to support your case, nor do you even try. You just declare it mindlessly like a zombie for Satan. You should listen to historians more and physicists, for nothing you have said agrees with what they say. Since the unmoved mover has been solved, He is none other than God of the Bible. God moved to create out of His divine prerogative. This is not something recently discovered. We knew it millennia ago as we know it today. The proof never changed. A mind is needed to create a mind since there is nothing greater than a mind and the lesser can't create the greater. These are both philosophical and scientific truths. Chemical bonding doesn't allow for the first replicating life since there is not enough chemical bonding of atoms in the history of the universe to even produce one amino acid let alone 1000 to create the simplest life. We are unable to produce living organisms from mixing the elements together. The best we could do was to implant a copy of a genome to give the cell some semblance of life, but it was only just a robot with an organic shell, not artificial life. Something was still lacking that spark of life to self-replicate life. Evolution doesn't explain how evolution started. God formed the body from dust (Gen. 2.7) - this is evolution. That takes care of the body, but there is also the spirit of man and man's soul. The argument I have given to you is the same proof the Bible gives. It is a perfect proof. I can't improve on God's word. Realize this how you go out of your way to say give a proof "without the Bible" which shows your religious hostility. Whether you read it from me or the Bible it is the same proof. It's awesome! The proof experimentally is nobody has been able to resurrect a dead person, but the the Apostles testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead and died for it. That's the proof who God is even for the existence of God. This is in addition to the proof of the existence of God by observing nature. That which is uncreated is of course all knowing. He is infinitely greater than us so He is all knowing and all present and all powerful. Since God has been proven scientifically, and you were unable to refute the proof, then accept the proof for God scientifically in addition to the historical and philosophical proofs.

[Evangelist G]

Seems like the Non-believer has some misunderstandings... i like how william lane craig put it, whatever begins to exists must have a cause.

As for the multi-verse theory, and God, if you put your faith in that as opposed to God , you obviously have a crutch for avoiding God. Because clearly when you see intelligence you have to know it came from intelligence. Or all the design. like DNA, the order of the universe, color, emotions. Inorder to side with the multi-verse, you therefore are uncomfortable with the idea of God and your here looking for someone to prove you wrong or just looking to satisfy yourself with reasoning,which in itself cannot give you answer. Imagine a piece of paper. and i draw a line on it. the line just began to appear...only because i caused it too with my pen. i created it. so if the universe began to exist, or if existence popped into inself its because existence has always been here. Namely God. Inorder for it to be cause the causer must have a will to do it, making it personal. if its personal its obviously God.Stop avoiding God i say you pray and see if he softens your heart.

[Parture]

The reason why I don't like how William Lane Craig puts it is because he assumes something begins to exist and he assumes that which begins to exist must have a cause. The approach I take is not to just self-declare what he claims, but to show how and why nature began to exist and why it must have a cause. Do you see the difference? Craig has his assumptions. I have none.

Incidentally Craig is not a Christian because he believes he can lose salvation tomorrow which is salvation by works (he is Wesleyan not Arminian). The Bible says we are not saved by works lest anyone should boast and those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). Therefore, Craig has given his life to a false Christ and he exalts himself, priding himself on his own strength to be saved. He is lost. His faith is like trying to keep the law to be saved. Since nobody can keep the law, to try to live by the lie to be saved you will die by the law and die in your sins. Therefore, Craig is going to Hell, because he refuses to give his life to the God who keeps to be kept. Instead, he is like a marriage partner in a bad marriage with one foot out the door at all times and a prenuptial always ready in hand. William Lane Craig is going to Hell. The Holy Spirit told me he will never give his life to Christ. Furthermore, I have never met anyone as old as William Lane Craig who ever gave their life to Christ at such a late stage. You should be aware of what is going on here. Satan is ever so deceitful in creating a counterfeit salvation so many have entered into, e.g. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. which make up the vast majority of Christendom. I have told you this so you don't end up like Craig and the Roman Catholics.

You don't even have to go to the proof of intelligence requires intelligence because a multi-verse if it is existed needs a cause since it can't come from nothing (that which does not exist can't cause anything). Nor could it always have existed, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity (that which a multiverse would be part of) would still be going on forever, never to reach this point.

[Gabe]

The advantage we theists have over atheists without knowing anything else is they still can't after all this time produce replicating life from mixing the elements together as the universe would (abiogenesis). Their continued failure year after year with a seemingly exponential increase in knowledge is evidence not for atheism but against atheism and for theism all else being equal. They should be getting closer to their goal of abiogenesis, not further away.

Now I understand this is an old post here, but I came across this forum on the Internet and have been reading along for awhile, and it's highly frustrating that many members here like to throw around statements without anything to back them up (other than the bible). Now you said that after all this time atheists and/or scientists still have not created new self replicating life from synthetic materials (abiogenesis). Now if you would've done a simple google search you would've seen that indeed as of 2010 this had been accomplished. Scientists have indeed created synthetic cells and they are actually self replicating. As proof that the DNA was created by them, the scientists effectively coded their names, emails, and several lines of poetry into the DNA of the newly created cells as well. This research took them 15 years to complete and they are working towards even more complex cells now. If anything this is clearly evidence against theism as you have just based your beliefs on man made life being impossible, when in fact it was done 3 years ago. Oh, and science is now working towards making even more complex life now that basic cells have been created. If you don't consider that progress then I don't know what is. Bottom line: ABIOGENESIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED.

Sources: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2981138/Scientist-creates-first-man-made-cell.html

[Churchwork]

They have not created anything. The likeness of living DNA is not a replicating life force. It still required materials that would need to come together without intelligent intervention. That has not been shown to have occurred. All they have done is manipulate the already existing material to manufacture a synthetic biological machine that is hospitable for a soul life to enter. The Bible says the soul life is in the blood, implying in the cells, even deeper than DNA. I guess its back to the drawing board for you.

ABIOGENESIS HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED!