Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Charismata]

Sorry but no ad hoc argument here

Sorry but no ad hoc argument here

Originally posted by Zakath
The Christian position is merely assertion. It is only necessary that the Christian God existed prior to the formation of the universe. What evidence do you have to indicate that the Christian God is without beginning?

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created..." Zakath this isn't an ad hoc argument because it is the default Christian position.

There is much evidence from both the Bible and from science that demonstrates God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it. The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him (1).

According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe (2). Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimensions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3).

The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to creatures (us) which can only exist in the confines of our universe (4).

The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do (5). We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls (Can you?) and could not know what happens outside of his sight.

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (6). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward (7) (forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began (8).

References

1.
Behold, heaven and the highest heavens cannot contain Thee... (1 Kings 8:27) The Almighty is beyond our reach. (Job 37:23)

2.
Glanz, J. 1997. Strings Unknot Problems in Particle Theory, Black Holes. Science 276:1969-1970. Kestenbaum, D. 1998. Practical Tests for an 'Untestable' Theory of Everything? Science 281:758-759.

3.
The universe was formed at God's command, so that what was seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

4.
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" (Exodus 33:20)
When He passes me I cannot see Him. When He goes by, I cannot perceive Him (Job 9:11)
The Almighty is beyond our reach (Job 37:23)
No man has seen God at any time... (John 1:18)
No man has seen the Father... (John 6:46)
And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. (Colossians 1:15)
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God... (1 Timothy 1:17)
God... whom no man has seen or can see... (1 Timothy 6:16) ...Him who is unseen. (Hebrews 11:27)

5.
Then hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart Thou knowest, for Thou alone dost know the hearts of all the sons of men, (1 Kings 8:39)
"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts." (1 Chronicles 28:9)
For His eyes are upon the ways of a man, And He sees all his steps. There is no darkness or deep shadow where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. (Job 34:21-22)
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, "I know that Thou canst do all things, And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted." (Job 42:1-2) Then the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and He said to me, "Say, `Thus says the LORD, So you think, house of Israel, for I know your thoughts.'" (Ezekiel 11:5)

6.
Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36.
Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548.

7.
1998. Particle decays reveal arrow of time. Science 282: 602-603.

8.
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

Check out more about the Extra-Dimensional Nature of God

God, Time, and Eternity

Is God's eternity to be construed as timeless or temporal? Given that the universe began to exist, a relational view of time suggests that time also began to exist. God's existence "prior to" or sans creation would not entail the existence of time if God in such a state is changeless. But if God sustains real relations with the world, the co-existence of God and the world imply that God is temporal subsequent to the moment of creation. Given the superiority of a relational over a non-relational (Newtonian) view of time, God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

 

[Zakath]

Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by Cleohair
When did this become a debate on the existance of "Bob Enyart's God"???? I noticed you've been misunderstanding that a lot in the actual debate, too. It's on the existance of ANY God!!!

But Pastor Enyart's position (and definition of deity) eliminates any other deity from consideration. That's why I'm dealing with the evidence for the existence of his deity.

A Creator. And complexity demanding a Creator is not an assertion, it is a scientifically provable fact.

The Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God is not universal. Not all deities are considered creators by their followers, so you wish to limit the debate to the Judeo-Christian deity.

Which will it be, all gods or just YHWH? :think:

Take a very simple complexity of the workings of a mousetrap as your experiment (& I'll even spot you the materials to make the mousetrap, which is another problem). Place the piece of wood & pieces of wire needed to make a mousetrap in a box(not already put together-seperate) & leave it. The wood will break down, the wire will rust; but you will never look into that box & find a working mosetrap. A Creator has to come along & put those pieces together to work. If simplicity demands a Creator, then complexity demands it even more!

For a manufactured item like a mousetrap, this would be true. For the natural universe it could be quite different. You do not need a creator to build a baby, merely two healthy human adults of breeding age. There are many things we have yet to discover about the universe, but I'm reasonably confident that as we will find as we have over the last 5,000 years or so that as we continue to discover more, the need for gods (of any form) become less.

The 1st (Law of Thermodynamics) says matter can't create or destroy itself-thus you NEED a Creator of the original matter!!! God is not matter, but spirit; thus He does not violate the Law.

Recently at CERN matter has been created. The universe as it exists does not need a creator to build matter. Your positing of a non-material entity creating material things is not testable or explainable in scienctific observation. It is purely the realm of metaphysics. You may assert whatever powers you wish for your deity, but until you can demonstrate them, they remain assertions.

The 2nd says things go toward disorder, not order-thus for the world to have such AMAZING order some force outside of it had to be at work.

The theory is that the force present at the singularity was sufficiently powerful to push the universe to its present form and beyond. You appear to be merely personalizing the singularity and calling it "God".

Oh, I had hoped I wasn't speaking to someone with this type of childish mentality!

Nice ad hominem. I don't have time for this kind of thing. We're done here...

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Flipper
RogerB:
I can't claim absolute certainty because I don't have absolute knowledge. However, as we are all discussing profitably here, there are reasonable causes to postulate a universe without the necessity of a God (which raises its own difficult questions).

I assume you meant "probability"? If so this would be a loose usage of the term, since strictly speaking probability theory does not apply to situations like this.

Why I should accept the Christian position over any other religious belief is not clear in your question, unless it is because the punishment for not doing so is far more heinous than in any other religion...

I was of the opinion that the "punishment" is essentially separation from God, which is a logical fate for those who reject Him.

Your experience is completely subjective and as a human, you can be misled and deluded. Therefore your absolute certainty is proof only to you. History is littered with examples of people who were absolutely certain of things they later turned out to be wrong about.

We will only find out who was correct when we die.

If Zakath has created reasonable doubt, and Bob has failed to show anything beyond circumstantial evidence and assertion, then the existence of God is neither proved nor disproved.

True, but we make decisions every day without having absolute proof. Hopefully many of our decisions are nevertheless correct ones. Atheists obviously believe their decision to reject God is a correct one.

Obviously, an absolutist may never accept that there are grounds for reasonable doubt, but I understand that most believers are plagued by 2nd thoughts on occasion.

There is obviously a spectrum of belief within the category of "believers", but some have been willing to die and even be martyred for their belief.

In the past some have been offered continued life if they would deny God, but they chose instead to stand fast in the face of the prospect of terrible death by burning at the stake or crucifixion.

Such are examples of real faith.

So far Bob has offered many "proofs" of the existence of God, while Zakath simply says in effect that he is not convinced, and points to the poorly supported opinions of others to justify his doubt. Misery enjoys company.

Such is the "faith" of the atheist.

 

[sawrie]

..

 

[Charismata]

Pay no attention to that scientist behind the curtain

Pay no attention to that scientist behind the curtain

Originally posted by Zakath
Recently at CERN matter has been created. The universe as it exists does not need a creator to build matter.

Don't you sort of conveniently leave out that:
1) They were using matter to collide with other matter to make a plasma that they "think" hasn't existed for billions of years?
2) There was intelligent design involved? (The scientists performing the experiment.)

The crucial data was obtained by colliding ionised lead atoms to create microscopic explosions that, although very small, have very high concentrations of energy.
:think:

 

[Flipper]

BobB:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Flipper
RogerB:
I can't claim absolute certainty because I don't have absolute knowledge. However, as we are all discussing profitably here, there are reasonable causes to postulate a universe without the necessity of a God (which raises its own difficult questions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I assume you meant "probability"? If so this would be a loose usage of the term, since strictly speaking probability theory does not apply to situations like this.

Nuh-uh. I meant "profitably" as in "this conversation is profitable".

I was of the opinion that the "punishment" is essentially separation from God, which is a logical fate for those who reject Him.

That seems to be one school of thought in Christianity. However, there are those who contend that the fires of hell are literal. Some of them have debated this very topic on TOL, I think.

From an outsider's perspective, your view seems the more just of the two.

In the past some have been offered continued life if they would deny God, but they chose instead to stand fast in the face of the prospect of terrible death by burning at the stake or crucifixion.

True enough. Forgive the unlovely comparisons, but a lot of people at Jonestown were also willing to die for their beliefs too. A suicide bomber is motivated entirely by his or her beliefs. Origen castrated himself because of his belief, unbiblical though it was. Such are the examples of real faith.

A belief is not automatically validated just because someone has faith enough to die for it.

 

[Flake]

Originally posted by RogerB
You.

You are incorrect.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Pay no attention to that scientist behind the curtain

Re: Pay no attention to that scientist behind the curtain

Originally posted by Charismata
Don't you sort of conveniently leave out that:
1) They were using matter to collide with other matter to make a plasma that they "think" hasn't existed for billions of years?
2) There was intelligent design involved? (The scientists performing the experiment.)

The crucial data was obtained by colliding ionised lead atoms to create microscopic explosions that, although very small, have very high concentrations of energy.
:think:

I was thinking of the anti-matter work... I probably should have clarified. CERN is a big organization... :doh:

I confess that I'm not a physicist, so all this is very fascinating to me but not all of it is easily understandable.

Edited to add link. - Z

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by sawrie
... "based on the miracles Jesus produced, which bear witness of him that God was backing up his statements. And the multitude of historical documents that declare he existed and did what he did. Not only is the new testement written by 8 different writers, but there are enough letters written by Jesus follower to rewrite almost the whole of the New Testement, save a few verses."

We could spend weeks dissecting the current documents that you call "The Bible". Suffice it to say that I do not place much credence in a book that is a collection of documents that are translations of copies of of other documents for which the originals do not exist, written in languages that most of the human race cannot read, describing fantastic events which do not occur in modern times, many of which are historically unverifiable. I would find it difficult to bet my eternal destiny on such a thing as the absolute truth of the Bible.

The other religions which declare the existance of God's lack the proof of their claims: save the Jewish history which has more then an abundant of historial finds proving a multitude of the stories that happened in the bible are facts.

All major world religions have their scriptures. All of them make claims just as outlandish as your Bible. All of them claim their tales are truth. What makes yours any more believable than theirs?

Zakath why are you so hellbent on fighting Christians and disuading people against them believing in a God? I say may because you cannot disprove his absolute existance: not because I question his existance.

What is your point?

You asked me to answer some questions, I did so. You didn't agree with my answers, we're discussing the results...

That's how web boards work. If you've got a problem with that don't post here... :chuckle:

 

[bob b]

Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by Zakath
But Pastor Enyart's position (and definition of deity) eliminates any other deity from consideration. That's why I'm dealing with the evidence for the existence of his deity.

That is of course where Bob is headed, but you are jumping ahead at this point in the debate and glossing over the things leading up to that (and thus refusing to answer simple questons).

You do not need a creator to build a baby, merely two healthy human adults of breeding age.

Life comes only from life (or a Creator who created the first life).

There are many things we have yet to discover about the universe, but I'm reasonably confident that as we will find as we have over the last 5,000 years or so that as we continue to discover more, the need for gods (of any form) become less.

You are equivocating here, since you said you wanted to talk about the Christian God. Now you seem to wish to invoke pagan gods to support your case. The Christian God said that He created everything in 6 days and then He was done creating, except when He returned in the form of a man.

Recently at CERN matter has been created. The universe as it exists does not need a creator to build matter.

You are wrong (it was merely a transformation of energy to matter).

Your positing of a non-material entity creating material things is not testable or explainable in scienctific observation.

No theory of the creation of the universe can be tested by material means for this is a logical contradiction. Creation of the universe could only be accomplished by mechanisms or means which are not part of the physical universe. This has been known for thousands of years, but some today want to imagine that somehow the universe can come into existence by first assuming that the universe already exists. This is logical nonsense.

You may assert whatever powers you wish for your deity, but until you can demonstrate them, they remain assertions.

It is not an assertion to propose a logical necessity, which is that the universe could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have come into existence by non-material means (not part of the material universe).

The theory is that the force present at the singularity was sufficiently powerful to push the universe to its present form and beyond. You appear to be merely personalizing the singularity and calling it "God".

Singularities exist only in mathematics. There is no example of a physical "singularity" in all of science (outside the "ideal" world of mathematics). A scientific theory that says the universe arose from a singularity must be able to demonstrate that such things as singularities can exist outside of mathematics. Even Steven Hawking now believes that a Black Hole is not and never can become a singularity. No appeal to "imaginary time" (a mathematical artifice) can salvage the singularity idea from the ashcan of history.

 

[NuMessJew]

The worlds super computer was asked by then President Reagan, "does god exist", the answer was, "he does now".

Ce n’est pas logique,
NuMessJew

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
You are incorrect.

I say you are Mr. Obvious. Take it like a man.

 

[NuMessJew]

by the way..................what do they mean by god?

Ce n’est pas logique,
NuMessJew

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by bob b
That is of course where Bob is headed, but you are jumping ahead at this point in the debate and glossing over the things leading up to that (and thus refusing to answer simple questons).

Enyart's cheering section seems really intent that I closely follow his line of questioning so that I can be led into his pre-scripted monologue... I feel if would be more entertaining if we took the discussion down some alternate paths, and since I'm the one in the arena...

Unfortunately this might not be as entertaining for the followers of St. Bob the Broadcaster... but c'est la guerre.:chuckle:

Life comes only from life (or a Creator who created the first life).

This begs the question of where did the Creator's life come from...

You are equivocating here, since you said you wanted to talk about the Christian God. Now you seem to wish to invoke pagan gods to support your case. The Christian God said that He created everything in 6 days and then He was done creating, except when He returned in the form of a man.

The question being debated is "Does God Exist". Pastor Enyart chose to define deity as his limited unorthodox Open View God. I have found that tools useful for examining the claims of one religion's view of deity are sometimes useful for examining others. Examining the reality of Pastor Enyart's God can be accomplished using tools similar to those used to examine the reality of Vishnu, Odin, or Horus.

You are wrong (it was merely a transformation of energy to matter).

So why does the Christian deity get a waiver of the laws of thermodynamics? Does your belief indicate that he created matter and energy from nothing? Aren't you merely appealing to "God of the Gaps" here?

No theory of the creation of the universe can be tested by material means for this is a logical contradiction. Creation of the universe could only be accomplished by mechanisms or means which are not part of the physical universe. This has been known for thousands of years, but some today want to imagine that somehow the universe can come into existence by first assuming that the universe already exists. This is logical nonsense.

It is not an assertion to propose a logical necessity, which is that the universe could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have come into existence by non-material means (not part of the material universe).

Existence of a sentient creator is not a "logical necessity". It is merely another theory. Unfortunately one that is not subject to test...

Singularities exist only in mathematics. There is no example of a physical "singularity" in all of science (outside the "ideal" world of mathematics).

I am unfamiliar with your background, Bob, but it appears that you do not believe in the existence of singularities in black holes? Or perhaps you do not believe in black holes at all?

A scientific theory that says the universe arose from a singularity must be able to demonstrate that such things as singularities can exist outside of mathematics. Even Steven Hawking now believes that a Black Hole is not and never can become a singularity. No appeal to "imaginary time" (a mathematical artifice) can salvage the singularity idea from the ashcan of history.

You perhaps have a reference for Hawking recanting on his singularity theory?

 

[tenkeeper]

Thank You Father
For this room
Where I have met
Some who truly set
Your name above all others
My brothers and sisters
Who call upon Your name
With unfeigned lips,
You know the ones
Whose Spirits stand out
They shout
They sing
They bring joy
To many hearts
While praising Your name.

 

[Flipper]

BobB:

Singularities exist only in mathematics. There is no example of a physical "singularity" in all of science (outside the "ideal" world of mathematics).

Well, theoretical physics, but let's not split hairs. Singularities and physics as we know them part company at as the numbers spiral off to infinity, a result that physicists don't care for.

However, I don't think that the singularity is as dead as you are making out. I believe that to avoid the problem of infinity, one approach is to modify the singularity's composition -- although space/time as we know them has broken down, the problems of infinite curvature and infinite gravity are avoided by replacing it with a hypothetical quantum foam that operates under the hypothetical laws of quantum gravity. A lot of qualifers there but it's still a relatively young area for research.

Also, I believe that Demetrios Christodoulou has shown that a singularity can occur when a scalar field undergoes gravitational collapse.

So not completely dead and buried...

I didn't know that Hawking has dispensed with singularities at the heart of a black hole. He still accepted their existence in 1999, but I admit that I could be out of touch. Where can I find out more about this?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak
Huh? So, again...where did moral attributes come from? Did they appear one day in someone's mind or environment?

Yes. At some point in our evolution, we humans realized that just as there are behaviors that are good (or not good) for individual self-preservation, there are also behaviors that are good or not good for our collective self-preservation. This area of our awareness is called morality. Morality qualifies human behavoir relative to it's effect on the well being of the society as a whole.

Originally posted by Freak In terms of the reality of the conscience, no. All humans possess a conscience--an awareness of good & evil. Point me to a society where this isn't the case...

There are lots of humans who have no "conscience". They are called sociopaths. The famous ones that we hear about are the serial killers, but there are others, who don't commit such sensational crimes.

 

[novice]

Bob's post #3 is AWESOME!

You may not care about BR VII but do yourself a favor and read Bob's post #3 very carefully! Its incredible!

Thanks to TOL for putting on this debate its fantastic!

I love this small paragraph:

Not only do you believe in something you can’t prove, not only do you believe in something you can’t give details about, you believe in something you can’t even imagine. You can’t even conceive of how a molecule, or a protein for that matter, or a million of them together, begin to become self-aware. That’s a kicker for you, isn’t it? Not only because you can’t even dream of how it might happen, but because you know that I know that you can’t even make a wild guess.

 

[RogerB]

That is a good one!

 

[RogerB]

Enyart's cheering section seems really intent that I closely follow his line of questioning so that I can be led into his pre-scripted monologue... I feel if would be more entertaining if we took the discussion down some alternate paths, and since I'm the one in the arena...

Isn't it a bit early for a concession speech?