Evidence for God from Science

opps!

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:And also Kenny, as I asked in my last post, you need to explain why it's a leap to assume the singularity was created. You have 3 possibilities.


1) The singularity always existed

2) The singularity changed into a singularity from something else

Or

3) The singularity was created as a singularity

It seems to me that #3, if true obviously points to a creator. And it seems that both #1 and #2, both point to a cause. Which ultimately points to a prime mover.

I'll pick door #2. The simple answer is I don’t know, but let’s consider this possibility:
The Universe is expanding. Suppose after it expands to a certain extent it begins to contract due to some law of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. Once it contracts to a singularity it begins to expand again; and this cycle continues for eternity.
Now I don’t claim this to be true, I just made it up as a possibility of what someone could believe as an explanation for matter existing eternally. I'm sure if you think hard enough you can come up with a lot more possibilities other than the three you listed. I'm always skeptical when people put limits on the possibilities concerning the Universe.

Ken

Ok Ken, let me see if I understand what you're saying.

1) You believe it's a leap, for reasons you haven't said yet, that the singularity was created.

2) and instead of accepting one of the three logical possibilities that I presented, you made up a completely illogical possibility, that goes against everything we know from science.

Does that sum up your position?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:And also Kenny, as I asked in my last post, you need to explain why it's a leap to assume the singularity was created. You have 3 possibilities.


1) The singularity always existed

2) The singularity changed into a singularity from something else

Or

3) The singularity was created as a singularity

It seems to me that #3, if true obviously points to a creator. And it seems that both #1 and #2, both point to a cause. Which ultimately points to a prime mover.

I'll pick door #2. The simple answer is I don’t know, but let’s consider this possibility:
The Universe is expanding. Suppose after it expands to a certain extent it begins to contract due to some law of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. Once it contracts to a singularity it begins to expand again; and this cycle continues for eternity.
Now I don’t claim this to be true, I just made it up as a possibility of what someone could believe as an explanation for matter existing eternally. I'm sure if you think hard enough you can come up with a lot more possibilities other than the three you listed. I'm always skeptical when people put limits on the possibilities concerning the Universe.

Ken

Ok Ken, let me see if I understand what you're saying.

1) You believe it's a leap, for reasons you haven't said yet, that the singularity was created.

Actually you are right; I did forget to explain why it called it a "leap"; thanks for pointing that out for me. I called it a leap because there is no scientific evidence that the singularity was actually created. (When I say created; I mean brought into existence without the use of existing materials) However when I look back over the conversation in context; I will say "leap" was a rather strong word, I should have something else instead.

RickD wrote:2) and instead of accepting one of the three logical possibilities that I presented, you made up a completely illogical possibility, that goes against everything we know from science.

Does that sum up your position?

Not quite. Everything sounds illogical when you don't believe it. But coming from someone who doesn't believe any of the "possibilities" (me) the one I made up is as logical as the ones you presented, and none of them has the support of science. My point is, atheists and agnostics are not limited to the 3 possibilities you listed, they could just as easily believe the one I listed or countless others neither of us even thought of.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:And also Kenny, as I asked in my last post, you need to explain why it's a leap to assume the singularity was created. You have 3 possibilities.


1) The singularity always existed

2) The singularity changed into a singularity from something else

Or

3) The singularity was created as a singularity

It seems to me that #3, if true obviously points to a creator. And it seems that both #1 and #2, both point to a cause. Which ultimately points to a prime mover.

I'll pick door #2. The simple answer is I don’t know, but let’s consider this possibility:
The Universe is expanding. Suppose after it expands to a certain extent it begins to contract due to some law of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. Once it contracts to a singularity it begins to expand again; and this cycle continues for eternity.
Now I don’t claim this to be true, I just made it up as a possibility of what someone could believe as an explanation for matter existing eternally. I'm sure if you think hard enough you can come up with a lot more possibilities other than the three you listed. I'm always skeptical when people put limits on the possibilities concerning the Universe.

Ken

But you don't believe in God. Isn't that putting a limit on the possibilities?

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:And also Kenny, as I asked in my last post, you need to explain why it's a leap to assume the singularity was created. You have 3 possibilities.


1) The singularity always existed

2) The singularity changed into a singularity from something else

Or

3) The singularity was created as a singularity

It seems to me that #3, if true obviously points to a creator. And it seems that both #1 and #2, both point to a cause. Which ultimately points to a prime mover.

I'll pick door #2. The simple answer is I don’t know, but let’s consider this possibility:
The Universe is expanding. Suppose after it expands to a certain extent it begins to contract due to some law of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. Once it contracts to a singularity it begins to expand again; and this cycle continues for eternity.
Now I don’t claim this to be true, I just made it up as a possibility of what someone could believe as an explanation for matter existing eternally. I'm sure if you think hard enough you can come up with a lot more possibilities other than the three you listed. I'm always skeptical when people put limits on the possibilities concerning the Universe.

Ken

But you don't believe in God. Isn't that putting a limit on the possibilities?

Yes; I am limited by what sounds realistic to me. But I wouldn't try to put limits on what someone else has the option to believe.

I really love to have a viable civil exchange with atheists, but I always find them impossible to talk with.

Here, again I ask atheists here, we will each seek to prove for you that God does not exist, and for me that God exists.

Now, everyone take notice.


Dear atheists. to be reasonable how about we first work together to concur on the concept of God, Whom you say does not exist and I say He exists?

Okay, I am waiting for atheists to reply to my invitation, namely, that we both work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God, because unless we first come to concurrence on the concept of God, we will not be talking about the same thing, and that is not being reasonable.


Take notice now, dear readers.

Oh atheists, you love to question the knowledge of God, the goodness of God, etc.

I am telling you again and again that the first and foremost concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

If God is not the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, no need for me to try to have a viable and civil exchange with atheists, they can deny all the gods, goddesses, deities, divinties, etc. they want, because they are missing the most first and foremost concept of God.

Wherefore it is useless to talk with them, because they are not into anything existing that is worth the attention of reasoning humans.

So, atheists, as you have now the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, please do not anymore loiter in diversionary directions, attend to the concept I present, and set forth your objections.

No more, please no more bringing in God is not all knowing, not all good, etc., just keep to the most first and foremost concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.


Take notice now, dear readers, atheists will again avoid attending to their information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

I have been talking with them for over 25 years, and to date I have not been able to have a reasonable talk with them, because they are always into diversionary directions.

Okay, please just give your objections to the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

To be reasonable, concentrate on the intrinsic validity of the concept; so if you do not concentrate on the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept then you and I cannot be talking about the same object.

Please put at the very top of your post, the following line, "in re the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept of God..."

That will tell me that we are linked on the same thought, otherwise we will be investing for you and for me into matters which we will be into different directions, and that is a waste of our time and trouble.

Yrreg wrote:I really love to have a viable civil exchange with atheists, but I always find them impossible to talk with.

Here, again I ask atheists here, we will each seek to prove for you that God does not exist, and for me that God exists.

Now, everyone take notice.


Dear atheists. to be reasonable how about we first work together to concur on the concept of God, Whom you say does not exist and I say He exists?

Okay, I am waiting for atheists to reply to my invitation, namely, that we both work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God, because unless we first come to concurrence on the concept of God, we will not be talking about the same thing, and that is not being reasonable.


Take notice now, dear readers.

Oh atheists, you love to question the knowledge of God, the goodness of God, etc.

I am telling you again and again that the first and foremost concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

If God is not the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, no need for me to try to have a viable and civil exchange with atheists, they can deny all the gods, goddesses, deities, divinties, etc. they want, because they are missing the most first and foremost concept of God.

Wherefore it is useless to talk with them, because they are not into anything existing that is worth the attention of reasoning humans.

So, atheists, as you have now the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, please do not anymore loiter in diversionary directions, attend to the concept I present, and set forth your objections.

No more, please no more bringing in God is not all knowing, not all good, etc., just keep to the most first and foremost concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.


Take notice now, dear readers, atheists will again avoid attending to their information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

I have been talking with them for over 25 years, and to date I have not been able to have a reasonable talk with them, because they are always into diversionary directions.

Okay, please just give your objections to the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

To be reasonable, concentrate on the intrinsic validity of the concept; so if you do not concentrate on the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept then you and I cannot be talking about the same object.

Please put at the very top of your post, the following line, "in re the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept of God..."

That will tell me that we are linked on the same thought, otherwise we will be investing for you and for me into matters which we will be into different directions, and that is a waste of our time and trouble.

So you are defining God as the operator of the Universe and creator of all things created? (when you say things created; I am assuming you mean to bring into existence without the use of existing materials; to cause to exist from nothing)
Fair enough. But first I think you need to establish that something has actually been created, then you need to establish the Universe actually has an intelligent operator.
Unless you can establish that I suspect we will be talking past each other.

Ken

I have been talking or trying to talk with internet atheists for over 25 years.

My repeatedly validated conclusion is that internet atheists do not want to talk based on facts and reason, they just want to loiter outside the issue of God existing or not existing.

To do this they will engage in wild unpleasant flippancy, or resist bringing up their information of the concept of God which they deny to exist.

But the worst is their appeal to nothing as the cause of everything, in this way they have changed the meaning of nothing into something, that is in effect ironically and paradoxically identifiable to the concept of God I want them to have information of, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning -- only they call him nothing.

I think that the instinct of atheists is always to dwell on insignificant things that have them absorbed with small minutiae but never going to the biggest picture of things, namely, the status of things is existence.

So, they will talk endlessly and repeatedly that God does not exist because there is no justice in mankind, that is an example of absorbing oneself in a minutia, an insignificant small focus but missing the biggest picture of things, namely, that existence is the default status of things.

Okay, readers here, please take notice of the reactions of atheists, I refer to internet atheists, with this question addressed to them:

Do you accept that the default status of things is existence?


Take notice of their reactions, many will go into wild unpleasant flippancy, the rest will go into all kinds of misdirections, never doing any thinking at all as to reply on facts and logic to the question, what is the default status of things, or do you accept that the default status of things is existence?

Yrreg wrote:I have been talking or trying to talk with internet atheists for over 25 years.

My repeatedly validated conclusion is that internet atheists do not want to talk based on facts and reason, they just want to loiter outside the issue of God existing or not existing.

To do this they will engage in wild unpleasant flippancy, or resist bringing up their information of the concept of God which they deny to exist.

But the worst is their appeal to nothing as the cause of everything, in this way they have changed the meaning of nothing into something, that is in effect ironically and paradoxically identifiable to the concept of God I want them to have information of, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning -- only they call him nothing.

I think that the instinct of atheists is always to dwell on insignificant things that have them absorbed with small minutiae but never going to the biggest picture of things, namely, the status of things is existence.

So, they will talk endlessly and repeatedly that God does not exist because there is no justice in mankind, that is an example of absorbing oneself in a minutia, an insignificant small focus but missing the biggest picture of things, namely, that existence is the default status of things.

Okay, readers here, please take notice of the reactions of atheists, I refer to internet atheists, with this question addressed to them:

Do you accept that the default status of things is existence?


Take notice of their reactions, many will go into wild unpleasant flippancy, the rest will go into all kinds of misdirections, never doing any thinking at all as to reply on facts and logic to the question, what is the default status of things, or do you accept that the default status of things is existence?

Just curious; why do you spend so much time talking about atheists on other sites when they aren't here to defend themselves? I think it would be more productive to spend that time discussing with atheists on this site.

Ken

Yrreg wrote:I really love to have a viable civil exchange with atheists, but I always find them impossible to talk with.

Here, again I ask atheists here, we will each seek to prove for you that God does not exist, and for me that God exists.

Now, everyone take notice.


Dear atheists. to be reasonable how about we first work together to concur on the concept of God, Whom you say does not exist and I say He exists?

Okay, I am waiting for atheists to reply to my invitation, namely, that we both work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God, because unless we first come to concurrence on the concept of God, we will not be talking about the same thing, and that is not being reasonable.


Take notice now, dear readers.

Oh atheists, you love to question the knowledge of God, the goodness of God, etc.

I am telling you again and again that the first and foremost concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

If God is not the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, no need for me to try to have a viable and civil exchange with atheists, they can deny all the gods, goddesses, deities, divinties, etc. they want, because they are missing the most first and foremost concept of God.

Wherefore it is useless to talk with them, because they are not into anything existing that is worth the attention of reasoning humans.

So, atheists, as you have now the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, please do not anymore loiter in diversionary directions, attend to the concept I present, and set forth your objections.

No more, please no more bringing in God is not all knowing, not all good, etc., just keep to the most first and foremost concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.


Take notice now, dear readers, atheists will again avoid attending to their information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

I have been talking with them for over 25 years, and to date I have not been able to have a reasonable talk with them, because they are always into diversionary directions.

Okay, please just give your objections to the information of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

To be reasonable, concentrate on the intrinsic validity of the concept; so if you do not concentrate on the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept then you and I cannot be talking about the same object.

Please put at the very top of your post, the following line, "in re the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the concept of God..."

That will tell me that we are linked on the same thought, otherwise we will be investing for you and for me into matters which we will be into different directions, and that is a waste of our time and trouble.

Who could possibly resist such a charming invitation?

If you find you can never have a civil discussion, its not someone else's fault.

Yrreg wrote:I have been talking or trying to talk with internet atheists for over 25 years.

My repeatedly validated conclusion is that internet atheists do not want to talk based on facts and reason, they just want to loiter outside the issue of God existing or not existing.

To do this they will engage in wild unpleasant flippancy, or resist bringing up their information of the concept of God which they deny to exist.

But the worst is their appeal to nothing as the cause of everything, in this way they have changed the meaning of nothing into something, that is in effect ironically and paradoxically identifiable to the concept of God I want them to have information of, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning -- only they call him nothing.

I think that the instinct of atheists is always to dwell on insignificant things that have them absorbed with small minutiae but never going to the biggest picture of things, namely, the status of things is existence.

So, they will talk endlessly and repeatedly that God does not exist because there is no justice in mankind, that is an example of absorbing oneself in a minutia, an insignificant small focus but missing the biggest picture of things, namely, that existence is the default status of things.

Okay, readers here, please take notice of the reactions of atheists, I refer to internet atheists, with this question addressed to them:

Do you accept that the default status of things is existence?


Take notice of their reactions, many will go into wild unpleasant flippancy, the rest will go into all kinds of misdirections, never doing any thinking at all as to reply on facts and logic to the question, what is the default status of things, or do you accept that the default status of things is existence?

Do you intend or realize how that comes across to someone who doesnt happen to share your views?

Maybe if you were to substitute the name of some other group, say, baptists or jews or blacks in place of atheist, you'd see what you are doing.

After that is the issue of the lack of truth in it, but i don t guess that's worthwhile discussing.

Kenny wrote:

Yrreg wrote:I have been talking or trying to talk with internet atheists for over 25 years.

My repeatedly validated conclusion is that internet atheists do not want to talk based on facts and reason, they just want to loiter outside the issue of God existing or not existing.

To do this they will engage in wild unpleasant flippancy, or resist bringing up their information of the concept of God which they deny to exist.

But the worst is their appeal to nothing as the cause of everything, in this way they have changed the meaning of nothing into something, that is in effect ironically and paradoxically identifiable to the concept of God I want them to have information of, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning -- only they call him nothing.

I think that the instinct of atheists is always to dwell on insignificant things that have them absorbed with small minutiae but never going to the biggest picture of things, namely, the status of things is existence.

So, they will talk endlessly and repeatedly that God does not exist because there is no justice in mankind, that is an example of absorbing oneself in a minutia, an insignificant small focus but missing the biggest picture of things, namely, that existence is the default status of things.

Okay, readers here, please take notice of the reactions of atheists, I refer to internet atheists, with this question addressed to them:

Do you accept that the default status of things is existence?


Take notice of their reactions, many will go into wild unpleasant flippancy, the rest will go into all kinds of misdirections, never doing any thinking at all as to reply on facts and logic to the question, what is the default status of things, or do you accept that the default status of things is existence?

Just curious; why do you spend so much time talking about atheists on other sites when they aren't here to defend themselves? I think it would be more productive to spend that time discussing with atheists on this site.

Ken

Seriously. But it may be because I nor you is likely to care to talk to someone with such an attitude.

I am curious about whether Audie and Kenny would enjoy atheistic forum.

I once visited one and was banned after 2 posts.
But this is poor statisticis of only one. Not really a statistics.

I have not done any research on 'civility' of atheistic forums. One can hit a place where no normal discussion is possible and one can hit a place where it is.

hana the rebel wrote:
I once visited one and was banned after 2 posts.

Do you mind telling us why you were banned after only 2 posts?

1over137 wrote:I am curious about whether Audie and Kenny would enjoy atheistic forum.

I once visited one and was banned after 2 posts.
But this is poor statisticis of only one. Not really a statistics.

I have not done any research on 'civility' of atheistic forums. One can hit a place where no normal discussion is possible and one can hit a place where it is.

Never occurred to me to visit an atheist forum.

I did get banned from a creationist site, for saying that "for all I know, the innermost core of an atom is controlled by tiny fairies". I forget what was so bad about that. Oddly, the name of the forum included the words "fairy tale".