Ben Masada
New member
Logic tells me what I know. And I wonder why WE are the ones to cause our own paradoxes. Could it be our psychological need to build iron fences to protect what we want to know from the real truth?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Logic tells me what I know. And I wonder why WE are the ones to cause our own paradoxes. Could it be our psychological need to build iron fences to protect what we want to know from the real truth?
alwight
New member
Your "logic" seems to be rather at odds with other theists imo.
I don't want to build any barriers to where evidence might take us, they can be left for religionists to build.
Ben Masada
New member
The point is that my Logic is based on Reason and not on faith.
gcthomas
New member
Yet the claim that 'matter cannot create itself' is an empirical claim, not a point of logic. You also seem to exclude a priori the chance that the 4D space time of the universe could have some eternal existence in the timeless place where you expect god to be. Again, that is an empirical claim that cannot be demonstrated by your high school pseudo-logic.
Why do you feel the need to claim certainty when you are discussing an unknown? Your conception is of a god of the gaps - we don't have any evidence for the origin yet you claim certainty, knowing that there is no counter evidence, even if your claim is just one of an infinite set of different claims that could 'explain' the origin. How can you logically pick just one from this infinite set?
Ben Masada
New member
Evidences for the origin of the universe or of how it happened can be achieved by means of Logic. All you have to do is to know how to use it. Evidence of the fact is that the atheistic method of gaps won't allow them to acknowledge any other method even if it seems obvious to them. Talking about preconceived notions we all lose to atheists.
If the claim that matter cannot cause itself to exist is empirical and not logical, why don't you provide us with matter that has caused itself to exist? You won't because the gap method of theories is enough for atheists.
You can think that all you want, but you are wrong. At the quantum level matter does appear and disappear for no reason.
I missed what you are saying, The third cosmologist is ?
Ben Masada
New member
Ben Masada
alwight
New member
Is this one of those seek ye first, believe and then ye "logic" will become revealed to ye at some unspecific point afterwards, if ye are deemed worthy, kind of things?
Eternal time is infinite time which means all of time the opposite would be "no time". The timeless God of Aristotle was the cause of movement of an eternal universe, not the cause of it's origin.
--Dave
John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working."
Time is not an object that anything is subject to.
We can say God does nothing and therefore timeless--pure actuality.
We can say God does every infinitely possible thing he can do all at once and therefore timeless--eternal now.
Or we can say God does not do every thing all at once--free infinite potentiality.
Eternal time is the outcome of God's freedom to do what he wants when he wants. Freedom solves the problem of infinite regress. Freedom in God means there is nothing outside of God that is the cause of what he does. God freely actualizes his own infinite potential--Dynamic Free Theism.
--Dave
Yes perhaps, but then again read on.
Certainly not, that is deemed very impolite among telepaths to even try to plant thoughts in other people's minds.
I really don't think you can honestly claim to know that any one extant god ever actually has planted any independent thoughts into anyone's mind. Particularly since there are probably as many different claimed versions as there are those who believe.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan B. Anthony
What does God say to you Dave, if it's not too personal?
How do you know it is God and not another part of you?
Is it what you want to hear?
Evidentially untrue while natural selection is not random.
I never said there was no actual objective reality I simply questioned our perceptions of it.
Actually I wonder how much "I" do have to input into my thoughts, do they simply arrange themselves in my mind?
Am I perhaps little more than an observer in my own mind? :think:
However I see no reason to suppose that a supernatural entity is doing any of this arranging or impolite planting of thoughts.
Mindless nature has no plan, what ever is not random has been planned.
--Dave
Dear Alwight,
Yep, you're wrong. God planted some thoughts in my head, but I hearkened to them and they grew. If He never let me know He existed or that His Love was there, that would put me not one iota further ahead in countenance or you being such a caring person. Things happen. Seeds ARE planted. It is the bane of existence. Don't say 'No.' How does a plant grow. The seed is within itself.
Much Love In Christ,
Michael
Yep, you're wrong. God planted some thoughts in my head, but I hearkened to them and they grew. If He never let me know He existed or that His Love was there, that would put me not one iota further ahead in countenance or you being such a caring person. Things happen. Seeds ARE planted. It is the bane of existence. Don't say 'No.' How does a plant grow. The seed is within itself.
Much Love In Christ,
Michael
6days, what is your claim based on - that energy is required for matter to appear, even at the quantum level?
gcthomas
New member
Yes, that is certainly observed in physics experiments: a particle-antiparticle pair requires the enough pre-existing energy to account for the combined mass-energy and kinetic energy of both particles.
But gravitational fields are different. Since it takes energy to be supplied to separate a gravitational bound system, the energy of gravitation must be negative. In general relativity, gravity is the curvature of space, with energy causing a positive curvature, and negative energy causing negative curvature. Curvature would be visible to astronomers as the curvature would affect the path of light, but it turns out that the universe looks flat, so the universe must have a zero energy density to within 0.5% given the precision of the measurements.
So a static universe, without the kinetic energy of expansion, would have observably negative energy and would require a huge amount of negative energy at its creation. But an expanding universe like the one we actually see would have no energy in total.
Does the rather hopeful rule of 'nothing comes from nothing' stand up to modern investigations?
No.
The universe appears to have no energy and could therefore have been created (at the "quantum level") in a quantum fluctuation and persisted.
alwight
New member
Last night Michael I dreamt that my wallet had been stolen by someone in everyday clothes but wearing a policeman's helmet.
I really believed that my wallet was gone.
But happily it wasn't, it was just something created in my own mind by my own mind.
No doubt if my wallet really does get stolen today someone would say that my dream was a spiritual warning message planted in my mind supernaturally.
However the human mind is very capable of subconscious construction and creating a dualistic illusion of reality quite separately from our conscious mind and the actual reality.
I believe that a part of my own mind is perhaps warning me to keep better hold of my wallet not any outside supernatural entity.
alwight
New member
I read somewhere that matter is simply un-cancelled out by antimatter which may have an antimatter universe of its own. If the two universes ever joined up then there would indeed be absolutely nothing.
gcthomas
New member
I'm not sure of the other universe, but most of the matter in the early seconds was indeed annihilated with the antimatter that was created in almost identical quantities. Antimatter has the same energy as matter, so the annihilation produced the same energy in photons. The photons still contribute to the gravity and energy density of the universe, so no change there.
I do think that the observed flatness of the universe is strong evidence for the zero energy universe idea. Why would god bother to make a universe with no net energy content when that feature is so restrictive in what could be produced?
- Status