Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, what is your point??
No one here is saying that energy is God, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that either.

Earlier you said "that something that is eternal must be God because of the way God is defined".
I'm just suggesting that matter and energy could be eternal because of the way they are defined.

Ken

And the way eternal is defined involves time.

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Odd dictionary you use

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote: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.

As in my original objection to ca; assumed premises. Seems to me you are just saying things, assertions you've no way to demonstrate.

If you think CA has anything to do with time then the assumed premises are from your side, not CA's.

CA has to do with essentially ordered causal series (simultaneous in the here-and-now). It has nothing to do with accidentally ordered causal series (hierarchical, sequential, time-dependent, etc.)

Correct.
It goes back to the people trying to refute the argument, not understanding the argument.

And where did I try to "refute the argument"? You are just one assumption and assertion after another.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, what is your point??
No one here is saying that energy is God, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that either.

Earlier you said "that something that is eternal must be God because of the way God is defined".
I'm just suggesting that matter and energy could be eternal because of the way they are defined.

Ken

Ah, now I understand where you got that.
Ok, let me address this confusion then.

Eternal means not only "ever lasting" BUT "always been", it means "self-sustaining".
Now, energy is only that in a CLOSED system ( Law of conservation).
That means that energy would have had to come into being as some stage into this closed system ( the universe for example IF it was closed). Energy is NOT eternal since we know that at some point, there may not have been any energy as we know it.
Though, of course, it can be argued that God is energy ( comprised of energy) BUT that energy is not God.
I hope you understand the distinction.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Odd dictionary you use

Really?
First google search:

e·ter·nal
əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

You realize that definition negates the concept od time you are trying to work with, right?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Odd dictionary you use

Really?
First google search:

e·ter·nal
əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

You realize that definition negates the concept od time you are trying to work with, right?

Ah so desu ka.

We play dueling webiste

Eternal | Define Eternal at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eternal
That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end: God, the eternal Father.That which is endless never stops but goes on continuously as if in a circle: an endless succession of years.That which is everlasting will endure through all future time: a promise of everlasting life.

or of course metaphysics:

existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.


elephant in room is the detail that you nor I nor the man behind the tree has a clue of what time actually is.



Regardless; are you confidently drawing conclusions about the secrets of the universe based in part on that void?

What assumptions might you be making about that?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, what is your point??
No one here is saying that energy is God, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that either.

Earlier you said "that something that is eternal must be God because of the way God is defined".
I'm just suggesting that matter and energy could be eternal because of the way they are defined.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: Ah, now I understand where you got that.
Ok, let me address this confusion then.

Eternal means not only "ever lasting" BUT "always been", it means "self-sustaining".
Now, energy is only that in a CLOSED system ( Law of conservation).
That means that energy would have had to come into being as some stage into this closed system ( the universe for example IF it was closed).

Doesn't that go against the 1st law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created nor destroyed? How come it could not have always existed inside of that closed system?


Ken

If there is but one positive I see here, from my unbelieving friends, is that they are slowly realizing that SOMETHING had to pre-exist all other things AND that it had to be ETERNAL. So, that's a step. And even if energy could have been eternal, it's a blind thing with no intelligence, and A) it doesn't create things, nor B) would it have any ability to design or orchestrate them.

Philip wrote:If there is but one positive I see here, from my unbelieving friends, is that they are slowly realizing that SOMETHING had to pre-exist all other things AND that it had to be ETERNAL. So, that's a step. And even if energy could have been eternal, it's a blind thing with no intelligence, and A) it doesn't create things, nor B) would it have any ability to design or orchestrate them.

I am not so slowly realizing that no communication is taking place.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, what is your point??
No one here is saying that energy is God, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that either.

Earlier you said "that something that is eternal must be God because of the way God is defined".
I'm just suggesting that matter and energy could be eternal because of the way they are defined.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: Ah, now I understand where you got that.
Ok, let me address this confusion then.

Eternal means not only "ever lasting" BUT "always been", it means "self-sustaining".
Now, energy is only that in a CLOSED system ( Law of conservation).
That means that energy would have had to come into being as some stage into this closed system ( the universe for example IF it was closed).

Doesn't that go against the 1st law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created nor destroyed? How come it could not have always existed inside of that closed system?


Ken

Ken, the law on conservation applies ONLY to a closed system.
Ie: a system in which energy ALREADY existed AS IS.
And we know the universe was not always as is ( if the universe can be regards as a closed system to begin with).

elephant in room is the detail that you nor I nor the man behind the tree has a clue of what time actually is.

Irrelevant to the cosmological argument.

Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, what is your point??
No one here is saying that energy is God, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that either.

Earlier you said "that something that is eternal must be God because of the way God is defined".
I'm just suggesting that matter and energy could be eternal because of the way they are defined.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: Ah, now I understand where you got that.
Ok, let me address this confusion then.

Eternal means not only "ever lasting" BUT "always been", it means "self-sustaining".
Now, energy is only that in a CLOSED system ( Law of conservation).
That means that energy would have had to come into being as some stage into this closed system ( the universe for example IF it was closed).

Doesn't that go against the 1st law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created nor destroyed? How come it could not have always existed inside of that closed system?


Ken

Ken, the law on conservation applies ONLY to a closed system.
Ie: a system in which energy ALREADY existed AS IS.
And we know the universe was not always as is ( if the universe can be regards as a closed system to begin with).

Perhaps the Universe no matter it's previous forms; was always a closed system. Fact is, we just don't know.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

Ken: How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe?

That is irrelevant to the question of origins, because WHATEVER exists and WHEREVER it does, there must be an origin that is eternal! Shifting the question beyond our universe doesn't solve the problem. But I would agree, there MAY be physical realities beyond our universe, unconnected, that still exist, or used to exist, that we cannot detect, due to the immense distance or gaps between. But that is all theoretical, and such things still need an eternal origin!