Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
You know how that law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed? That it cannot be created from nothing nor reduced to nothing; that it only changes form? If that's true, that would mean nothing was ever created.

Just an FYI, it's the law of conservation of energy, not one of the 4 laws of thermodynamics.
And further, the law of conservation of energy only applies in an isolated system. Which further means that the law of conservation of energy was meaningless before the universe, which is an isolated system, came into existence.

[Philip]

Ken's logic is irrational and lacking objectivity because it's currently subordinate to his entrenched determination to not believe at all costs, no matter how powerful the evidences! What he thinks matter and blind things can orchestrate is absolutely mind-boggling, as even being eternal does not explain the complexity and design apparent throughout the universe and earth's systems.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
You know how that law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed? That it cannot be created from nothing nor reduced to nothing; that it only changes form? If that's true, that would mean nothing was ever created.

Just an FYI, it's the law of conservation of energy, not one of the 4 laws of thermodynamics.
And further, the law of conservation of energy only applies in an isolated system. Which further means that the law of conservation of energy was meaningless before the universe, which is an isolated system, came into existence.

First of all, the 1st law of Thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy are one and the same
https://study.com/academy/lesson/first- ... nergy.html

Second; the speculation I provided assumes the Universe (Universe defied as “all that exists”) has always existed; that there was never a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. This means there has, always been an isolated system which would mean the 1st law of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Energy has always been in place

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
You know how that law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed? That it cannot be created from nothing nor reduced to nothing; that it only changes form? If that's true, that would mean nothing was ever created.

Just an FYI, it's the law of conservation of energy, not one of the 4 laws of thermodynamics.
And further, the law of conservation of energy only applies in an isolated system. Which further means that the law of conservation of energy was meaningless before the universe, which is an isolated system, came into existence.

First of all, the 1st law of Thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy are one and the same
https://study.com/academy/lesson/first- ... nergy.html

Second; the speculation I provided assumes the Universe (Universe defied as “all that exists”) has always existed; that there was never a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. This means there has, always been an isolated system which would mean the 1st law of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Energy has always been in place

Technically Kenny, no. The first law of thermodynamics is an adaptation of the law of conservation of energy. The first law is developed using a closed system. The universe is an isolated system.

Second,
It's beyond consistent logic, why you'd assume that the universe has always existed. You have consistently argued from science being the rationale behind what you believe. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe. Science is limited, at this point, to going back to the Big Bang. What happened before the Big Bang, is currently beyond the scope of science.

One day, I hope you will acknowledge how inconsistent your belief system really is. You have absolutely refused to acknowledge the possibility of an eternal God, yet you believe matter could be eternal, but you're not sure. You refuse to acknowledge the actual proof of an eternal God, because metaphysics is not science. Yet you yourself go outside the realm of science, when you assume the universe has always been.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
You know how that law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed? That it cannot be created from nothing nor reduced to nothing; that it only changes form? If that's true, that would mean nothing was ever created.

Just an FYI, it's the law of conservation of energy, not one of the 4 laws of thermodynamics.
And further, the law of conservation of energy only applies in an isolated system. Which further means that the law of conservation of energy was meaningless before the universe, which is an isolated system, came into existence.

First of all, the 1st law of Thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy are one and the same
https://study.com/academy/lesson/first- ... nergy.html

Second; the speculation I provided assumes the Universe (Universe defied as “all that exists”) has always existed; that there was never a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. This means there has, always been an isolated system which would mean the 1st law of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Energy has always been in place

It's beyond consistent logic, why you'd assume that the universe has always existed. You have consistently argued from science being the rationale behind what you believe.

I disagree! I’ve never said that or even implied that. I think I’ve been very clear; I would be as skeptical of scientific claims as I am of religious claims or anything else if it doesn’t make sense to me. I have not disagreed with science to the extent of religious claims, but that’s because 99% of what science puts out makes total sense to me; and the majority of what religions put out does not. As I’ve said many times before; don’t assume that because science says it, I blindly accept it. Science has gotten it wrong countless times, they are constantly dispelling theories they thought were true when new information shows them it was not; as I said before, I believe science gives us the best information they have at the time; and that is all I ask of them; but I do not accept scientific claims the way you guys accept religious claims.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe. Science is limited, at this point, to going back to the Big Bang. What happened before the Big Bang, is currently beyond the scope of science.

I agree! Science does not claim the Universe is eternal, and they also cannot claim that it is not; (assuming Universe is defined as all that exists.)

One day, I hope you will acknowledge how inconsistent your belief system really is. You have absolutely refused to acknowledge the possibility of an eternal God, yet you believe matter could be eternal, but you're not sure. You refuse to acknowledge the actual proof of an eternal God, because metaphysics is not science. Yet you yourself go outside the realm of science, when you assume the universe has always been.

I have been very clear; I don’t have answers to the questions you guys are asking me; all I can do is speculate. Again; I have never claimed the Universe has always been, I can only speculate it has because this is what makes sense to me.

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑It's beyond consistent logic, why you'd assume that the universe has always existed. You have consistently argued from science being the rationale behind what you believe.

Kenny wrote: I disagree! I’ve never said that or even implied that. I think I’ve been very clear; I would be as skeptical of scientific claims as I am of religious claims or anything else if it doesn’t make sense to me. I have not disagreed with science to the extent of religious claims, but that’s because 99% of what science puts out makes total sense to me; and the majority of what religions put out does not. As I’ve said many times before; don’t assume that because science says it, I blindly accept it. Science has gotten it wrong countless times, they are constantly dispelling theories they thought were true when new information shows them it was not; as I said before, I believe science gives us the best information they have at the time; and that is all I ask of them; but I do not accept scientific claims the way you guys accept religious claims.

You just said that the speculation you provided assumes the universe has always existed. You said it right here:

Second; the speculation I provided assumes the Universe (Universe defied as “all that exists”) has always existed; that there was never a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. This means there has, always been an isolated system which would mean the 1st law of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Energy has always been in place

You have nothing left to be the basis of your argument. You must have matter that's eternal and non-contingent. Basically, you deny an eternal God, as an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. And think that maybe matter is eternal.

You deny the very tool(metaphysics) which proves you are wrong.

And by the way, religious claims and metaphysics are not the same thing. These are religious claims:
1) Allah is The one true God, and Muhammad is his messenger
2) Only by God's grace, through faith in Christ, can one have everlasting life
3) one must obey the 10 commandments

Those claims aren't proven by metaphysics.

It seems you're conflating claims of faith, with metaphysics.

[1over137]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

[Kenny]

You have nothing left to be the basis of your argument. You must have matter that's eternal and non-contingent. Basically, you deny an eternal God, as an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. And think that maybe matter is eternal.

I was just trying to make the point that I accept what makes sense to me. I don’t blindly accept claims that don’t whether they be religious/Christian, or secular/science.

You deny the very tool(metaphysics) which proves you are wrong.

And by the way, religious claims and metaphysics are not the same thing. These are religious claims:
1) Allah is The one true God, and Muhammad is his messenger
2) Only by God's grace, through faith in Christ, can one have everlasting life
3) one must obey the 10 commandments

Those claims aren't proven by metaphysics.

It seems you're conflating claims of faith, with metaphysics.

I didn’t address metaphysics. You lost me on that one bro!

[Kenny]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

What are we talking about?

[1over137]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

What are we talking about?

You gave me this question: "So how did the study of the physical world cause you to believe or recognize God?"

[Kenny]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

What are we talking about?

You gave me this question: "So how did the study of the physical world cause you to believe or recognize God?"

Oh yeah; back on page 7. Got it. As far as the physical laws...... what we call physical laws are just conclusions people have reached about our physical world, after repeated experimental and observation.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I didn’t address metaphysics. You lost me on that one bro!

My point is that metaphysics proves the points that you are brushing aside. Either you don't understand metaphysics, or you refuse to understand, because you may find out something you're trying to avoid.

[Philip]

Again, it is not that something or things could be eternal that is Ken’s obvious problem. It’s that what exists - even at the Big Bang - was immediately massively complex in designs, functions and interactivity that a massive burst of unfathomable energy didn’t result in mass chaos of random things, but instead, the exact and crucial things that immediately (in MINUTES) brilliantly began organizing and coordinating things of incredible designs working in unison with stunning, synchronized precision! To think blind things could do this simply isn’t rational, AND it is only based upon self-motivated feelings. Notice that science presumes all things have physical causes, but the universe reveals the inexplicable, the miraculous - as it’s the only descriptions that come close to describing it!

Ken would have more credibility if he asserted the first thing or things were both eternal AND intelligent - but intelligence is only an attribute of living creatures. And astoundingly brilliant, complex designs require an intelligence. To believe otherwise is to irrationally and emotionally believe in inexplicable magic (as apparently does Ken).

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I didn’t address metaphysics. You lost me on that one bro!

My point is that metaphysics proves the points that you are brushing aside. Either you don't understand metaphysics, or you refuse to understand, because you may find out something you're trying to avoid.

How are you defining "metaphysics" and how does it prove a point I brushed aside?

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I didn’t address metaphysics. You lost me on that one bro!

My point is that metaphysics proves the points that you are brushing aside. Either you don't understand metaphysics, or you refuse to understand, because you may find out something you're trying to avoid.

How are you defining "metaphysics" and how does it prove a point I brushed aside?

The 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas.