The Delusion of "Free Will"

[neo-x]

While they can be useful as evidence for God, what keeps me from using such arguments as Phil's something-from-nothing is simply that, what if, just what if one day it was shown beyond reasonable doubt that matter and energy always existed in one form or another. What then?

You're right, that is a concern...and in such a case this argument will simply fall flat on its face. Hence, I have never been a fan of it. But regardless of the potential danger inherent in the argument, Phil's assertions are wrong and are misrepresentations on several fronts as I pointed out. I mean even if you are to appeal to creation appeal in a way which is grounded in reality.

The perfect system etc etc, is not real. The last two comets that almost flew by us close enough to be dangeorus were spotted only two days earlier and one was spotted after it had flew by us. Had it collided no one would had a clue about it. This is the sort of dangerous, unknown, universe we live in, where life is centered around black holes and exploding stars.

Its sugarcoating the reality which I believe is the reason no one ever takes it seriously, no matter how much its repeated.

[neo-x]

Evidence for God's existence?
Ok, the Christian theist view of GOD you mean?

Well:

Why is it that when you strike a match fire is produced instead of ice?

Is that directed to me, Paul?

[Kurieuo]

While they can be useful as evidence for God, what keeps me from using such arguments as Phil's something-from-nothing is simply that, what if, just what if one day it was shown beyond reasonable doubt that matter and energy always existed in one form or another. What then?

You're right, that is a concern...and in such a case this argument will simply fall flat on its face. Hence, I have never been a fan of it. But regardless of the potential danger inherent in the argument, Phil's assertions are wrong and are misrepresentations on several fronts as I pointed out. I mean even if you are to appeal to creation appeal in a way which is grounded in reality.

I noticed that too, glad someone else picked it up. Really, there is a heckova lot that gets missed -- we're not as modern and ready and many might think -- we could be hit and we'd only have a days notice if even that. But, don't worry, "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

[neo-x]

While they can be useful as evidence for God, what keeps me from using such arguments as Phil's something-from-nothing is simply that, what if, just what if one day it was shown beyond reasonable doubt that matter and energy always existed in one form or another. What then?

You're right, that is a concern...and in such a case this argument will simply fall flat on its face. Hence, I have never been a fan of it. But regardless of the potential danger inherent in the argument, Phil's assertions are wrong and are misrepresentations on several fronts as I pointed out. I mean even if you are to appeal to creation appeal in a way which is grounded in reality.

I noticed that too, glad someone else picked it up. Really, there is a heckova lot that gets missed -- we're not as modern and ready and many might think -- we could be hit and we'd only have a days notice if even that. But, don't worry, "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

And in that case we should say we have a loving, perfect God, who saves us, not the perfect universe, which certainly doesn't.

[PaulSacramento]

Evidence for God's existence?
Ok, the Christian theist view of GOD you mean?

Well:

Why is it that when you strike a match fire is produced instead of ice?

Is that directed to me, Paul?

Nope, just human wanted evidence for God and the first step to that is to get a common ground as to what evidence is.

[Philip]

Singularity was NOT a PHYSICAL thing! And the mass of things that poured from it show that they did not previously exist. And a moment later, they did! Black holes, etc. - really, Neo, did those things not have their own purposes? You can't say. But what we can say is that the very necessary elements appeared instantly, with design, specific functional abilities, obeying highly specific laws, and none of those other things you mention kept our universe from eventually becoming the one that would produce our home that sustains life. I really don't get Neo's point - but I don't argue theology with him, because so much of it he says he doesn't believe is true - or that it was God-given. To me, that's where he runs off the road and over the cliff. I don't even understand the POINT of his arguments, in relation to influencing others to faith in God. I care that people realize that without God, this universe, this life - it's all impossible - a deluded fantasy of strange and unmerited faith of those that believe what exists could have developed - or even exist - without a Superintelligence of Great Power and Purpose. And note that God DOES guide events and many prophecies have shown He knew exactly what would happen. Somehow, these classical beliefs of Christianity offend Neo. Pity.

First moments of the Big Bang / NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... -big-bang

[Byblos]

Singularity was NOT a PHYSICAL thing! And the mass of things that poured from it show that they did not previously exist. And a moment later, they did! Black holes, etc. - really, Neo, did those things not have their own purposes? You can't say. But what we can say is that the very necessary elements appeared instantly, with design, specific functional abilities, obeying highly specific laws, and none of those other things you mention kept our universe from eventually becoming the one that would produce our home that sustains life. I really don't get Neo's point - but I don't argue theology with him, because so much of it he says he doesn't believe is true - or that it was God-given. To me, that's where he runs off the road and over the cliff. I don't even understand the POINT of his arguments, in relation to influencing others to faith in God. I care that people realize that without God, this universe, this life - it's all impossible - a deluded fantasy of strange and unmerited faith of those that believe what exists could have developed - or even exist - without a Superintelligence of Great Power and Purpose. And note that God DOES guide events and many prophecies have shown He knew exactly what would happen. Somehow, these classical beliefs of Christianity offend Neo. Pity.

First moments of the Big Bang / NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... -big-bang

I read the link twice but I may have missed it still. Where exactly does it say that the singularity was not physical? For that matter, what do you consider physical? For example, do you consider energy physical?

[neo-x]

Singularity was NOT a PHYSICAL thing! And the mass of things that poured from it show that they did not previously exist. And a moment later, they did! Black holes, etc. - really, Neo, did those things not have their own purposes? You can't say. But what we can say is that the very necessary elements appeared instantly, with design, specific functional abilities, obeying highly specific laws, and none of those other things you mention kept our universe from eventually becoming the one that would produce our home that sustains life. I really don't get Neo's point - but I don't argue theology with him, because so much of it he says he doesn't believe is true - or that it was God-given. To me, that's where he runs off the road and over the cliff. I don't even understand the POINT of his arguments, in relation to influencing others to faith in God. I care that people realize that without God, this universe, this life - it's all impossible - a deluded fantasy of strange and unmerited faith of those that believe what exists could have developed - or even exist - without a Superintelligence of Great Power and Purpose. And note that God DOES guide events and many prophecies have shown He knew exactly what would happen. Somehow, these classical beliefs of Christianity offend Neo. Pity.

First moments of the Big Bang / NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... -big-bang

Phil, I am amazed that you won't defend any of your points against my criticism of them so all you can talk about is how annoying you feel, I am?
You won't discuss theology with me, but apprently you don't want to discuss science with me as well. Had you done that, we would have discussed your misrepresentations further.

The POINT of my arguments have always been to look at things with evidence and let the chips fall where they may, without my beliefs guiding me to accept or reject things based just on my bias. Unsettling truth/evidence, in my opinion, is still better than a self-congratulatory lie.

What astounds me, is that you are admitting that you are closed to discussing things with people who don't agree with you. And that's the real pity imo, the fact that you can't have conversations with these differences present between us, as that is what generates true discussion.

BTW, the link you posted, adds nothing to your argument. In case I missed, please be specific. That is if you think I qualify to discuss things with you.

Singularity was NOT a PHYSICAL thing!

where did you get that? source?

[PaulSacramento]

I think we need to define the terms we are using better gentlemen.
Like when a scientist says theory and a layperson says theory ( and means hypothesis).

That said, can anyone explain why the singularity lead to the expansion ( or even Why it expanded instead of contracting) any why it lead to the universe instead, for example, something else?

[neo-x]

I think we need to define the terms we are using better gentlemen.
Like when a scientist says theory and a layperson says theory ( and means hypothesis).

That said, can anyone explain why the singularity lead to the expansion ( or even Why it expanded instead of contracting) any why it lead to the universe instead, for example, something else?

Quantum fluctuations. You can look it up for more details, there are other models as well.

EDIT:
I think for some the non-scientific one is better as it suits their beliefs better. Or because they haven't looked at the evidence or think that the evidence is arbitrary or inconclusive.

What I don't understand is why poeple won't accept that when you talk about science you can't use layman's terms to define things that are defined in science otherwise and then say there is no evidence or it's just a (layman's) theory?

[Philip]

Neo: What astounds me, is that you are admitting that you are closed to discussing things with people who don't agree with you. And that's the real pity imo, the fact that you can't have conversations with these differences present between us, as that is what generates true discussion.

NO, Neo, I refuse to discuss what you have already said you don't believe - you don't believe the Genesis accounts are factual or true - so why discuss them. When asked whether you believe Christ confirmed all of the OT, you apparently don't concur. Repeatedly, you have indicated that you think your take on the scientific evidence is superior to what the Bible says. You also seem to discount that there is a very good possibility that some of what is referred to in those accounts are not even addressing the science of it - in that way, you just hold up the literal viewpoint of the text, scientifically. I believe there is a combination of possibilities, with all of it culminating so as that, in some way, Scripture is true. HOW it is exactly true, remains a mystery. But, to me, you have a major contradiction of Christ confirming what you don't believe to be true - the entire OT! What developed had purpose and a plan behind it. All of prophecy shows God knows the results and all outcomes, and the results are as He so desires - including the final outcomes for earth and the universe. But it is theology I mostly will not debate with you, as I don't really see a purpose.

Neo: Singularity was NOT a PHYSICAL thing!

When I say that, I don't mean that it wasn't a physical point from which all emerged, but to say all of those physical things pre-existed a point when nothing else existed - no, I do not believe that. At some point, these things came into existence. All things have a beginning. NO one truly knows what singularity was or what it included, but they know what came from it. All of this misses the point I care most about - which is, God spoke a universe into existence - one that didn't exist, and in another moment, with such astounding things, it did. NO one can credibly explain this without a theistic explanation. If you believe such things are possible independent of God, then you really are more on the same page with speculative atheists and agnostics as to what is or isn't possible. Bottom line: The universe had a Source, and all physical things, processes, designs and functionalities came from it. Speculations otherwise lead nowhere - except to indecipherable metaphysics. And evolution is just another pointless thing I don't like to argue over - it would have been dependent process occurring FAR after the first things came into existence.

[neo-x]

Neo: What astounds me, is that you are admitting that you are closed to discussing things with people who don't agree with you. And that's the real pity imo, the fact that you can't have conversations with these differences present between us, as that is what generates true discussion.

NO, Neo, I refuse to discuss what you have already said you don't believe - you don't believe the Genesis accounts are factual or true - so why discuss them. When asked whether you believe Christ confirmed all of the OT, you apparently don't concur. Repeatedly, you have indicated that you think your take on the scientific evidence is superior to what the Bible says. You also seem to discount that there is a very good possibility that some of what is referred to in those accounts are not even addressing the science of it - in that way, you just hold up the literal viewpoint of the text, scientifically. I believe there is a combination of possibilities, with all of it culminating so as that, in some way, Scripture is true. HOW it is exactly true, remains a mystery. But, to me, you have a major contradiction of Christ confirming what you don't believe to be true - the entire OT! What developed had purpose and a plan behind it. All of prophecy shows God knows the results and all outcomes, and the results are as He so desires - including the final outcomes for earth and the universe. But it is theology I mostly will not debate with you, as I don't really see a purpose.

That's ok Phil, I get it. And it's true, I don't believe Adam and Eve story to be entirely true. It doesn't mean I think the entire story is false. Nor do I think it effects theology really because the theology is exactly what I understand. There is no take of any kind on evidence on the things I have presented to you before as well, that is concrete unless proven false. So yes I do hold evidence higher because I can see it being true. And the problem I see is that what your pushing into mystery is exactly what you are not supposed to do - that in the face of evidence you go into denial.

For instacne in one of previous convos you said that the sun and moon stopping wasn't literal. Then you said that you haven't studied it much to say one way or the other. But it's a very simple question of whether you believe what is written happened or not? As far as I am concerned, I am guilty, I say it didn't happen but I also realize based on the text that the text exceptionally renders itself to be taken as literal as possible. There is no way around that and that is what also makes me guilty.

You on the other hand say that you honor the text but also don't believe it happened. Contradiction?
And instead of calling it out, you push into mystery and then try to justify it via some mysterious way, you disregard the text and its authentic voice because it flies in the face of conventional scientific beliefs and the consequences it entails.

There are places where one doesn't have to be literal but you have to have some merit to do that, Genesis accounts, or the famous sun and moon stopping account don't have that. You pick and choose where to be literal, not on merit but where you can't explain it via science or confirm it as such, and that's just wrong.

The notion that one doesn't have to be literal doesn't come from the fact that one can't align their modern science views to it or can't defend it but rather it comes entirely from within the text. You can't have your science beliefs dictate where you'd go literal in the Bible and where you won't. That is WORSE than BAD theology Phil.

And that's having it both ways - which you prefer to.

[Justhuman]

Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Lol, I figured as much. I said nothing disrespectful but oh well ... Grateful I didn't waste more of my time.

Lol? I figured as much? Was that your intention?

I've checked this threat for contributions of you, but it was 0. If you disagree with me, or want to correct me that's fine, so either stay out of it or make a usefull contribution.
It's for guys like you I quit forums. They take away the 'charm' of it.

[PaulSacramento]

I think we need to define the terms we are using better gentlemen.
Like when a scientist says theory and a layperson says theory ( and means hypothesis).

That said, can anyone explain why the singularity lead to the expansion ( or even Why it expanded instead of contracting) any why it lead to the universe instead, for example, something else?

Quantum fluctuations. You can look it up for more details, there are other models as well.

EDIT:
I think for some the non-scientific one is better as it suits their beliefs better. Or because they haven't looked at the evidence or think that the evidence is arbitrary or inconclusive.

What I don't understand is why poeple won't accept that when you talk about science you can't use layman's terms to define things that are defined in science otherwise and then say there is no evidence or it's just a (layman's) theory?

I don't think you understood my question:
Why did those quantum fluctuations lead to expansion and not contraction? why did they happen in the first place?

[Byblos]

Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Lol, I figured as much. I said nothing disrespectful but oh well ... Grateful I didn't waste more of my time.

Lol? I figured as much? Was that your intention?

I've checked this threat for contributions of you, but it was 0. If you disagree with me, or want to correct me that's fine, so either stay out of it or make a usefull contribution.
It's for guys like you I quit forums. They take away the 'charm' of it.

Yet more unsubstantiated claims and ad homonyms. Why are you deflecting? I was very specific in my posts, yet you ignored the subject matter and chose sarcasm instead. Hey you can stay if you want, that's entirely up to you and the mods. But if you think I won't call you out on your inconsistencies and contradictions every chance I get you are sadly mistaken. Engage in the subject matter or be called on it. That is also a choice you have.