http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/20/roland.martin/index.html”What would Jesus really do” is the title of the show, hosted by Roland Martin. I’ll be a part of a panel on the subject at 8pm tonight, live, on CNN. One segment, 4-person panel, so I should get one or two sentences in.Feel free to suggest some good sound bytes for me to sneak in during the show!Oh Yeah… HAPPY SOLSTICE! The days are going to get longer now!
jcc
And almost on cue we have a classic example of misrepresentation (well perhaps not a classic example).
Is it intentional? I guess we have to decide that for ourselves. Perhaps phreedm meant it as a joke?
This kind of nonsense is what you get when you don’t nip the irrationality in-the-bud. The question “Is there a gawd?” is just plainly and simply a nonsensical question.
Is there a hagshk?
Misrepresentation…?
I’m just following your own claim…
Origin- the first stage of existence; beginning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/origin
You yourself admit that there was a beginning…you can parse words all you want, but it’s still the moment at which the universe was created…
Or do you believe the universe is eternal?
Likewise…please list more then 2 theories to the “beginning” of the universe…?
HeatheNZ:
Yes, with respect to me remembering (which I admit, my recall may be faulty) that you once replied to one of my posts that ?we are all born atheists,? and no with respect to me being able to acknowledge that infants are capable of comprehending little more than responses to stimuli, much less (a)theological musings.
And in all honesty, that is pretty much the same approach I try to take here with respect to atheists, but your other recent responses to my posts reflect more of your previous attitude (?apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness?) toward me?that?s what prompted me to ask (of me specifically?and especially since I have no monetary interest) what I have to gain by being anything less than honest and open here?
phreedm,
The reason I place origins in quotes is because we do not possess adequate language to address the question without relating it to a common concept of time.
In other words “origin” does not adequately describe an event that has no relation to time. It’s simply an inadequacy of language (or at least my grasp of language).
And your previous comment about creationism was a misrepresentation of a comment discussing the temporal invalidation of the following question.
jcc,
Since you ask, I have found your comments to be overly defensive and often disingenuous of late. I will hasten to add that this is certainly not been the case with this conversation. This conversation has been very positive thus far.
I would also add that I have deliberately skipped most of your posts recently, so I am in a very poor position to judge your recent contributions. I apologize if I have unjustly maligned you, however for what they might be worth, such are my impressions.
Note that this is merely my impression and others may well disagree with me. I have no intention of justifying my impressions, and would not have brought it up had you not inquired. I mention it here as a point of information, not as something intended to spark a defense.
As for yours (and other theists) motivations for posting here, I would hope you would be in a better position to answer that question.
I have no doubt that many of the drive-bys and infrequent theistic posters (assuming their theistic claims are genuine) do so merely to get a rise out of us (kind of like prodding a caged animal with a stick).
You regulars, quite honestly are more of a mystery to me. Personally I think you have a lot of offer this forum, and it would be a poorer place were you not here (which doesn’t mean that you don’t greatly annoy me at times) , but I don’t profess to know why you persist on coming. Maybe you could enlighten me?
Maybe you just enjoy the cut and thrust?
HNZ,
Of course there is…it’s “creation”.
phreedm
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a point (a singularity) at which time is not. (again our language is a very poor tool to describe this concept). If you want to call that a beginning then fine, but it’s not the same concept of beginning as a beginning that happens within a temporal realm, and it’s something that we find hard to conceptualize.
No, you’re not understanding my point as intended. That’s exactly what I am not saying. The implication of your statement (which it seems you are trying to foist upon me) is that time is not contained within the universe, but also exists as a measuring stick to distinguish Before Universe (BU) and After Universe Initiation (AU). (I’m deliberately avoiding the term created due to the supernatural connotations often associated with it). My point is that time most likely does not exist without a universe within which it is contained. Therefore using a term like “moment” to describe the initiation of the universe (and time) is basically meaningless. It’s like discussing square triangles. You can string the words together, but they don’t necessarily mean anything.
This sounds suspiciously like a bifurcation fallacy. Are there only two mutually exclusive possibilities?
Actually i think by definition the universe is eternal. I will argue this with the following line of reasoning:
1. Time is an aspect of spacetime contained within our universe.
2. Eternal means the full extent of possible time.
3. Initiation of the universe also signifies the initiation of time.
4. The demise of the universe will also signify the demise of time.
5. Eternity must (and this is where it gets tricky) exist either from any point in time back to the temporal initiation or forward to the temporal demise – or both.
6. Therefore in a very real sense (our temporal conception) the universe has eternally been here and will eternally be here as it pertains to time, despite the fact that it likely had an initiation and will likely have a demise.
Anyone care to comment on that logic? I hope I managed to explain it adequately.
Phreedm, I may be arguing semantics, I’d be prepared to concede that, but I think the semantics mask some deep and probative concepts that are fundamental to the argument.
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this topic but a little research shows the following as a starting point:
Newtonian cosmology
Lorentzian universes
Early general relativity based cosmologies
Machian universe
G?del’s universe
MOND
TeVeS
Steady state theories
Tired light
Dirac large numbers hypothesis
Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts
Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma
I’m sure there are more – and if you are interested you should be able to google these. Of course these do not include a myriad of mystical explanations – but then again you did ask for theories – and I assume you meant scientifically based theories.
Incidentally, do you consider the Christian explanation of God creating the universe as a theory?
And if you do does that mean that every supernatural explanation is also a theory?
phreedm
“Creation” has it’s own bugaboo, which is arguably worse. It implies that the thing created was created from from something else (and by something else). So creation is also terminally intertwined with the temporal realm.
And of course it’s a loaded term in such discussions as it’s the term of choice used to represent the theistic position. But then, of course, I suspect that’s precisely why you proposed it.
Certainly no-one can accuse you of excessive subtlety.
HNZ…
Agreed.
Here I disagree. Eternal is outside of time. Eternal is without beginning, without end. As we understand both concepts.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Of course. But logically it makes the most sense. Something cannot come from nothing. A creation cannot be greater then the creator.
To simply believe that “science” will figure it out, in my mind is a copout. Bottom line is one must not close their mind to the “truth”, no matter where it leads. Atheism does just that…
Whether theist or non-theist we come to the same point. We don’t know what existed before “time” or the “big bang”…atheism doesn’t allow room for the “supernatural”.
From what I know and after a quick search, none of these have anything to do with the “beginning” of the universe…
One is faced with decided on whether the universe is “eternal” or if it had a “beginning”…
And let me switch the argument…if the universe is “eternal”, who or what created it?
HNZ…humor me
I’m sure you’ve watched Star Trek…
Do you believe man will one day master the technology behind the “food replicator”?
Turning energy into matter…?
Phreedm,
The big bang theory never states that the universe came from nothing.
(The American Heritage Science Dictionary)
Phreedm,
did I miss something?
Maybe I just don’t understand creationism, but what did god make us out of? Himself? If it was himself, isn’t that pantheism?
Atheism isn’t a belief system, the rest of your argument boils down to arrogance.
phreedm
the beauty of atheism but also the burden of atheism is the openess to new facts.not believeing there is a god/gods is not the same as rejecting belief in god/gods should new evidence arise.should the christ story be proven true you would find no more devoted followers than atheists.based on the available evidence deism is more likely the case than the christ story.
Something cannot come from nothing. So, god created the universe. But god is something so who created god? Who created that creator of god? Logically this can never end. Word games are fun aren’t they?
phreedm
My understanding is that they are outmoded theories on cosmology that can be applied to a universal model. But the point is moot with your concession that the Christian explanation of God creating the universe is a theory. If this is so, then there are as many theories as there are and have been religions. You and I may consider them farcical, but they seem to fit as well as the ones advocated by contemporary religions such as Hinduism and Islam.
Phreedm
I think this will be our sticking point. I fail to see how eternal can mean anything more than “all time”.
I do see that you have limited support from a definitional sense.
But I fail to understand what it means to exist outside of time. Unless you can explain it to me without reference to temporal concepts, I will maintain that it is a nonsensical concept. It sounds to me that you are proposing there is time outside of time. Is that a fair representation?
Unless we can get consensus on this issue I think we are at an impasse and will remain that way.
phreedm
That’s reasonable if you hold that there is a valid concept of time outside of spacetime. That seems at least to be suspect to me. If time is contained inside spacetime then “eternal” and “initiation” (equate it to “beginning” if you like) are consistent with each other and the choice disappears.
I don’t think your definition of “eternal” makes any sense, consequently the question, IMO is makes no sense as you pose it.
If I may address it using a meaning of eternal that represents “all time” then the question still makes no sense because without a dimension of time “create” loses its meaning. Causality also loses meaning.
So in other words no-one nor nothing “created” spacetime. At least not in the sense that we understand the idea of creation.
As for how initiation happened, the best we can reliable extrapolate is: the expansion of a singularity that simultaneously expands spacetime dimensions.
I doubt these answers will satisfy you, they don’t really satisfy me, but as limited as they are it’s, IMO, a darned sight better than the simplistic, epistemologically empty answer of supernatural agents’ power of will.
Hello [yourchristianfriend], I recommend reading a book called “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams if you get the chance. It gives you a philosophy about how the creation of the universe occured because god blew himself up.
http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/
phreedm
If such a process does not contravene the laws of physics, I suspect that man has the capability of producing such technology. Weather we will actually ever put the resources into producing such a device is another question altogether. I suspect that it would not be viable in terms of the energy required, the heat output, or one of a thousand other variables.
Why do you ask?
q_f
Now that’s funny.
Phreedm, This would qualify as another “creation” theory.
Phreedm
When the laws of physics break down, weird things becomes possible. I’m not sure that anyone is claiming that something came from nothing, but neither would I discount the possibility. We simply don’t know what is and what is not possible. Things just get weird at that point.
This is IMO a very strange statement coming from a theist. Theism certainly seems the candidate for a closed mind to ‘truth”. The theist believes he knows the truth and will fight tooth and nail against any evidence or reason that disagrees with this “truth”. One only needs to look at the history of the church vis a vis science to see ample evidence of this.
Atheism on the other hand merely asks for reasonable evidence for the existence of supernatural gods. That such evidence is not forthcoming doesn’t preclude the possibility of gods, just gives us no reason to accept the “truth” of an extraordinary explanation.
I agree that no-one knows of conditions pre-initiation.
Atheism, rather than now allowing room, sees no need for the supernatural, nor any credible evidence to credit its introduction. I’m not sure if we are saying the same thing, but if so – isn’t that a great thing?
Observe, describe and predict or go away.
Comment from: stilhorn
Sure…I have heard it so often from a non-believer that if God created the universe, then who created God?
Meaning nothing can be eternal…
So…who or what created the first hydrogen atom?
Comment from: stilhorn
No this is funny…of course atheism is a belief system…it’s the belief in one self.
Arrogance…? You’ve got to be kidding. Atheism is the height of arrogance in the strictest sense…
Self importance. Overconfidence.
Believing there is nothing larger then themselves…
Comment from: HeatheNZ
Agreed. So it is up to the individual to study each “theory” to understand it’s truths or flaws…
And not to simply dismiss them out of lack of understanding…
Regardless…I am hoping you and everyone else on this blog are having a wonderful day with their family. This holiday really is all about love and family…enjoy.
Comment from: HeatheNZ
Again, we’re very limited in our total understanding…
But, if energy is eternal, then that first hydrogen atom might have simply come from existing energy.
Bottom line…something must be eternal…there can be no other answer…
Comment from: HeatheNZ
Unless one is touced by that supernatural agent…it’s been my life experience that most answers in life are the simple ones. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean the answer doesn’t exist…
This is what I find most troubling about atheim…that it leads one to close their minds…
Of course one has to be honest with themselves to admit this…
Comment from: HeatheNZ
EXATCLY…!!! So ANYTHING is possible.
Not odd at all. While I will claim to know the Truth, I do not know all that is true…
No, it’s not a play on words…I believe I know the Author of Truth…but not all truth…
“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”…
There is no doubt that there have been historical moments where the church stood in the way of science…but I can also think of examples of how AA is standing in the way of science (education) all in the name of promoting a myth…
by forcing kids to stay in failing public schools within the inner cities because they claim a “school voucher” is a violation of said “myth”…
Again…one must never close their mind to ALL possibilities…
phreedm,
You make it sound like you have scored a point here. I certainly would not preculde the possibility of supernatural gods, I just happen to think they are as likely as there are invisible pink unicorn flying around my house right now.
In other words just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it has any meaningful chance of being correct.
Now, to my mind this “Truth” vs “truth” stuff is disturbing. What theists actually know is an interpretation of a particular religious dogma. That theists assign the label “Truth” to this understanding is at the very least disingenuous.
As for the science education stuff, suffice to say that I strongly disagree with your opinion for reasons that have been discussed far too many times to want to do it again.
HeatheNZ
That’s why it is a mistake to engage Phreeky. It’s a never ending Groundhog Day with Phreeky. He observes no gawds, describes none of their measurable properties, and creates no model of gawds that makes useful and accurate predictions. He is useless.
What,
It’s precisely for the reasons you expound that I declined you engage in that particular discussion. The rest of our most recent exchange (and with jcc) I found quite agreeable.
Would it be at all helpful if it could be shown that most “questions/discussions” with the trolls had been covered over and over again?
The simpletons don’t want to learn, they get joy from seeing someone willing to put effort into engaging them. They may not even read the answers, they are never willing to learn anything.
Re: Selling a house.
Troll: I pray to God that I may sell my house if it is the right thing to do.
TP (thinking person): Has your God sold your house yet?
Troll: No it obviously isn’t the right time yet, I only put my house on the market because it seemed like God might have someone in mind that could make better use of it at this time.
TP: Has your God engaged you to sell your house to anyone yet?
Troll: Yes, God was waiting for a Preacher to get his act together so my house could be sold to him. Praise the Lord!
TP: The trolls God is a Real Estate agent.
Troll: No! My God didn’t sell my house for me. My God found a buyer for my house and an appropriate time for the buyer to buy my house.
TP: That is what a Real Estate agent does.
Troll: No! GodDoneIt!
an Atheist would ask you who created god because most theist say who created the universe.
Person1: You don’t believe in god, then who created the universe?
Person2: who created god?
Person1: god is eternal.
Person2: why can’t the universe be eternal?
Person1: everything in the universe has a cause.
Person2: The universe isn’t in the universe.
how arrogant is it to group us all together and tell us what WE believe.
sorry, messed up the blockquotes –Fixed HZ
What do you mean by created?
Put together? Pulled out of nothing?
Phreedy says that anything is possible.
Okay, Phreedy, admit that it is possible that your concept of gawd is completely wrong and the concepts of HZN proposed are absolutely correct.
-Prot
I just checked in for a second and haven’t read every post, but if as baresht1 just mentioned Phreedy says that anything is possible then wouldn’t the healing of amputees be something phreedy should address? I would like to see him find an amputee with a new limb.
And when he does would somebody please let me know in case I’m not around when he makes the announcement. We’ll need pictures, of course, in all stages of regrowth, and naturally we will want doctors and other scientiest on hand for the big event.
Comment from: stilhorn
You tell me…and we didn’t have to wait long for an example proving my point…
Comment from: baresht1
Yep…anything is possible. And as I’ve stated over and over to anyone paying attention, I don’t know of a single believer who hasn’t questioned their faith…
Rarely do I ever hear someone who is completely honest as HNZ has been in our discussions…
Do you think Dave has ever questioned his beliefs about the existence of God…? You bet he has…would he ever admit it…?
Never…
GFG…what an absolutely asinine comment…
Phreedm,
Why is it an asinine question? Because amputees don’t have chariots made of iron? Either everything is possible with God, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, than it is just one more lie in the bible. If it IS possible to regrow amputated limbs, then prove it!
The truly funny thing about this is: without all of God’s minions standing in the way, scientists using stem cells, may one day regrow amputated limbs.
Hello Ren…I’m hoping that you’re having a good day with your family…
GFG’s comment is asinine becuase it exeplifies a total lack of understanding from a believers point of view…
Of course, even though GFG has claimed to understand christianity it’s clear that he/she does not…
Phreedm,
Wow, you do acknowledge me! I feel so… validated.
Here’s hoping that you are also enjoying your time with family.
I wish.