Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:OK, Min, if I misread your response to Rick as ill-humored, I'm sorry. It just seems like you are so touchy. Maybe you are studying too hard? Too much coffee?

But, make NO mistake about it - RICK needs to be on that list! He deserves it, far more than I do. I forget, who all is part of the Gang of Four? Jac, FL, Me, Kurieo?

Uh, I forget too.

I consider Audie my friend because I am brain dead.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I consider Audie my friend because I am brain dead.

FL

Now, now, no need for you to follow Pongo's example and repeat what others say about you.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote: I have to admit Audie, I'm very proud of you for even talking about NDEs. You are starting to turn into an open minded young woman! You Go Girl!!!

Audie, an open minded young woman??? Have you been dipping into the Cigar Bourbon?

FL

What type of seal do you use on your mind? Has to be a good one, to keep safe
a belief in yec.

Sorry to anyone who associates either side, but I'm not sure what is more insane.

YEC belief or the universe coming from nothing?
Your extreme Creationist in Ken Ham or your extreme secular scientists in Krauss and bedfellow Dawkins?

Ok, I think I've come to a decision.

Kurieuo wrote:Sorry to anyone who associates either side, but I'm not sure what is more insane.

YEC belief or the universe coming from nothing?
Your extreme Creationist in Ken Ham or your extreme secular scientists in Krauss and bedfellow Dawkins?

Ok, I think I've come to a decision.

Does anyone think the universe came from nothing, or is that a philcartoon version of something more reasonable?

Here I was only talking about the brain sealed with impervium and you make it a matter of sanity.

Perhaps it is. Seeing things that are not there or not seeing things that are cant be readily taken as signs of healthy function. Is that what you are getting at?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:What type of seal do you use on your mind? Has to be a good one, to keep safe
a belief in yec.

Sorry to anyone who associates either side, but I'm not sure what is more insane.

YEC belief or the universe coming from nothing?
Your extreme Creationist in Ken Ham or your extreme secular scientists in Krauss and bedfellow Dawkins?

Ok, I think I've come to a decision.

Does anyone think the universe came from nothing, or is that a philcartoon version of something more reasonable?

Here I was only talking about the brain sealed with impervium and you make it a matter of sanity.

Perhaps it is. Seeing things that are not there or not seeing things that are cant be readily taken as signs of healthy function. Is that what you are getting at?

Does anyone think the universe came from nothing? Don't you read. I mentioned two names.
Krauss only wrote a book entitled A Universe From Nothing.

Here I see you were also "only" bringing into the discussion YEC.
You want to play your YEC card all the time, I'll raise you on a "universe came from nothing" card.
Stupid exists on both sides. So why always make it a point of issue; one that evidently keeps you from accepting a more rational Christianity.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:What type of seal do you use on your mind? Has to be a good one, to keep safe
a belief in yec.

Sorry to anyone who associates either side, but I'm not sure what is more insane.

YEC belief or the universe coming from nothing?
Your extreme Creationist in Ken Ham or your extreme secular scientists in Krauss and bedfellow Dawkins?

Ok, I think I've come to a decision.

Does anyone think the universe came from nothing, or is that a philcartoon version of something more reasonable?

Here I was only talking about the brain sealed with impervium and you make it a matter of sanity.

Perhaps it is. Seeing things that are not there or not seeing things that are cant be readily taken as signs of healthy function. Is that what you are getting at?

Does anyone think the universe came from nothing? Don't you read. I mentioned two names.
Krauss only wrote a book entitled A Universe From Nothing.

Here I see you were also "only" bringing into the discussion YEC.
You want to play your YEC card all the time, I'll raise you on a "universe came from nothing" card.
Stupid exists on both sides. So why always make it a point of issue; one that evidently keeps you from accepting a more rational Christianity.

Dont YOU read?

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here.

The whole creogument of god vs something from nothing is just a facile bit nonsense offered for lack of something substantive. Seizing on something with which to play equivocation games. A philcartoon version of something reasonable.

But perhaps you consider theoretical astrophysics insane? Total unreason? LIke, the only way to derive such equations is via insanity?

Now, back on topic if possible..

.......... but I'm not sure what is more insane.

YEC belief or the universe coming from nothing

You brought up YEC not me. You said its insane. Own it. No red herrings about
theoretical astrophysics.

Audie: What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here.

The ONLY reason anyone would consider the concept of "nothing" to be ambiguous is because everyone knows its meaning is logically applied to things not in physical existence, and because everyone logically knows no known thing or process doesn't come from SOMETHING or have a CAUSE. This is why I like Geisler's term: "Pop Metaphysics." Non-theists are insisting something immaterial and non-physical can cause massive physical things to "pop" into existence, with extraordinary power, design and organize itself with massive complexity. If that is best described as a "Philcartoon," well, that's exactly what Audie and others appear to hold out as possible.

A philcartoon version of something reasonable.

What about a universe "popping" into existence, organizing itself, immediately obeying tenants of sophisticated guiding laws, BY ITSELF, is in ANY way "reasonable?" And if you suggest that whatever caused that has a non-intelligent cause and wasn't created, well, what caused THAT and where did the intelligence applied and immense power come from? Somewhere, somehow, this would have to trace back to some self-existing, incredibly powerful, uncaused, super intelligence, as a Super Powerful INTELLIGENCE that exists outside of and is THE Cause of all that exists is the only "reasonable" answer. Actually, the other possibility is an AUDIECartoon - as I'm not the one who believes that such a miraculous self-existing, non-intelligent THING should be even fantasized to exist. By the way, such a belief, in what I would call an impossible fantasy that is delusional to believe is even remotely possible, is in no way based upon ANY observed scientific causes/origins or processes - all essential to what came before what exists - despite whatever sophisticated-sounding jargon is applied ONLY to things that came afterward, that were mere RESULTS of whatever caused the universe. Ultimately, Audie is arguing for the possibility of some self-existing, inexplicable, metaphysical things that are unknown, would appear absolutely impossible, and that the belief in even the mere possibilityof such is only a matter of pure faith - a belief in something that cannot be proven, but is not known to be based upon any reality that anyone has ever shown to be possible. So, Audie has her own AudieCartoon. But then again, I'm not the one who believes in a cartoon cause for the universe. However, the word "cartoon" is a great description of what Audie apparently believes is possible.

This is NOT an attack upon Audie the Great - just upon what she sees as possible .

No, its an attack on something you thought up that you believe is about me.

Philip: What about a universe "popping" into existence, organizing itself, immediately obeying tenants of sophisticated guiding laws, BY ITSELF, is in ANY way "reasonable?" And if you suggest that whatever caused that has a non-intelligent cause and wasn't created, well, what caused THAT and where did the intelligence applied and immense power come from? Somewhere, somehow, this would have to trace back to some self-existing, incredibly powerful, uncaused, super intelligence, as a Super Powerful INTELLIGENCE that exists outside of and is THE Cause of all that exists is the only "reasonable" answer. Actually, the other possibility is an AUDIECartoon - as I'm not the one who believes that such a miraculous self-existing, non-intelligent THING should be even fantasized to exist. By the way, such a belief, in what I would call an impossible fantasy that is delusional to believe is even remotely possible, is in no way based upon ANY observed scientific causes/origins or processes - all essential to what came before what exists - despite whatever sophisticated-sounding jargon is applied ONLY to things that came afterward, that were mere RESULTS of whatever caused the universe. Ultimately, Audie is arguing for the possibility of some self-existing, inexplicable, metaphysical things that are unknown, would appear absolutely impossible, and that the belief in even the mere possibility of such is only a matter of pure faith - a belief in something that cannot be proven, but is not known to be based upon any reality that anyone has ever shown to be possible.

Audie's Response: No, its an attack on something you thought up that you believe is about me.

OK, Audie. At least you realize this is in no way personal - I really don't like it when you misperceive me as attacking YOU. That said, please instruct as to how some aspect of what ANY non-theist must believe is misrepresented by my above comments.

Philip wrote:

Philip: What about a universe "popping" into existence, organizing itself, immediately obeying tenants of sophisticated guiding laws, BY ITSELF, is in ANY way "reasonable?" And if you suggest that whatever caused that has a non-intelligent cause and wasn't created, well, what caused THAT and where did the intelligence applied and immense power come from? Somewhere, somehow, this would have to trace back to some self-existing, incredibly powerful, uncaused, super intelligence, as a Super Powerful INTELLIGENCE that exists outside of and is THE Cause of all that exists is the only "reasonable" answer. Actually, the other possibility is an AUDIECartoon - as I'm not the one who believes that such a miraculous self-existing, non-intelligent THING should be even fantasized to exist. By the way, such a belief, in what I would call an impossible fantasy that is delusional to believe is even remotely possible, is in no way based upon ANY observed scientific causes/origins or processes - all essential to what came before what exists - despite whatever sophisticated-sounding jargon is applied ONLY to things that came afterward, that were mere RESULTS of whatever caused the universe. Ultimately, Audie is arguing for the possibility of some self-existing, inexplicable, metaphysical things that are unknown, would appear absolutely impossible, and that the belief in even the mere possibility of such is only a matter of pure faith - a belief in something that cannot be proven, but is not known to be based upon any reality that anyone has ever shown to be possible.

Audie's Response: No, its an attack on something you thought up that you believe is about me.

OK, Audie. At least you realize this is in no way personal - I really don't like it when you misperceive me as attacking YOU. That said, please instruct as to how some aspect of what ANY non-theist must believe is misrepresented by my above comments.

I will ask you the same thing I asked ABC, before I'd try to respond:

Skip all the editorial comments.

Audie: I will ask you the same thing I asked ABC, before I'd try to respond:

Skip all the editorial comments.

Huh? Who dat / what dat?

Philip wrote:

Audie: I will ask you the same thing I asked ABC, before I'd try to respond:

Skip all the editorial comments.

Huh? Who dat / what dat?

Lets just drop it.

Philip: What about a universe "popping" into existence, organizing itself, immediately obeying tenants of sophisticated guiding laws, BY ITSELF, is in ANY way "reasonable?" And if you suggest that whatever caused that has a non-intelligent cause and wasn't created, well, what caused THAT and where did the intelligence applied and immense power come from? Somewhere, somehow, this would have to trace back to some self-existing, incredibly powerful, uncaused, super intelligence, as a Super Powerful INTELLIGENCE that exists outside of and is THE Cause of all that exists is the only "reasonable" answer. Actually, the other possibility is an AUDIECartoon - as I'm not the one who believes that such a miraculous self-existing, non-intelligent THING should be even fantasized to exist. By the way, such a belief, in what I would call an impossible fantasy that is delusional to believe is even remotely possible, is in no way based upon ANY observed scientific causes/origins or processes - all essential to what came before what exists - despite whatever sophisticated-sounding jargon is applied ONLY to things that came afterward, that were mere RESULTS of whatever caused the universe. Ultimately, Audie is arguing for the possibility of some self-existing, inexplicable, metaphysical things that are unknown, would appear absolutely impossible, and that the belief in even the mere possibility of such is only a matter of pure faith - a belief in something that cannot be proven, but is not known to be based upon any reality that anyone has ever shown to be possible.

Audie's Response: No, its an attack on something you thought up that you believe is about me.

Philip: OK, Audie. At least you realize this is in no way personal - I really don't like it when you misperceive me as attacking YOU. That said, please instruct as to how some aspect of what ANY non-theist must believe is misrepresented by my above comments.

Audie: I will ask you the same thing I asked ABC, before I'd try to respond:

Skip all the editorial comments.

Philip: Huh? Who dat / what dat?

Audie: Lets just drop it.