Evidence for God from Science

Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

Not an issue at all.
Think about the CORRECT premise of the argument:
Everything that COMES INTO being or everything that MOVES/Changes.
Energy may have always been BUT for it to become something other than what it is, it MUST be "moved" by something else.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

Not an issue at all.
Think about the CORRECT premise of the argument:
Everything that COMES INTO being or everything that MOVES/Changes.
Energy may have always been BUT for it to become something other than what it is, it MUST be "moved" by something else.

I am well aware of the argument Paul. I'm not so sure Philip sees it that way.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

Not an issue at all.
Think about the CORRECT premise of the argument:
Everything that COMES INTO being or everything that MOVES/Changes.
Energy may have always been BUT for it to become something other than what it is, it MUST be "moved" by something else.

I am well aware of the argument Paul. I'm not so sure Philip sees it that way.

Sorry, thought you were playing devil's advocate.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

Not an issue at all.
Think about the CORRECT premise of the argument:
Everything that COMES INTO being or everything that MOVES/Changes.
Energy may have always been BUT for it to become something other than what it is, it MUST be "moved" by something else.

I am well aware of the argument Paul. I'm not so sure Philip sees it that way.

Sorry, thought you were playing devil's advocate.

In a way I guess I was. My intention is to bring to Philip's attention that the argument from motion or change (i.e. actuality/potentiality) is much more powerful than creation ex nihilo precisely because it says nothing on the eternality of matter/energy.

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

And what if nobody actually has a clue as to what time really is?

What if the x-men?

And for those younger ( to which that Marvel reference will be meaningless):
What if my grandfather was my grandmother?
What if c-a-t spelled dog?

PaulSacramento wrote:What if the x-men?

And for those younger ( to which that Marvel reference will be meaningless):
What if my grandfather was my grandmother?
What if c-a-t spelled dog?

Thrice I've brought this up, and thrice it is evaded.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

And what if nobody actually has a clue as to what time really is?

The argument from motion says nothing about time nor is it concerned with it.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

And what if nobody actually has a clue as to what time really is?

The argument from motion says nothing about time nor is it concerned with it.

Bingo.
It is a sign of not understanding an argument when you try to refute it or address issues with it that have nothing to do with it.

So words like "first' and "eternal" actually have nothing to do with time.

Audie wrote:So words like "first' and "eternal" actually have nothing to do with time.

No, they don't since time, as we understand it, only began when the universe began.
It doesn't apply to what there was "BEFORE".
But if you prefer something less abstract:

First means that it happened before IN SEQUENCE.
Eternal means ALWAYS existed.

Energy cannot be eternal - it MUST have a source! Of course, one can speculate with all manner of theoreticals. And the energy that originally propelled the elements within the Big Bang had to be applied to such elements with great specificity. And the energy we observe is being used up. Stars burn out, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:Basic logic 101: The first cause was something eternal - it could not have created itself. What came from it reveals immense power and intelligence. It had the ability to transform the non-material/non-physical into the physical - and instantly so! I'd love to see someone refute any of these variables - uh, with logic and facts. Because if you cannot refute those with logic and facts, then there is some kind of logic and reality that 1) we cannot know, 2) can never understand, 3) that has the ability to constantly change and morph.

What if it were shown that matter/energy in whatever form is indeed eternal? What then?

And what if nobody actually has a clue as to what time really is?

The argument from motion says nothing about time nor is it concerned with it.

Bingo.
It is a sign of not understanding an argument when you try to refute it or address issues with it that have nothing to do with it.

A sign of not reading what I've said is thinking I have tried to "refute" ca.
Speaking of "nothing to do with".