# Ultimate Scientist?



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

Scientists take data from nature and replicate it. It is automatically assumed that it takes intelligence to replicate this data, why is intelligence not assumed for the original data that was already there? An intelligent "ultimate scientist" if you will.

An example would be if a scientist where to learn to build RNA. He makes conclusions about the process and the conclusions are testifiable, and replicable. We, as humans look at the data, and the built RNA, and automatically assume that the scientist was intelligent and real.

Why would one assume that the original RNA builder wasn't an intelligent and real being?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

Nature may be the scientist.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nature may be the scientist.



Have you found nature to be intelligent? If so, do you have any empirical evidence of this intelligence, or do you simply have faith?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

It's been said if you go to a beach and see you name written in the sand( say 5 to 20 letters in the correct order) you would assume someone wrote it.  There human genome is composed of 3.2 billion pairs of letters in an ordered sequence yet people refuse to attribute that to anyone


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's been said if you go to a beach and see you name written in the sand( say 5 to 20 letters in the correct order) you would assume someone wrote it.  There human genome is composed of 3.2 billion pairs of letters in an ordered sequence yet people refuse to attribute that to anyone


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you found nature to be intelligent? If so, do you have any empirical evidence of this intelligence, or do you simply have faith?



I did not say it was intelligent. That was my point.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's been said if you go to a beach and see you name written in the sand( say 5 to 20 letters in the correct order) you would assume someone wrote it.  There human genome is composed of 3.2 billion pairs of letters in an ordered sequence yet people refuse to attribute that to anyone



Full credit for this goes to Four:



> Originally Posted by Creationist argument
> Even the simplest of life forms are too complex to have come together by random chance. Take a simple organism consisting of merely 100 parts. Mathematically there are 10 to the power of 158 possible ways for the parts to link up. There are not enough molecules in the universe or time since the beginning to account for these possible ways to come together in even this simple life form, let alone human beings. The human eye alone defies explanation by the randomness of evolution. It is the equivalent of the monkey typing Hamlet, or even "to be or not to be." It will not happen by random chance.





> Originally Posted by response
> Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!


----------



## mtnwoman (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you found nature to be intelligent? If so, do you have any empirical evidence of this intelligence, or do you simply have faith?



Everything just popped into existance and just so happens it caused us to have everything we need....


----------



## mtnwoman (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's been said if you go to a beach and see you name written in the sand( say 5 to 20 letters in the correct order) you would assume someone wrote it.  There human genome is composed of 3.2 billion pairs of letters in an ordered sequence yet people refuse to attribute that to anyone



And another 

Just so happened, eh? Plants we need, meat we need, axis that we need, gravity that we need, tides that we need, sunlight that we need to heat, light and feed plants that we need...just so happened...alrighty then.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

I have a question for any you.  I'm sure it's another dead horse on here, and I didn't want to start another thread on it for that reason. If anyone would catch me up to speed on the arguments against irreducible complexity I would appreciate it.  Not wanting to derail this thread but it does tie in.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

Here are some decent IC reads:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

Thanks


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have a question for any you.  I'm sure it's another dead horse on here, and I didn't want to start another thread on it for that reason. If anyone would catch me up to speed on the arguments against irreducible complexity I would appreciate it.  Not wanting to derail this thread but it does tie in.




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nature may be the scientist.



Science is a human made process of logical application of processes. Humans are "natural", but science is not. It is a language we invented to describe things in a systematic way.

String - I am not sure what you mean by "replicating" data. Data is collected/observed, not created. If you create data, you are not following the scientific method.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I did not say it was intelligent. That was my point.



By stating "nature may be the scientist" you're implying intelligence.

 If a scientist is intelligent, and "nature may be the scientist", then nature is intelligent.

So, my question still stands. Do you have any evidence that nature or natural matter is intelligent, or do you simply have faith in your assertion?


----------



## Four (May 17, 2013)

David Hume did pretty well on the design argument.




> Firstly, Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is often observed to result from presumably mindless processes like the generation of snowflakes and crystals. Design can account for only a tiny part of our experience of order.



While I agree with this part, i can see how it would be easily rejected by theists. To me a snowflake, or a crystal is an example of order without design, but I assume a theist would just say "of course it was designed, god made it"




> Second, that the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.
> Next, even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not in and of itself establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.



The first part of this argument is the one i find the best. We identify designed vs. natural because we can identify conceptually what was made by human vs what was made naturally. If we say everything was created/designed, we no longer have any example of anything that was not created/designed... since there is no contrast, it loses meaning.




> Furthermore, if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?



Basically infinite regress argument



> Finally, Hume advanced a version of the Anthropic Principle. Often, where it appears that an object has a particular feature in order to secure some goal, is in fact the result of a filtering process. That is, the object wouldn't be around did it not possess that feature, and the perceived purpose is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated the notion of natural selection.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> String - I am not sure what you mean by "replicating" data. Data is collected/observed, not created. If you create data, you are not following the scientific method.



That is probably worded incorrectly. When I say "replicating data" I just mean an expirement replicating collected data that has been observed.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

Hume said:
			
		

> Second, that the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.


This works against calling the universe natural as well, if we don't have another universe to compare, it might well be designed just as much as it might be natural. I think if one extrapolates human design, then evidence lends more credibility to the universe being designed.



> Next, even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not in and of itself establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.


Even if the design argument is completely seccessful it may have been done unintelligently?? It seems as though Mr. Hume is willing to make any intelectual leap necessary to discard the possibility of the existence of a designer.  



> The first part of this argument is the one i find the best. We identify designed vs. natural because we can identify conceptually what was made by human vs what was made naturally. If we say everything was created/designed, we no longer have any example of anything that was not created/designed... since there is no contrast, it loses meaning.


Again, I believe it takes away the meaning of natural as well.





> Furthermore, if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?


God's mind didn't need to be designed because by definition, He is eternal.  Hume is not comparing apples to apples here, God and natural matter are not the same things.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

You were saying something about intelligence?



> 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
> 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
> 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;
> 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> By stating "nature may be the scientist" you're implying intelligence.
> 
> If a scientist is intelligent, and "nature may be the scientist", then nature is intelligent.
> 
> So, my question still stands. Do you have any evidence that nature or natural matter is intelligent, or do you simply have faith in your assertion?



No string, YOU are doing all the implying here.
I used scientist in the loosest sense of the word. Just like some on here think that "god" could mean whatever got the ball rolling for the Universe to be as it is.
If i said flying spaghetti monster I certainly would not be implying intelligent carbohydrates.

Nature, scientist, god, puppet master, head honcho, flying spaghetti monster.

Don't put words in my mouth in order to make yours look better. I said nature. I mean nature with natural selection no intelligence, no grand plan, no caring what happens one way or the other.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You were saying something about intelligence?



I'm not following you.

Do you want to take a crack at the question in the OP? I'm sure the discussion will make its way to bible verses before the second page anyway.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No string, YOU are doing all the implying here.


Tell me Bullet, what exactly am I implying?



> I used scientist in the loosest sense of the word. Just like some on here think that "god" could mean whatever got the ball rolling for the Universe to be as it is.
> If i said flying spaghetti monster I certainly would not be implying intelligent carbohydrates.


After you read the OP, how could you come to the conclusion that scientist meant anything other than an intelligent being?



> Don't put words in my mouth in order to make yours look better. I said nature. I mean nature with natural selection no intelligence, no grand plan, no caring what happens one way or the other.


Please, quote where I have put words in your mouth.

This is logic in it's purest and simplest form Bullet, there is no way around it.


stringmusic said:


> By stating "nature may be the scientist" you're implying intelligence.
> 
> If a scientist is intelligent, and "nature may be the scientist", then nature is intelligent.
> 
> So, my question still stands. Do you have any evidence that nature or natural matter is intelligent, or do you simply have faith in your assertion?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not following you.
> 
> Do you want to take a crack at the question in the OP? I'm sure the discussion will make its way to bible verses before the second page anyway.



If you can't get it after reading those scriptures then you aren't going to get it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you want to take a crack at the question in the OP? I'm sure the discussion will make its way to bible verses before the second page anyway.





atlashunter said:


> If you can't get it after reading those scriptures then you aren't going to get it.



I'll take that as a "no"


----------



## Four (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This works against calling the universe natural as well, if we don't have another universe to compare, it might well be designed just as much as it might be natural. I think if one extrapolates human design, then evidence lends more credibility to the universe being designed.



Conceptually we refer to things made by human as not natural or created, and things not made by human as natural. So we can compare those two. If things human made are created, and things human haven't made are created, we don't have an example of anything not created.



stringmusic said:


> Even if the design argument is completely seccessful it may have been done unintelligently?? It seems as though Mr. Hume is willing to make any intelectual leap necessary to discard the possibility of the existence of a designer.




Its basically saying, even if the design argument is completely sucessfull, it doesnt imply the kind of god that most religions preach. It could be any number of other things.

Also Hume wasnt really an atheist, apparently he was described as irreligious. Although he could just be faking it to not get jacked up by the churches.

*"He did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity"*





stringmusic said:


> God's mind didn't need to be designed because by definition, He is eternal.  Hume is not comparing apples to apples here, God and natural matter are not the same things.



I think you already know how terrible i think this argument is. You use complexity as a sign of design, but you can dismiss that god, arguably the most complex of concepts needs to be designed because its "eternal".

Its the equivalent of just saying "nuhuhhh".


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Tell me Bullet, what exactly am I implying?
> 
> 
> After you read the OP, how could you come to the conclusion that scientist meant anything other than an intelligent being?
> ...



Your logic is warped.
You are implying the meaning of MY answer. I clearly stated that nature was my "scientist" and that I DO NOT THINK IT IS INTELLIGENT. You are telling that by choosing nature I am saying it is intelligent and then you continue on to instruct me to explain the intelligence.

I do not think anything all powerful created anything or it would not have had to "rest" on the 7th day. If it was so powerful to make everything in 6 days it could have done it in 6 seconds. Nature doesn't take or need time off. Nature is like a Terminator. It just doesn't stop.

"But bullethead....you are implying that nature is a machine and has red eyes and is after John Connor and is from the future and is blah blah blah blah blah" " Nature never said I'LL BE BACK, nature can't talk, are you implying nature, because Terminators speak in the movies also speaks?? Do you have faith in that BH? Huh? Do Ya? It is simple Logic BH"

Nature=Scientist is an analogy I used. It took some intelligence to understand that.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

If I said nature is the scientist and the Universe is it's test tube am I then implying that the Universe is made of Pyrex????

wise up


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

Off to work, be back later.

I am taking my chariot...analogy for a Suburban with 285 horsepower. I DO NOT HAVE A CHARIOT BEING PULLED BY A TEAM OF 285 HORSES.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your logic is warped.


I was going to multi quote your post and reply to most of it, but I really just want you to point out where my logic is warped.



			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> By stating "nature may be the scientist" you're implying intelligence.
> 
> If a scientist is intelligent, and "nature may be the scientist", then nature is intelligent.



Where did I go wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

Four said:


> I think you already know how terrible i think this argument is. You use complexity as a sign of design, but you can dismiss that god, arguably the most complex of concepts needs to be designed because its "eternal".
> 
> Its the equivalent of just saying "nuhuhhh".



"Design" and "eternal" are mutually exclusive in this case, because by defnintion, design implies that someone/something existed prior to the design itself, and if the design itself is eternal, then nothing existed prior to it.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I was going to multi quote your post and reply to most of it, but I really just want you to point out where my logic is warped.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I go wrong?



You went wrong the second you assumed that scientist automatically equals intelligence and never considered that I or anyone else can think outside of the box you try to keep us in.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You went wrong the second you assumed that scientist automatically equals intelligence and never considered that I or anyone else can think outside of the box you try to keep us in.


I assumed I made it clear in the OP that scientists are generaly considered intelligent....


stringmusic said:


> Scientists take data from nature and replicate it. It is automatically assumed that it takes intelligence to replicate this data, why is intelligence not assumed for the original data that was already there? An intelligent "ultimate scientist" if you will.
> 
> An example would be if a scientist where to learn to build RNA. He makes conclusions about the process and the conclusions are testifiable, and replicable. We, as humans look at the data, and the built RNA, and automatically assume that the scientist was intelligent and real.
> 
> Why would one assume that the original RNA builder wasn't an intelligent and real being?


I'm not sure why you would read the OP and assert "nature may be the scientist" and not think that you would be implying that nature is in fact intelligent. The entire paradigm of the OP was based on assuming intelligence in a certain instance and not assuming intelligence in another very similar instance.

Now that that is out of the way, do you care to take another shot at the question in the OP?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You went wrong the second you assumed that scientist automatically equals intelligence and never considered that I or anyone else can think outside of the box you try to keep us in.



Another question, based on the generaly accepted definition of a scientist, can you think of an example where scientists would not be considered intelligent?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Another question, based on the generaly accepted definition of a scientist, can you think of an example where scientists would not be considered intelligent?



Did you see the picture of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew???


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did you see the picture of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew???


...


stringmusic said:


> Another question, based on the generaly accepted definition of a scientist, can you think of an example where scientists would not be considered intelligent?



I don't think Dr. Honeydew falls into that catagory. If you thought I was including fake puppet "scientists" when I mentioned scientists in the OP, you are wrong, but somehow I think you know I wasn't.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I assumed I made it clear in the OP that scientists are generaly considered intelligent....
> 
> I'm not sure why you would read the OP and assert "nature may be the scientist" and not think that you would be implying that nature is in fact intelligent. The entire paradigm of the OP was based on assuming intelligence in a certain instance and not assuming intelligence in another very similar instance.
> 
> Now that that is out of the way, do you care to take another shot at the question in the OP?



You wrongly assumed and asserted your thoughts about the other ways "scientist" could and would be used.

You did not factor in that someone would use a Metaphor.

I used nature as a metaphor.

Since I have already said nature is not intelligent your constant attempts at trying to get to explain how I think nature IS intelligent is quite perplexing. You want me to elaborate on something that I did not say, to elaborate on something YOU are trying to get me to say because it fits what you think was said. You have to eventually understand that I used nature as a metaphor for scientist. When you saidWe, as humans look at the data, and the built RNA, and automatically assume that the scientist was intelligent and real. That was YOUR statement. I believe there is some truth to it as stated , but I took it in another direction that is equally as plausible. You just did not like that direction and assumed there was only one possibility. I gave you another one.

Just like you assume scientists are intelligent and real, you do not always agree with them on their findings. In this case I do not agree that your scientist exists, let alone is intelligent therefore i can not agree on the conclusion your are eventually trying to make.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ...
> 
> 
> I don't think Dr. Honeydew falls into that catagory. If you thought I was including fake puppet "scientists" when I mentioned scientists in the OP, you are wrong, but somehow I think you know I wasn't.



Brother man, if you are talking about an invisible "scientist" up in the sky you are pretty much on the same page as Ol Doc Honeydew as far as I am concerned.


----------



## David Parker (May 17, 2013)

String, for all your vim and vigor on religion, you are one in a million.  Almost all the zealots on here seem to get off on isolating others when they don't fall into their religion template.  You bring probing questions and listen alot more than you preach, ahem talk.  I like it and thought I'd point it out to you.  That said, the OP is an enigmatic idea.  I think it establishes that either side, religious vs non-religious requires a degree of some intangible.  The Church calls it faith, the secular call it reason.  That's all I got so far.  

I did see a bumper sticker yesterday that was cute.  It said in old Roman lettering  "Dog is my copilot".  Those crazy canine lovers right?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You wrongly assumed and asserted your thoughts about the other ways "scientist" could and would be used.
> 
> You did not factor in that someone would use a Metaphor.


You're right Bullet, I didn't take that into consideration, because a metaphorical scientist doesn't coherently answer the question. It would have been a fallacy on my end to somehow assume you would be talking about a metaphorical scientist when the OP was clearly asking a question that was prefaced on the intellect of real scientists.



> I used nature as a metaphor.
> 
> Since I have already said nature is not intelligent your constant attempts at trying to get to explain how I think nature IS intelligent is quite perplexing. You want me to elaborate on something that I did not say, to elaborate on something YOU are trying to get me to say because it fits what you think was said. You have to eventually understand that I used nature as a metaphor for scientist. When you saidWe, as humans look at the data, and the built RNA, and automatically assume that the scientist was intelligent and real. That was YOUR statement. I believe there is some truth to it as stated , but I took it in another direction that is equally as plausible. You just did not like that direction and assumed there was only one possibility. I gave you another one.


Come'on Bullet, level with me here. Have you ever looked at a scientific theory and literally thought that an intelligent scientist didn't come up the theory? 




> Just like you assume scientists are intelligent and real, you do not always agree with them on their findings. In this case I do not agree that your scientist exists, let alone is intelligent therefore i can not agree on the conclusion your are eventually trying to make.
> 
> "I reject your reality and substitute my own"



I'm not interested in scientific findings in this thread, I'm concerned with the intellect, that I and every other human being on earth, assume that scientist have.

Do you now want to take another crack at the OP?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> String, for all your vehm and vigor on religion, you are one in a million.  Almost all the zealots on here seem to get off on isolating others when they don't fall into their religion template.  You bring probing questions and listen alot more than you preach, ahem talk.  I like it and thought I'd point it out to you.


Thanks 



> That said, the OP is an enigmatic idea.  I think it establishes that either side, religious vs non-religious requires a degree of some intangible.  The Church calls it faith, the secular call it reason.  That's all I got so far.


The problem with this is believers are rediculed for the idea of faith by non-believers while reason is accepted as an absolute truth.


----------



## David Parker (May 17, 2013)

Where do physics fit into all this?  If you mix chocolate with milk, it makes 2 drinks into a new one.  If you mix sunlight with algae, it creates energy no?  

I mean if we go in one direction and say well God created the algae and the sun and everything else and that's that, we are left with the question, who created God then?  It's not a quantifiable answer for either side.


----------



## David Parker (May 17, 2013)

believers are ridiculed
non-believers are judged

both are guilty


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Where do physics fit into all this?  If you mix chocolate with milk, it makes 2 drinks into a new one.  If you mix sunlight with algae, it creates energy no?
> 
> I mean if we go in one direction and say well God created the algae and the sun and everything else and that's that, we are left with the question, who created God then?  It's not a quantifiable answer for either side.



Nothing/nobody created God, He is eternal, while natural physical matter is not. Natural physical matter needs creation.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

string, I wish you lived closer to me. I'm soon heading out to our camper in the northern part of the state, near the "grand canyon" of Pa. I just received 60 dry flies in the mail. I bought 3 dozen Maryland hard shells crabs boiled in Old Bay seasoning, 2 rings of smoked keilbasa and a 3lb keilbasa loaf. I have a case of Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy and I would absolutely LOVE to invite you along to share it all with us, catch some trout and discuss whatever you want to discuss around the campfire tonight.

 But right now all I am saying is that you are using "scientist" in place of "God" and I am using "Nature" in place of both.

If I agreed that I thought something intelligent was responsible then sure, it was a scientist. Then you are gonna say well The God of Abraham is that scientist. Fireworks are going ignite, ticker tape parades will form and everything in the Universe will now once again be right.
But at the core of the conversation I still believe RNA got here through Nature which got here through the forming of the Universe and neither had a plan, laboratory or intelligence to specifically envision what they wanted done and then set out to do it.
I think RNA and in turn us are the result of the available chemistry set.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Nothing/nobody created God, He is eternal, while natural physical matter is not. Natural physical matter needs creation.



How do you know nature is not eternal?


----------



## David Parker (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Nothing/nobody created God, He is eternal, while natural physical matter is not. Natural physical matter needs creation.



Is there any elaboration on what was keeping the God occupied for the eons before recorded history?  Eternity takes a minute so why has there not been popular theories on what happens outside of human existence.  Was there just Heaven?  If so, what prompted God to audible an Earth and people and RNA, etc.?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But right now all I am saying is that you are using "scientist" in place of "God" and I am using "Nature" in place of both.
> 
> If I agreed that I thought something intelligent was responsible then sure, it was a scientist. Then you are gonna say well The God of Abraham is that scientist. Fireworks are going ignite, ticker tape parades will form and everything in the Universe will now once again be right.
> But at the core of the conversation I still believe RNA got here through Nature which got here through the forming of the Universe and neither had a plan, laboratory or intelligence to specifically envision what they wanted done and then set out to do it.
> I think RNA and in turn us are the result of the available chemistry set.



You're sure it wasn't that guy who prescribed sprinkling birds blood around 7 times as a cure for leprosy?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, I wish you lived closer to me. I'm soon heading out to our camper in the northern part of the state, near the "grand canyon" of Pa. I just received 60 dry flies in the mail. I bought 3 dozen Maryland hard shells crabs boiled in Old Bay seasoning, 2 rings of smoked keilbasa and a 3lb keilbasa loaf. I have a case of Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy and I would absolutely LOVE to invite you along to share it all with us, catch some trout and discuss whatever you want to discuss around the campfire tonight.


Dang you done made me hungry! I would be all over that invite Bullet, that sounds like a blast! Hope y'all have tight lines all weekend.



> If I agreed that I thought something intelligent was responsible then sure, it was a scientist.


That's the jist of the OP, you do agree that something intelligent(a real live scientist) is behind the replication of data found in the world, but you deny something intelligent put the data that was replicated in the first place.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know nature is not eternal?



I accept the logic provided in Dr. Willards article that I've posted.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Is there any elaboration on what was keeping the God occupied for the eons before recorded history?


I don't think God needs to be kept occupied.



> Eternity takes a minute so why has there not been popular theories on what happens outside of human existence.  Was there just Heaven?  If so, what prompted God to audible an Earth and people and RNA, etc.?


Eternity is not a quantifiable time, much like inifity is not a number or quantifiable.

As far as your questions are concerned, I'm going to get real deep and philosophical on you....... you ready?....... here it comes............. I don't know.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Dang you done made me hungry! I would be all over that invite Bullet, that sounds like a blast! Hope y'all have tight lines all weekend.
> 
> 
> That's the jist of the OP, you do agree that something intelligent(a real live scientist) is behind the replication of data found in the world, but you deny something intelligent put the data that was replicated in the first place.



I believe everyone, including scientists, are trying to figure out the who's what's and why's.
If something intelligent (a scientist by your definition) put it here it is equally plausible that the intelligent scientist would have left directions, instructions and a copy of it's research to be gone over by other scientists.
If it was a scientist by definition then it should go about it in the scientific ways.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You're sure it wasn't that guy who prescribed sprinkling birds blood around 7 times as a cure for leprosy?





stringmusic said:


> Scientists take data from nature and replicate it. It is automatically assumed that it takes intelligence to replicate this data, why is intelligence not assumed for the original data that was already there? An intelligent "ultimate scientist" if you will.
> 
> An example would be if a scientist where to learn to build RNA. He makes conclusions about the process and the conclusions are testifiable, and replicable. We, as humans look at the data, and the built RNA, and automatically assume that the scientist was intelligent and real.
> 
> Why would one assume that the original RNA builder wasn't an intelligent and real being?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I believe everyone, including scientists, are trying to figure out the who's what's and why's.
> If something intelligent (a scientist by your definition) put it here it is equally plausible that the intelligent scientist would have left directions, instructions and a copy of it's research to be gone over by other scientists.
> If it was a scientist by definition then it should go about it in the scientific ways.



You seem to be stuck on the scientist thing.

My point was the assumption of the naturalist assuming in one scenario that intelligence is behind scientific data or experimentation and in another similar scenario that same assumption is not made. I'm just wondering if there is a valid reason why.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You seem to be stuck on the scientist thing.
> 
> My point was the assumption of the naturalist assuming in one scenario that intelligence is behind scientific data or experimentation and in another similar scenario that same assumption is not made. I'm just wondering if there is a valid reason why.



I am here and you are here. We are having (sometimes) intelligent conversations. Therefore we are somewhat intelligent.
The scenario you are giving is not "another similar scenario" as what we think scientists to be. I do not think an intelligent supernatural being is behind it all. More intelligence would show and not just here is the end result, you clowns figure it out.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That is probably worded incorrectly. When I say "replicating data" I just mean an expirement replicating collected data that has been observed.



Ahhhh, repetition. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>



I see your  and raise you two more  .


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I accept the logic provided in Dr. Willards article that I've posted.



Yeah I think that was addressed if it is the one I am thinking of. It pretty much always boils down to coming up applying a restriction to nature and then asking for an exception so that god isn't subjected to the same restriction. More special pleading.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Full credit for this goes to Four:



"Originally Posted by response
Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!"

That computer program, I would suggest, had an intelligent designer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know nature is not eternal?



It's pretty much established that the Universe had a beginning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

For what its worth here's my take on Hume's argument.



Four said:


> David Hume did pretty well on the design argument.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...



I would say that Hume acknowledges in this first point that we are capable of recognizing order vs disorder irregardless of what we attribute it to.  I agree.


Four said:


> Quote:
> Second, that the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.
> Next, even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not in and of itself establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.
> 
> ...



Here Hume cites the reason we recognize order is based on our past experiences of being able to recognize it.  In short, we engage in inductive reasoning(reasoning from a known to an unknown)  to distinguish order from disorder.  I agree.  But then he directly contradicts his original point stating:  "But in order to point to a designed universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied."   Do you see the absurdity and hypocrisy of his argument.  In essence he's saying that 'Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to use inductive reasoning, applying it to the questions of everyday life when reasoning from a known to an unknown, but you pro design guys can't use it because you don't know the unknown.  It's intellectual dishonesty and it's ludicrous to boot.  Everything he says after this goes out the window, because it's based on this false premise.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For what its worth here's my take on Hume's argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He is saying "You know what you know".  

What you guys do is you say "Look how complex this stuff is!  It must have been made by some kind of magical being outside of time and space who loves me and walks on water."  You guys want to look at the facets on a banana and say "God made those facets just right so that they will fit in our man hands".  

Did you watch the Nova program?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He is saying "You know what you know".



Maybe you should re-read it



ambush80 said:


> What you guys do is you say "Look how complex this stuff is!  It must have been made by come kind of magical being outside of time and space who loves me and walks on water."  You guys want to look at the facets on a banana and say "God made those facets just right so that they will fit in our man hands".



Really?  In all honesty is that what you believe as truth regarding Christianity, or is it a caricature, a straw man?  I think any reasonable, even semi-intelligent, person sees your statement for what it is.  
This is what I find so ironic regarding the vast majority of atheist here;  You are always spouting "Show us the evidence!  Show us the evidence!"  yet when someone puts forth evidence instead of countering with either your own evidence or a reasonable counter-argument,  invariably you resort to denigrating, denying, deflecting or dodging the point, the author, or the belief system in general.  

If the argument for atheism is so strong then use you brain and make a sound defense of it.  The fact that you don't suggests that either there is no good evidence, or you are incapable of expounding on it.  For the record I will NOT say there are no good arguments for Atheism, there are.  The fact that I don't buy them doesn't mean they are not good, so where does that leave you?



ambush80 said:


> Did you watch the Nova program?



I very rarely watch TV.


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's pretty much established that the Universe had a beginning.



There is a reason I used the word nature.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here Hume cites the reason we recognize order is based on our past experiences of being able to recognize it.  In short, we engage in inductive reasoning(reasoning from a known to an unknown)  to distinguish order from disorder.  I agree.  But then he directly contradicts his original point stating:  "But in order to point to a designed universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied."  * Do you see the absurdity and hypocrisy of his argument.*  In essence he's saying that 'Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to use inductive reasoning, applying it to the questions of everyday life when reasoning from a known to an unknown, but you pro design guys can't use it because you don't know the unknown.  It's intellectual dishonesty and it's ludicrous to boot.  Everything he says after this goes out the window, because it's based on this false premise.



I don't see the absurdity. I'll try to break down the arguments...

The first example he gives.

Premise 1: Houses are designed (because I've seen them designed/build)
(Hidden / indirect)Premise 2:  Rocks are no designed
Premise 3: Object (X) looks more like a house than a rock.
Conclusion: Object (X) Is probably designed.

The Watchmaker analogy / fallacy

Premise 1. A watch is has a designer (because I've seen people make watches, or this can even be a conclusion from the previous proof)
Premise 2. The universe/world/etc is complex
Conclusion. The universe/world / everything is designed

The problem is it's missing that Premise 2, that comparison against something else. The backbone of the first proposition is that you're using  heuristics to determine designed vs. not designed. We not only see  / understand the watch is designed, but that the tree / mountain is not. Then we use those two types of examples to determine if a third object is designed or not. The problem with the second proposition is that the conclusion is that everything is designed, and if that is the case the comparisons break down.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> It pretty much always boils down to coming up applying a restriction to nature and then asking for an exception so that god isn't subjected to the same restriction.



Your assessment is correct. If physical matter is not eternal, and God is not physical matter, then by default He would not be bound by the same restrictions. 

The assertion would be false if the non-physical eternal being in the first argument were part of nature.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Why is Four the only one to take a shot at the OP? 

Atlas,Bullet,Bishop,JFS,TripleX...... anybody?


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2013)

I did in post #54.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your assessment is correct. If physical matter is not eternal, and God is not physical matter, then by default He would not be bound by the same restrictions.
> 
> The assertion would be false if the non-physical eternal being in the first argument were part of nature.



I dont think that follows.

P1. Physical matter is not eternal
P2. God is not physical matter
C. God is eternal.

The conclusion doesn't follow... 
Its the same as if i said.

P1. Apples are Red
P2. Cars are not apples
C. Cars are not red

Furthermore, we don't have any example of non-physical matter.. the universe is made up of energy-matter... We have no way of looking for or proving attributes of any entities that aren't comprised of energy-matter.. It wouldn't be to far off to say that something that isn't made of energy-matter cannot exist as we define it.

It puts us either in the area of extreme speculation without any falsifiability, or to be lesss generous, pure fairy tale land.


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> I dont think that follows.
> 
> P1. Physical matter is not eternal
> P2. God is not physical matter
> ...



This is a great, well thought response....then this...



Four said:


> or to be lesss generous, pure fairy tale land.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> I dont think that follows.
> 
> P1. Physical matter is not eternal
> P2. God is not physical matter
> ...


That's not a conclusion that can be drawn from that line of logic. 

P1. Physical matter is not eternal.
P2. If physical matter is not eternal, then physical matter must be created.
C. If the above is true, something non-physical and eternal must have created physical matter as to not fall to the same restrictions.



> Furthermore, we don't have any example of non-physical matter.. the universe is made up of energy-matter... We have no way of looking for or proving attributes of any entities that aren't comprised of energy-matter.. It wouldn't be to far off to say that something that isn't made of energy-matter cannot exist as we define it.
> 
> It puts us either in the area of extreme speculation without any falsifiability, or to be lesss generous, pure fairy tale land.



It can be known a priori, following the line of logic above.


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You guys want to look at the facets on a banana and say "God made those facets just right so that they will fit in our man hands".



Chicken or the egg, really.

One would think that the banana would evolve to be less "user friendly" if the fruit must survive to continue the species.  Just a thought.

(fwiw, I don't think a man's hand or banana shape are relevant to each other in any way)


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> This is a great, well thought response....then this...



Its testament to how much i loathe this "eternal" argument that string brings up often. I am weak.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am here and you are here. We are having (sometimes) intelligent conversations. Therefore we are somewhat intelligent.
> The scenario you are giving is not "another similar scenario" as what we think scientists to be. I do not think an intelligent supernatural being is behind it all. More intelligence would show and not just here is the end result, you clowns figure it out.



The "similar scenario" is a scientist rebuilding RNA and how RNA was built in the first place. RNA is built in both scenarios, non-believers assume intelligence in the case of the scientist rebuilding RNA but do not assume intelligence in the original building of the RNA. 

It's intellectual dishonesty, either intentional or unintentional, I'm not sure.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> Its testament to how much i loathe this "eternal" argument that string brings up often. I am weak.



Did you ever get a chance to read the article that I posted in the "Three stage argument for God" thread? 

If not, Dr. Willard explains much better than me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Chicken or the egg, really.
> 
> One would think that the banana would evolve to be less "user friendly" if the fruit must survive to continue the species.  Just a thought.
> 
> (fwiw, I don't think a man's hand or banana shape are relevant to each other in any way)




It's advantageous for the fruit to be eaten so that the seeds can be spread in poop.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your assessment is correct. If physical matter is not eternal, and God is not physical matter, then by default He would not be bound by the same restrictions.
> 
> The assertion would be false if the non-physical eternal being in the first argument were part of nature.



The part in red has not been established and may or may not be true. If I remember the Willard argument it is that nature cannot be eternal because if it was the point in time of the big bang would never be reached. But if that is true the same restriction applies to an "eternal" god. Time is by definition a component of eternity so an eternal god cannot have a get out of jail free card when it comes to the time restriction. Even a god would have to exist and operate within a framework of time. Without it you have a thoughtless and actionless god. God is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unnecessary middle man. As Sagan said, why not get rid of the middle man?


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's advantageous for the fruit to be eaten so that the seeds can be spread in poop.



....I would think that digestion would hnder the seeds viability in many cases, but....I'm not a real "poop expert."


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> If I remember the Willard argument it is that nature cannot be eternal because if it was the point in time of the big bang would never be reached. But if that is true the same restriction applies to an "eternal" god.



How?  




atlashunter said:


> Time is by definition a component of eternity so an eternal god cannot have a get out of jail free card when it comes to the time restriction.



Them's your rules.



atlashunter said:


> Even a god would have to exist and operate within a framework of time. Without it you have a thoughtless and actionless god.







atlashunter said:


> God is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unnecessary middle man. As Sagan said, why not get rid of the middle man?



.....unless matter required a beginning.  Then, there is a need for an OC.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 20, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Everything just popped into existance and just so happens it caused us to have everything we need....



I completely understand your side of this story... but it is equally possible that the reason we have everything we need is because we evolved to  use everything here. Nothing can evolved with something in an environment that it absolutely can't handle. If it can't handle it, it's done.  Of course that is more likely IMO... but both are just as easy to understand.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The part in red has not been established and may or may not be true. If I remember the Willard argument it is that nature cannot be eternal because if it was the point in time of the big bang would never be reached. But if that is true the same restriction applies to an "eternal" god. Time is by definition a component of eternity so an eternal god cannot have a get out of jail free card when it comes to the time restriction. Even a god would have to exist and operate within a framework of time. Without it you have a thoughtless and actionless god. God is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unnecessary middle man. As Sagan said, why not get rid of the middle man?



JB has hit on some great points, I'll add another.

Eternity is not time, much like infinity is not a number. They are both concepts, because to put a set time on eternity, or a number on infinity, they both cease to become eternity or time.

Also, I feel as though I gave, while not exhaustive, a reasonable and logical argument to the need for creation of physical matter...



			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> P1. Physical matter is not eternal.
> P2. If physical matter is not eternal, then physical matter must be created.
> C. If the above is true, something non-physical and eternal must have created physical matter as to not fall to the same restrictions.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, according to the big bang theory all energy in the universe was present in the singularity. There is no explanation for the origin of the singularity hence no energy creation. There are a number of possibilities put forward by scientists none of which require a god or gods.

What this really boils down to is a god of the gaps argument. Nothing new. God has filled many gaps that have since been filled with natural explanations much to the theists chagrin.

Try having a thought or action that wasn't preceded by the lack of that thought or action. The dividing line between the two is time. Without time there can be no beginning of thought and no beginning of action because there can be no point before during or after the thought or action. These are by definition, events, and events by definition require time. Once you have a god existing within the frame work of infinite time then you have placed the same constraints on that god that Willard is placing on an eternally existing nature.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> There are a number of possibilities put forward by scientists none of which require a god or gods.



That's because they are answering a question that God is not an answer to. Science cannot answer questions about "why", but only "how". That's not a knock on science, but the essential point of science.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> JB has hit on some great points, I'll add another.
> 
> Eternity is not time, much like infinity is not a number. They are both concepts, because to put a set time on eternity, or a number on infinity, they both cease to become eternity or time.
> 
> Also, I feel as though I gave, while not exhaustive, a reasonable and logical argument to the need for creation of physical matter...



When Willard is explaining the problem of an eternal nature he is talking about eternity defined as infinite time. You can't on the one hand rule out eternal nature using one definition of eternal and then change the definition of eternal to avoid having it applied to the god hypothesis.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The "similar scenario" is a scientist rebuilding RNA and how RNA was built in the first place. RNA is built in both scenarios, non-believers assume intelligence in the case of the scientist rebuilding RNA but do not assume intelligence in the original building of the RNA.
> 
> It's intellectual dishonesty, either intentional or unintentional, I'm not sure.



Someone who  made an a/c compressor in order to freeze water in to ice had intelligence. The weather getting cold and causing ice to form on standing water, or snow, is not intelligence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....I would think that digestion would hnder the seeds viability in many cases, but....I'm not a real "poop expert."



It's true


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's because they are answering a question that God is not an answer to. Science cannot answer questions about "why", but only "how". That's not a knock on science, but the essential point of science.



The question of where the universe came from and whether or not it is eternal is a question that these scientists are tackling and is the same question you and Willard posit answers to.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> When Willard is explaining the problem of an eternal nature is he talking about eternity defined as infinite time. You can't on the one hand rule out eternal nature using one definition of eternal and then change the definition of eternal to avoid having it applied to the god hypothesis.



He's not doing that. The same definition can be applied to both nature and God, you seem to be leaving out the implications of those definitions.

He's giving a reason why he thinks physical matter is not eternal and then making the logical assumption that something that doesn't fall to the same restictions as that physical matter does indeed exist.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He's not doing that. The same definition can be applied to both nature and God, you seem to be leaving out the implications of those definitions.
> 
> He's giving a reason why he thinks physical matter is not eternal and then making the logical assumption that something that doesn't fall to the same restictions as that physical matter does indeed exist.



Actually string, it is Willard who didn't think through the implications of his argument.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's because they are answering a question that God is not an answer to. Science cannot answer questions about "why", but only "how". That's not a knock on science, but the essential point of science.



I agree with this statement.

WHY has been asked forever and has forever had conjured answers. This is the middleman... When there isn't a NEED for a why. I can't say for sure that there is no why, but I can say for sure that there is no NEED for a why.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> I don't see the absurdity. I'll try to break down the arguments...
> 
> The first example he gives.
> 
> ...



Can you provide links for the written material we are commenting on.  I don't doubt you are representing it accurately, I just don't feel it's quiet entirely honest of me to comment on something that I didn't read myself.  I realize I already did that regarding this topic, but I was bothered by it afterward.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

String, did God have a first thought? If he did then that isn't an eternal god. If he didn't that means his current thoughts are preceded by an infinite number of thoughts in which case according to Willard's logic he never could have reached the thought to create the universe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's not a conclusion that can be drawn from that line of logic.
> 
> P1. Physical matter is not eternal.
> P2. If physical matter is not eternal, then physical matter must be created.
> ...



Good reasonable,logical point


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The "similar scenario" is a scientist rebuilding RNA and how RNA was built in the first place. RNA is built in both scenarios, non-believers assume intelligence in the case of the scientist rebuilding RNA but do not assume intelligence in the original building of the RNA.
> 
> It's intellectual dishonesty, either intentional or unintentional, I'm not sure.



If you used a bulldozer to build a hill or a mountain, would you then assume that all mountains and hills are intelligently designed?

I think most wouldn't because of what we (as a species) have learned about geology. Tectonic plates, drift, water erosion, etc.

So just as with geology, we dont assume RNA was intelligently created as we have intelligently reproduce it, we assume it came from a millenia of evolution by natural selection.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

You guys ever come back to a thread after like an HOUR and have no idea were to begin responding?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> You guys ever come back to a thread after like an HOUR and have no idea were to begin responding?



Yes.  Every time.  Honestly debating on self-imposing a one thread limit.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's not a conclusion that can be drawn from that line of logic.
> 
> P1. Physical matter is not eternal.
> P2. If physical matter is not eternal, then physical matter must be created.
> ...



I think the proof is a bit muddied with verbage.

P2 is implied already with P1, if something is not eternal, it has a start and end, saying that it must be created has some ID impications, but all you can realy say is that it has a begining, a point in which it doesnt exist, and then one in which it does.

Then C doesnt follow. The proposition is basically saying, matter had a start point, therefore an entity for which therer is not start point must exist to have created it.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Did you ever get a chance to read the article that I posted in the "Three stage argument for God" thread?
> 
> If not, Dr. Willard explains much better than me.



I didn't read it start to end.. it got a bit stale, i tried to pick out the main points though.. which i think you're doing justice putting into lay terms.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....I would think that digestion would hnder the seeds viability in many cases, but....I'm not a real "poop expert."



dpends on the species, some taste good in order to do thigs, some dont. Think about prickers that stick to your leg, they aren't to be eaten!


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Can you provide links for the written material we are commenting on.  I don't doubt you are representing it accurately, I just don't feel it's quiet entirely honest of me to comment on something that I didn't read myself.  I realize I already did that regarding this topic, but I was bothered by it afterward.



Here is the watchmaker's analogy as written originally by William Paley in the book Natural Theology in the early 1800... others do there own spin on it.

_"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."_


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> String, did God have a first thought? If he did then that isn't an eternal god. If he didn't that means his current thoughts are preceded by an infinite number of thoughts in which case according to Willard's logic he never could have reached the thought to create the universe.



You've officially made my brain hurt. 

However, the question you're asking is a leading question because it supposes a "first" thought, which presupposes a time in which an eternal God is not bound by.

Also, thoughts are conceptual, not physical, and the thoughts of an eternal God are by definition also eternal. There is no point in time in which God thought to create the universe, since He, nor His thoughts are bound by time. There was no "point" to be reached.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You've officially made my brain hurt.
> 
> Thoughts are conceptual, not physical, and the thoughts of an eternal God are by definition also eternal. There is no point in time in which God thought to create the universe, since He, nor His thoughts are bound by time. There was no "point" to be reached.



In order for god to interact with the physical world, god has to be within a time framework, does he not?

As soon as you say "God created the universe 13.77 billion years ago" or whatever, you're putting god within time.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> If you used a bulldozer to build a hill or a mountain, would you then assume that all mountains and hills are intelligently designed?
> 
> I think most wouldn't because of what we (as a species) have learned about geology. Tectonic plates, drift, water erosion, etc.
> 
> So just as with geology, we dont assume RNA was intelligently created as we have intelligently reproduce it, we assume it came from a millenia of evolution by natural selection.



Finally! Although I don't agree with the end assumption, a reasonable answer to the OP! 

I'll throw in another question based on your answer.(It's a "why" question, and may even be unanswerable)

Why do you think it takes intelligence to reproduce *anything* but didn't take intelligence to produce anything in the first place? Do we have any evidence of unintelligent creation?


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> I think the proof is a bit muddied with verbage.
> 
> P2 is implied already with P1, if something is not eternal, it has a start and end, saying that it must be created has some ID impications, but all you can realy say is that it has a begining, a point in which it doesnt exist, and then one in which it does.
> 
> Then C doesnt follow. The proposition is basically saying, matter had a start point, therefore an entity for which therer is not start point must exist to have created it.



What other conclusion is there? Anything physical would be bound by the same constraints as anything else physical.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> In order for god to interact with the physical world, god has to be within a time framework, does he not?
> 
> As soon as you say "God created the universe 13.77 billion years ago" or whatever, you're putting god within time.



Yes, but God is not _bound_ by that time. Meaning He still did't have a "first" thought and logically can still be eternal.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Finally! Although I don't agree with the end assumption, a reasonable answer to the OP!



Huzzah!  



stringmusic said:


> I'll throw in another question based on your answer.(It's a "why" question, and may even be unanswerable)
> 
> Why do you think it takes intelligence to reproduce *anything* but didn't take intelligence to produce anything in the first place? Do we have any evidence of unintelligent creation?



Depending on how loose i can play with the parameters, i don't necessarily think it takes intelligence to reproduce anything.

1. Coin toss - even if a human is doing it, it doesn't require intelligence to reproduce a coin toss.

2. Viruses - they reproduce themselves, i don't think many people would regard a virus as intelligent.




stringmusic said:


> Do we have any evidence of unintelligent creation?



This is the problem... I would say most of the universe is unintelligent created. Every solar system, every new element that is created in a collapsing star.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What other conclusion is there? Anything physical would be bound by the same constraints as anything else physical.



It could have been created by something else that had a start point.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> Depending on how loose i can play with the parameters, i don't necessarily think it takes intelligence to reproduce anything.


How would you go about reproducing a copy of a dictionary?



> 1. Coin toss - even if a human is doing it, it doesn't require intelligence to reproduce a coin toss.
> 
> 2. Viruses - they reproduce themselves, i don't think many people would regard a virus as intelligent.



1. I don't think the results of a coin toss are necessarily intelligent, but someone has to pick the coin up, have hand-eye cordination, catch the coin, read both sides and distinguish the differences of the coin, and even pronounce the results of the toss.

2. Good point. I would argue the make up and ability for the virus to reproduce is intelligent though. Obviosly you would disagree.



> This is the problem... I would say most of the universe is unintelligent created. Every solar system, every new element that is created in a collapsing star.



I respectfuly disagree.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> It could have been created by something else that had a start point.



Something physical?


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How would you go about reproducing a copy of a dictionary?



Hmm i think we misunderstand each-other. I'm not saying that anything can be reproduced unintelligently
, i'm saying there exists things that can.




stringmusic said:


> 1. I don't think the results of a coin toss are necessarily intelligent, but someone has to pick the coin up, have hand-eye cordination, catch the coin, read both sides and distinguish the differences of the coin, and even pronounce the results of the toss.



I was just pointing to replication in the absence of intelligence. 



stringmusic said:


> 2. Good point. I would argue the make up and ability for the virus to reproduce is intelligent though. Obviosly you would disagree.



Semantics.




stringmusic said:


> I respectfuly disagree.


. 

Of course. Therein lies the problem. You have no mental concept of anything not intelligently created/designed. As apart of your believe system, you believe god created everything.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Something physical?



Duno, maybe? I'm just picking apart your proposal.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> Duno, maybe? I'm just picking apart your proposal.



Wouldn't that leave us at the same place we started? Whatever created nature/physical matter, if physical itself, would have the problem of still needing to be created. I think eventually, if the premise is accepted that physical matter is not eternal, you have to go outside non eternal physical matter.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Wouldn't that leave us at the same place we started? Whatever created nature/physical matter, if physical itself, would have the problem of still needing to be created. I think eventually, if the premise is accepted that physical matter is not eternal, you have to go outside non eternal physical matter.



So we're at....

1. Energy-Matter is eternal, it's always existed, and cannot be either created or destroyed.

2. Some Energy-Matter is eternal, and some isn't.

3. Energy-Matter is not eternal, and self perpetuating.

4. Energy-Matter is not eternal, and is created by something that is not-eternal and not-physical

5. Energy-Matter is not eternal, and is created by something that is eternal and not-physical.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2013)

If the Universe is so complex and requires a creator, wouldn't something so complex as a God also require an even more complex creator?


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> So we're at....
> 
> 1. Energy-Matter is eternal, it's always existed, and cannot be either created or destroyed.
> 
> ...



Obviously some of this contradicts, is this just a synopsis of both our arguments?


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If the Universe is so complex and requires a creator, wouldn't something so complex as a God also require an even more complex creator?



No, because God, by definition, wasn't created.


----------



## Four (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Obviously some of this contradicts, is this just a synopsis of both our arguments?



I'm just listing the logical possibilities that i can think of right now...

You're original proof was basically, if the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, there has to be a non-physical entity that created matter.

edit: for which i listed other possibilities


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, because God, by definition, wasn't created.



string, I KNOW what your THOUGHTS are on the whole "god" thing. I completely understand that those thoughts carry a lot weight, or most likely considered as fact up in the spiritual or christian forum.
Here, there are quite a few that have a totally different definition(s) of "god" and ONE definition has "god" being created by humans. 
This is the place to come if you have something outside of the normal "my god can beat your god up because it says so in this book" type stuff.
You are talking to people that tend to set standards for what they will and will not believe in based off of facts that satisfy their curiosity.
We have gone round and round here, in other forums, on other sites and in places all over the planet since somebody thought up the first god. EVERYBODY has a definition of what their god is. Everybody has their own morals from "their" god. Everybody TELLS us everything about "their" god from how it thinks, acts, what it's will is, people TELL us how powerful, omnipotent, omniscient and loving "their" god is. They go on and on and on and on but the only thing ALL of them have not done is actually show us a GOD! Sure i can step in dog poop and somehow justify that "MY" God put it there and it was his Will that I step in it and that poop AND every day I look out my window and see a pile of steamy poop THAT is how I prove to myself there is a God, but it really is not actual proof of anything.
IF there is such a powerful God that his Will is to be known to all of mankind then WHERE the heck is he/she/it?? If it's sole purpose is to battle the dark forces of Evil, then where is it?? If there is such a supernatural being that exists beyond our physical world then where is it? It HAD to interact with people 6000-2000 years ago according to the Bible, where is it now? 
All of these in depth conversations are meaningless because the very first and foremost important thing is that SOMEBODY is actually going to have to present "their" god. The rest is just a battle of which cartoon superhero is better in make-believe land.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2013)

I am actually not that hard to get along with. If there is some supernatural being that WANTS to make itself known to me then I am sure he/she/it has my address and cell number. No appointment needed. Stop by any time.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you found nature to be intelligent? If so, do you have any empirical evidence of this intelligence, or do you simply have faith?



My plants and flowers certainly aren't intelligent enough to plant themselves. I wish they would and rebuke the weeds in the meantime that will take them over. Why didn't mold just turn into penicillan on it's own? Seems to me it takes something more intelligent than seeds or mold.....a scientist maybe? What do we need scientists for if nature can figure out what we need in compounds, etc?

My shamrocks crossed with my iris' and created a cure for fibromyalgia....lol...yay for me!


----------



## mtnwoman (May 20, 2013)

Four said:


> It could have been created by something else that had a start point.



Like what?

I'm just asking because I have all pink shamrocks, and I'd like them to turn red on their own, instead of me going out and buying red ones. Red koolaid didn't work....lol


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, I KNOW what your THOUGHTS are on the whole "god" thing. I completely understand that those thoughts carry a lot weight, or most likely considered as fact up in the spiritual or christian forum.
> Here, there are quite a few that have a totally different definition(s) of "god" and ONE definition has "god" being created by humans.
> This is the place to come if you have something outside of the normal "my god can beat your god up because it says so in this book" type stuff.
> You are talking to people that tend to set standards for what they will and will not believe in based off of facts that satisfy their curiosity.
> ...



The poop came from Adam's sin.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You've officially made my brain hurt.
> 
> However, the question you're asking is a leading question because it supposes a "first" thought, which presupposes a time in which an eternal God is not bound by.
> 
> Also, thoughts are conceptual, not physical, and the thoughts of an eternal God are by definition also eternal. There is no point in time in which God thought to create the universe, since He, nor His thoughts are bound by time. There was no "point" to be reached.





You're trying to get around the problem but I'm now convinced that you see it. If you define eternal as "infinite time" which really you are bound to do because that is the definition Willard is using in his proof against an eternal nature (whether we call it universe, multi-verse, etc) then the same logic Willard is using gets applied to god. If you escape that problem by changing the definition of eternal to "timeless" then you've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Because a timeless god is a static, thoughtless, and actionless god. Yes thoughts are intangible but they are still events just like actions and events require time.

Place a wristwatch on god and start it counting backward over the course of his existence, thoughts, and actions. Does it ever stop? If it doesn't then God is subject to the problem Willard states for nature. If it does then God isn't eternal and you have the first cause problem of what kick started God into thought and action and started that clock ticking?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You're trying to get around the problem but I'm now convinced that you see it. If you define eternal as "infinite time" which really you are bound to do because that is the definition Willard is using in his proof against an eternal nature (whether we call it universe, multi-verse, etc) then the same logic Willard is using gets applied to god. If you escape that problem by changing the definition of eternal to "timeless" then you've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Because a timeless god is a static, thoughtless, and actionless god. Yes thoughts are intangible but they are still events just like actions and events require time.
> 
> Place a wristwatch on god and start it counting backward over the course of his existence, thoughts, and actions. Does it ever stop? If it doesn't then God is subject to the problem Willard states for nature. If it does then God isn't eternal and you have the first cause problem of what kick started God into thought and action and started that clock ticking?




Finally.  Someone put it in a way that even a child can understand.

Here comes the special pleading......


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Because a timeless god is a static, thoughtless, and actionless god.



Why is that?



atlashunter said:


> If it does then God isn't eternal and you have the first cause problem of what kick started God into thought and action and started that clock ticking?



You are talking about an infinite regress, which the existance of an OC elliminates.

When one indicates that God is eternal....it is not in the sense of from beginning to end, it is in the same manner you might believe matter and energy are eternal.....what kick-started matter and energy?


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, because God, by definition, wasn't created.



....'cause if he was created, he ain't God.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You're trying to get around the problem but I'm now convinced that you see it. If you define eternal as "infinite time" which really you are bound to do because that is the definition Willard is using in his proof against an eternal nature (whether we call it universe, multi-verse, etc) then the same logic Willard is using gets applied to god. If you escape that problem by changing the definition of eternal to "timeless" then you've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Because a timeless god is a static, thoughtless, and actionless god. Yes thoughts are intangible but they are still events just like actions and events require time.
> 
> Place a wristwatch on god and start it counting backward over the course of his existence, thoughts, and actions. Does it ever stop? If it doesn't then God is subject to the problem Willard states for nature. If it does then God isn't eternal and you have the first cause problem of what kick started God into thought and action and started that clock ticking?



You're still trying to place a time on an eternal Being. There is on such thing a "back in time" when we're discussing eternity. And again, words such as "first cause" and "started"  presuppose a time period, and those words cannot be imposed on God.

In the article Willards argument is that "every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions." I would argue that this doesn't apply to eternity, nor does it apply to an eternal Being. Again, using words like "precedes in time" and "prior" imply a time period, of which _physical nature _is bound.

Eternity is outside of time, there is no "going back to God's first thought" because there is no time to "go back" to.

I'll be the first to admit that I cannot and do not fully understand the reality of eternity, it is not in my nature as a human to do so, but, I can understand that physical matter that is bound by time is under a set of restrictions that and eternal Being is not.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....'cause if he was created, he ain't God.



Yep!


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> The poop came from Adam's sin.





ambush80 said:


> Finally.  Someone put it in a way that even a child can understand.
> 
> Here comes the special pleading......



Are these your attempt at an answer to the question in the OP?


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2013)

How can a being be eternal when so far no one has been able to show such a being exists at all?


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How can a being be eternal when so far no one has been able to show such a being exists at all?



One can make reasonable conclusions based on evidence. A priori knowledge.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How can a being be eternal when so far no one has been able to show such a being exists at all?



I tend to think the being has showed himself....but, I'm a Christian and that's the premise of my system.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree with this statement.
> 
> WHY has been asked forever and has forever had conjured answers. This is the middleman... When there isn't a NEED for a why. I can't say for sure that there is no why, but I can say for sure that there is no NEED for a why.



Just throw philosophy and every great philosopher that has ever lived under the bus why don't ya?


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Finally.  Someone put it in a way that even a child can understand.
> 
> Here comes the special pleading......



Yep! They think they can just say "outside of time" and that solves the problem. It's special pleading and it's a god of the gaps argument.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> They think they can just say "outside of time" and that solves the problem.



....ok.  Humor me for a moment and assume God exists as I believe....infinite......is time relevant to something without a beginning or an end?

Let's now assume the universe exists without God....infinite....what does time matter to the universe, it is and will always be.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Yep! They think they can just say "outside of time" and that solves the problem. It's special pleading and it's a god of the gaps argument.



I don't think I can just say "outside of time", that is the _definition_ of eternal.

You're trying to apply the same restrictions to an eternal Being that you are physical nature, sounds like you're doing the special pleading.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're still trying to place a time on an eternal Being. There is on such thing a "back in time" when we're discussing eternity. And again, words such as "first cause" and "started"  presuppose a time period, and those words cannot be imposed on God.
> 
> In the article Willards argument is that "every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions." I would argue that this doesn't apply to eternity, nor does it apply to an eternal Being. Again, using words like "precedes in time" and "prior" imply a time period, of which _physical nature _is bound.
> 
> ...



This is the gap where your god lives.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> This is the gap where your god lives.



Do you grasp the eternal nature you assign to matter and energy?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Do you grasp the eternal nature you assign to matter and energy?



I can.  I can conceptualize all the stuff having always been in some form or another.  I've never seen it created or destroyed but I suppose that's just anecdotal evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> This is the gap where your god lives.



The point in what you highlighted is that in my human abilities I cannot fully grasp "eternity" or "not time", however, I can make logical and rational conclusions based of the argument, like for instance, an eternal Being is not bound by time.

I don't have to fully understand or experience eternity to be able to come to conclusions based off the concept.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Do you grasp the eternal nature you assign to matter and energy?





ambush80 said:


> I've never seen it created or destroyed but I suppose that's just anecdotal evidence.


Now try this question.....


JB0704 said:


> Do you grasp the eternal nature you assign to matter and energy?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Now try this question.....



Edited.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The point in what you highlighted is that in my human abilities I cannot fully grasp "eternity" or "not time", however, I can make logical and rational conclusions based of the argument, like for instance, an eternal Being is not bound by time.
> 
> I don't have to fully understand or experience eternity to be able to come to conclusions based off the concept.



So you can't understand eternity but you can understand and eternal being?  That's weird, man.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So you can't understand eternity but you can understand and eternal being?  That's weird, man.



I can't *fully* understand either one.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I can.  I can conceptualize all the stuff having always been in some form or another.  I've never seen it created or destroyed but I suppose that's just anecdotal evidence.



I see.....everything that makes you has always existed, and was just re-organized to create Ambush80.....

.....I guess that's another path to eternal life.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I see.....everything that makes you has always existed, and was just re-organized to create Ambush80.....
> 
> .....I guess that's another path to eternal life.



Interesting.....

Who's say that when the matter that originally organizes a person that it automatically unorganizes itself after death.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I see.....everything that makes you has always existed, and was just re-organized to create Ambush80.....
> 
> .....I guess that's another path to eternal life.



Makes sense.  That's what I've observed and that's what was left after I understood that someone planted the notion of god in my head and then I considered the possibility that he was made up.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> Who's say that when the matter that originally organizes a person that it automatically unorganizes itself after death.




That's what happens.  That we know for certain.  It turns into other stuff.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 21, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> My plants and flowers certainly aren't intelligent enough to plant themselves. I wish they would and rebuke the weeds in the meantime that will take them over. Why didn't mold just turn into penicillan on it's own? Seems to me it takes something more intelligent than seeds or mold.....a scientist maybe? What do we need scientists for if nature can figure out what we need in compounds, etc?
> 
> My shamrocks crossed with my iris' and created a cure for fibromyalgia....lol...yay for me!



Plants do just that stuff all the time. Pine trees drop their own cones like plenty of plants with means to spread them.. Pine trees drop needles to cover the ground around them to help keep the weeds down..... Intelligent? Probably not... but they DO plant themselves and Do keep the weeds down....


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It turns into other stuff.



Lets say matter and energy are eternal, then you move one step closer to the existence of infinite anything, which could include god because you have opened the door to infinite as a possibility.....and are left to determine whether or not the infinite everything is organized randomly, or by design (why is natural law, natural law).  

I still believe the universe is not infinite, and has an end (the farthest reaches of the light from the farthest star, is one such possibility....unless you believe the universe has an infinite supply of energy creating an infinite amount of stars), and if the universe is not infinite, that which is contained within cannot be either (how can finite contain infinite).....which means something exists beyond the finite to kick-start it....an "OC"....

....which is the "ultimate scientist."


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I can't *fully* understand either one.



So eternity, and any OC are just very basic ideas of what they really MIGHT BE. Because it seems that they are so un-thinkable we can't wrap our time bounds minds around them. I can fathom some sort of an OC, possibly, but not one that wants me to worship it in my head...


----------



## ted_BSR (May 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am actually not that hard to get along with. If there is some supernatural being that WANTS to make itself known to me then I am sure he/she/it has my address and cell number. No appointment needed. Stop by any time.



It is difficult to get involved in such a deep discussion late in the game, but I have a comment:  Maybe you should get a burning bush BH.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 21, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> My plants and flowers certainly aren't intelligent enough to plant themselves. I wish they would and rebuke the weeds in the meantime that will take them over. Why didn't mold just turn into penicillan on it's own? Seems to me it takes something more intelligent than seeds or mold.....a scientist maybe? What do we need scientists for if nature can figure out what we need in compounds, etc?
> 
> My shamrocks crossed with my iris' and created a cure for fibromyalgia....lol...yay for me!



Again, I am late in the discussion, but I have another comment: Mt. Woman, your plants and flowers have been "planting" themselves for a long long time. That specific type of mold was always penicillin, some one just named it and shot it into their veins, !presto!. It was always medicine, we just had to discover how to use it.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Lets say matter and energy are eternal, then you move one step closer to the existence of infinite anything, which could include god because you have opened the door to infinite as a possibility.....and are left to determine whether or not the infinite everything is organized randomly, or by design (why is natural law, natural law).



At this point a god, a "middleman", isn't necessary.  Molecules move from energy to matter, form as stars, crash into each other and sometimes they form water.  Sometimes they get together and form your beautiful daughter and mine.  That in no way diminishes just what a miracle they are nor does it change how much we love them.  It does explain children being born without a spine without having to make up all this "devil" nonsense or having to say that a god is good in ways that we don't understand.   Deep down it's not the rational argument, the Willard nonsense that fuels your and Strings beliefs.  It's wanting to feel purpose, comfort and undeniably a sense that if you are good boys and girls that you will get to catch giant Heaven bass forever and that bad guys will get punished.  Unfortunately it doesn't work that cleanly by your own rules.




JB0704 said:


> I still believe the universe is not infinite, and has an end (the farthest reaches of the light from the farthest star, is one such possibility....unless you believe the universe has an infinite supply of energy creating an infinite amount of stars), and if the universe is not infinite, that which is contained within cannot be either (how can finite contain infinite).....which means something exists beyond the finite to kick-start it....an "OC"....
> 
> ....which is the "ultimate scientist."



I don't know if all the matter in the Universe is infinite or if it had a start or if it will one day end, but I do know that none of the weird myths of any religions and none of the main characters are real; no blue skinned Vishnus, no Great Mother Earth Volcano spirits and no "getting up from the dead" Jesus's.  It's ridiculous to even consider these things.  They were put in your head when you were little.  They scared you into obedience and comforted you in the dark.  Things make sense just fine without them.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So eternity, and any OC are just very basic ideas of what they really MIGHT BE. Because it seems that they are so un-thinkable we can't wrap our time bounds minds around them. I can fathom some sort of an OC, possibly, but not one that wants me to worship it in my head...




What's he/she/it like?  Is it pleased with us or you?  Does it matter?  Does it care?  How would you know?


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> At this point a god, a "middleman", isn't necessary.  Molecules move from energy to matter, form as stars, crash into each other and sometimes they form water.  Sometimes they get together and form your beautiful daughter and mine.  That in no way diminishes just what a miracle they are nor does it change how much we love them.  It explains children being born without a spine without having to make up all this "devil" nonsense or having to say that a god is good in ways that we don't understand.   Deep down it's not the rational argument, the Willard nonsense that fuels your and Strings beliefs.  It's wanting to feel purpose, comfort and undeniably a sense that if you are good boys and girls that you will get to catch giant Heaven bass forever and that bad guys will get punished.  Unfortunately it doesn't work that cleanly by your own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have no interest in intelligent or respectful discussion. 

Why do you post in here?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You have no interest in intelligent or respectful discussion.
> 
> Why do you post in here?




Try to be objective and dispassionate.  Which part of what I said is untrue?

My point was that it's not the "rational" defense of god that fuels ones belief.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> One can make reasonable conclusions based on evidence. A priori knowledge.



Kind of like all the stuff you dismiss from the scientific world because it is based off of reasonable conclusions gained from the best evidence available...

Now you are bringing up that evidence thing again.
First we need the proof of a god, then we can get into the intangibles of who he wants to grant back stage passes to in the afterlife.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Try to be objective and dispassionate.  Which part of what I said is untrue?


I'm not going to comb through it. You just took the entire doctrine of Christianity and theology in general, which have many important and deep intellectual aspects, and reduced it to a small rant about how much you don't believe in any of it.



> My point was that it's not the "rational" defense of god that fuels ones belief.



Absolutely it is. I wouldn't believe any of it if it weren't for the rationality of it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Kind of like all the stuff you dismiss from the scientific world because it is based off of reasonable conclusions gained from the best evidence available...


What do I dismiss from the scientific world? Be specific.



> Now you are bringing up that evidence thing again.
> First we need the proof of a god


The conclusion doesn't lead to evidence, the evidence leads to the conclusion.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What do I dismiss from the scientific world? Be specific.
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't lead to evidence, the evidence leads to the conclusion.



Clara Pellar has a question for you.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think I can just say "outside of time", that is the _definition_ of eternal.
> 
> You're trying to apply the same restrictions to an eternal Being that you are physical nature, sounds like you're doing the special pleading.



You need to double check your definition of eternal. It can mean infinite time without beginning or end or it can mean timeless. Willard used the former. You prefer the latter.

A timeless, thoughtless, actionless, immaterial god existing at no place and no time. This sure is starting to sound like the very nothingness theists say can't be responsible for the universe.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Clara Pellar has a question for you.



I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You need to double check your definition of eternal. It can mean infinite time without beginning or end or it can mean timeless. Willard used the former. You prefer the latter.


How is that not the same definition? In either case, "eternal" means "not bound by time"



> A timeless, thoughtless, actionless, immaterial god existing at no place and no time. This sure is starting to sound like the very nothingness theists say can't be responsible for the universe.


How about a timeless, thoughtful,actionful, immaterial God that exists at every place and is not bound by time.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure what your point is.



Where's the beef?


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Where's the beef?


Yea I got that part, had to google it, but I got it.

I'm still not sure what relevance that has to the post.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yea I got that part, had to google it, but I got it.
> 
> I'm still not sure what relevance that has to the post.



Beef = Evidence.
You constantly talk about evidence and never give us any.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2013)

Late in the game here also.  Just finished Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Engnima.  For the record he's a skeptic.  In the book he basically gives a limited history of Cosmology and critiques every major theory out there( fairly in my opinion) concerning origin including the Theistic one.  He makes this point concerning all the theories:  “To avoid an infinite regress....you have at some point to accept something as "given," something that other people can acknowledge as true without further justification.”  He continues, “All three camps denounce the other's (given) in equally derisory measure. But there can be no reasoned resolution of this debate because at the end of the day one (given) or another has to be taken on faith (or at least provisionally accepted as a working hypothesis)."  He finishes the discussion with this point.  “You can't use science to disprove the existence of a supernatural God, and you can't use religion to disprove the existence of self-supporting physical laws.”


----------



## Four (May 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Late in the game here also.  Just finished Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Engnima.  For the record he's a skeptic.  In the book he basically gives a limited history of Cosmology and critiques every major theory out there( fairly in my opinion) concerning origin including the Theistic one.  He makes this point concerning all the theories:  “To avoid an infinite regress....you have at some point to accept something as "given," something that other people can acknowledge as true without further justification.”  He continues, “All three camps denounce the other's (given) in equally derisory measure. But there can be no reasoned resolution of this debate because at the end of the day one (given) or another has to be taken on faith (or at least provisionally accepted as a working hypothesis)."  He finishes the discussion with this point.  “You can't use science to disprove the existence of a supernatural God, and you can't use religion to disprove the existence of self-supporting physical laws.”



Pretty fairly put.. So many concepts used when talking about physics in the origin of the universe are hard to conceptualize.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> At this point a god, a "middleman", isn't necessary.



Only if this happens without something directing it....



ambush80 said:


> Molecules move from energy to matter, form as stars, crash into each other and sometimes they form water.  Sometimes they get together and form your beautiful daughter and mine.



Perhaps I am stubborn, but I cannot accept the idea that molecules can be infinite, and create everything, particularly my and your beautiful daughters, on chance.  Life doesn't happen by molecules crashing.

However (this is a random thought that popped in my head the other day), if the universe accidentally created the earth....complete with dinosaurs.....imagine what other crazy stuff is out there.....those critters in the movie "Aliens" might be possible......




ambush80 said:


> That in no way diminishes just what a miracle they are nor does it change how much we love them.



Agreed, but it does remove a purpose for their existence aside from that which we arbitrarily assign.




ambush80 said:


> I don't know if all the matter in the Universe is infinite or if it had a start or if it will one day end, but I do know that none of the weird myths of any religions and none of the main characters are real;



No you don't.



ambush80 said:


> It's ridiculous to even consider these things.



 On the flip side, I tend to think it is ridiculous to assume that the complexity of life is a chance occurrence.



ambush80 said:


> They were put in your head when you were little.



Yes.



ambush80 said:


> They scared you into obedience and comforted you in the dark.



No.  My faith is stronger now that it's a choice, it was forced on me as a kid, I rejected(ish) it as a young adult, and I returned following a few years of introspection.

I did not view God kindly for most of my life....then, I studied him (the NT) independently, and saw something a lot different that what was put in my head as a little kid.



ambush80 said:


> Things make sense just fine without them.



Not for me.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Beef = Evidence.
> You constantly talk about evidence and never give us any.


God has supplied evidence, you deny the evidence.

Are you going to answer this question?


stringmusic said:


> What do I dismiss from the scientific world? Be specific.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Late in the game here also.  Just finished Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Engnima.  For the record he's a skeptic.  In the book he basically gives a limited history of Cosmology and critiques every major theory out there( fairly in my opinion) concerning origin including the Theistic one.  He makes this point concerning all the theories:  “To avoid an infinite regress....you have at some point to accept something as "given," something that other people can acknowledge as true without further justification.”  He continues, “All three camps denounce the other's (given) in equally derisory measure. But there can be no reasoned resolution of this debate because at the end of the day one (given) or another has to be taken on faith (or at least provisionally accepted as a working hypothesis)."  He finishes the discussion with this point.  “You can't use science to disprove the existence of a supernatural God, and you can't use religion to disprove the existence of self-supporting physical laws.”



This is fairly put. It makes you wonder why some of the "new atheists" rail against the idea of faith so much.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is fairly put. It makes you wonder why some of the "new atheists" rail agianst the idea of faith so much.



Agenda.  In the book Davies points to that, as well as agendas of scientists supporting one theory over another.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> God has supplied evidence, you deny the evidence.
> 
> Are you going to answer this question?



string, I'll answer your thousandth different question with the most hard fact filled answer I can come up with(as usual), as soon as you actually give a hard fact filled answer to thousandth time I've asked for you to provide evidence.

You throw the word evidence around but you do not provide any. You say God provides the evidence, yet not one single solid example that could or would hold up in a court of law is ever given.

I am beginning to think(like 3 years ago) that even you know how weak your claim is and just cannot admit that Faith has got to be in place of evidence, because you have not provided any evidence to this day.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How about a timeless, thoughtful,actionful, immaterial God that exists at every place and is not bound by time.



How can thoughts and actions happen without time?

How can there be such a thing as "place" without space?

You are describing a being that by definition must be within a space time construct but then contradict yourself by saying this being exists outside of that construct. And by the way, I've noticed that these discussions with theists generally have no scriptural backing whatsoever for their claims. It's not as if you are going off of the book without any deviation or just flat out making things up.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you going to answer this question?
> 
> "" Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> What do I dismiss from the scientific world? Be specific.""



Evidence. Look at the evidence I gave you as examples of what you dismiss from the scientific world. You just do not except them.

Like for instance:
1. Evidence
2. Evidence
3. Evidence


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> At this point a god, a "middleman", isn't necessary.  Molecules move from energy to matter, form as stars, crash into each other and sometimes they form water.  Sometimes they get together and form your beautiful daughter and mine.  That in no way diminishes just what a miracle they are nor does it change how much we love them.  It does explain children being born without a spine without having to make up all this "devil" nonsense or having to say that a god is good in ways that we don't understand.   Deep down it's not the rational argument, the Willard nonsense that fuels your and Strings beliefs.  It's wanting to feel purpose, comfort and undeniably a sense that if you are good boys and girls that you will get to catch giant Heaven bass forever and that bad guys will get punished.  Unfortunately it doesn't work that cleanly by your own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Spot on. And I'll tell you something else. When I look at an image like this;







the last thing I would ever believe is that everything in that image is the work of a god that prescribed sprinkling birds blood seven times as a treatment for leprosy. Or one that talks about the stars in the sky falling to the earth.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> How can thoughts and actions happen without time?
> 
> How can there be such a thing as "place" without space?


I don't know. All I know is time and space, you would have to ask Someone who is eternal.



> You are describing a being that by definition must be within a space time construct but then contradict yourself by saying this being exists outside of that construct. And by the way, I've noticed that these discussions with theists generally have no scriptural backing whatsoever for their claims. It's not as if you are going off of the book without any deviation or just flat out making things up.



You want me to provide you with a bible verse that backs up the claim that God is eternal?


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, I'll answer your thousandth different question with the most hard fact filled answer I can come up with(as usual), as soon as you actually give a hard fact filled answer to thousandth time I've asked for you to provide evidence.
> 
> You throw the word evidence around but you do not provide any. You say God provides the evidence, yet not one single solid example that could or would hold up in a court of law is ever given.
> 
> I am beginning to think(like 3 years ago) that even you know how weak your claim is and just cannot admit that Faith has got to be in place of evidence, because you have not provided any evidence to this day.



The bible. There is some evidence.


Now, you can answer my question.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible. There is some evidence.
> 
> 
> Now, you can answer my question.



string, remember the part where I asked for some real concrete evidence of a God?
WE know God did not write the Bible. I could offer you the Harry Potter collection as evidence of witches, warlocks, sorcerers and all the characters in there as equal proof. Neither Hold Up Under Scrutiny.

Now my answer to you:
Your posts.

See how vague and un-fact-filled and really unsatisfying those horrific examples of answers are?

Are you satisfied with my "evidence"? I am not with yours.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know. All I know is time and space, you would have to ask Someone who is eternal.



And therein lies the case for special pleading.




stringmusic said:


> You want me to provide you with a bible verse that backs up the claim that God is eternal?



I'd like to see verses that back up all of your claims about god.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> How can thoughts and actions happen without time?



How is time a relevant measure to something that is infinite?




atlashunter said:


> And by the way, I've noticed that these discussions with theists generally have no scriptural backing whatsoever for their claims. It's not as if you are going off of the book without any deviation or just flat out making things up.



As a general rule, using the Bible in this forum has zero impact, which is why the argument has to be framed in logical terms....otherwise, we have to start discussing talking donkeys and such, and the whole conversation goes nowhere.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> As a general rule, using the Bible in this forum has zero impact, which is why the argument has to be framed in logical terms....otherwise, we have to start discussing talking donkeys and such, and the whole conversation goes nowhere.



Ooooh Ooooh Ooooh, Mr. Kotter, call on me!!!!

(maybe you can PM that to string)


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, remember the part where I asked for some real concrete evidence of a God?
> WE know God did not write the Bible. I could offer you the Harry Potter collection as evidence of witches, warlocks, sorcerers and all the characters in there as equal proof. Neither Hold Up Under Scrutiny.
> 
> Now my answer to you:
> ...



You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence, you don't accept the evidence.

Could you be more specific in which posts I have said that I dismiss things from the scientific world?

And yes, I can be more specific, and post scripture of why I believe the bible is evidence for God, but that usually frowned upon in here.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How is time a relevant measure to something that is infinite?



Infinite what? Don't say time because that is what string rejected the notion of in order to escape the infinite regress problem.




JB0704 said:


> As a general rule, using the Bible in this forum has zero impact, which is why the argument has to be framed in logical terms....otherwise, we have to start discussing talking donkeys and such, and the whole conversation goes nowhere.



I ask not because I consider the source of any authority personally but because I'd like a little intellectual honesty. It should be clear if we are talking about the story as it is actually written or if folks are just making up new religion on the fly as many are apt to do.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> And therein lies the case for special pleading.


So every case of a priori knowledge is a case for special pleading?




> I'd like to see verses that back up all of your claims about god.



I didn't think you guys liked scripture to be posted in here?

My claim is that God is eternal, I'm not going to take the time to post that scripture from the bible, because you and I both know it's there.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:
			
		

> How is time a relevant measure to something that is infinite?





atlashunter said:


> Infinite what?


God.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So every case of a priori knowledge is a case for special pleading?



You are putting forth an explanation for the origin of everything but when a challenge is made on logical grounds of your explanation you shrug your shoulders and say you don't know. Why should anyone believe it then?

If you don't know, then that puts us back at a timeless, thoughtless, actionless first cause. That doesn't work.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Infinite what? Don't say time because that is what string rejected the notion of in order to escape the infinite regress problem.



Infinite existence (God, according to my system, as String pointed out).  Time cannot measure something that is not restricted by time. 

Let's use the infinite rock for example (to keep it on y'alls home field), how is time relevant to the rock if there is no expiration date on it's existence?  One moment is of no more (or less) importance than the next.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> God.



Infinite or not, without time thought and action cannot occur.

How about a scripture that says god existed before time?


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Infinite existence (God, according to my system, as String pointed out).  Time cannot measure something that is not restricted by time.
> 
> Let's use the infinite rock for example (to keep it on y'alls home field), how is time relevant to the rock if there is no expiration date on it's existence?  One moment is of no more (or less) importance than the next.



A rock that exists on an infinite timescale is not an object that exists "outside of" time. It is not an object that is timeless or absent time. It is an object that exists within time that has no beginning and no end. String rejected that definition of eternal in order to escape the problem of infinite regression.


----------



## JFS (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> God.



Maybe this should be a separate discussion but it strikes me that there is a lot of energy being spent on the wrong part of the question.   Where things came from is, absent universally recognized divine intervention, indeterminable.   String is happy with god as the answer.  To me that's just another god of the gaps, but I will confess that I doubt our limited knowledge and intellect is really sufficient to contemplate such matters.

But even if everything you say is true String, I don't see how that gets you much more than a vague deism.   Now you might say getting over the "is there a god at all" issue is the important point, but in practice I don't know how on stretches from "stuff had to come from somewhere" to "if you believe an invisible sky dude killed his kid that was really himself because a talking snake got a naked lady to eat some fruit you get eternal bliss in a place no one can see after you die."

No one can answer the "where did god/everything come from?" question.   It's really the next step where you translate that answer into faith in revelation where you have the real issues to sort out.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You are putting forth an explanation for the origin of everything but when a challenge is made on logical grounds of your explanation you shrug your shoulders and say you don't know. Why should anyone believe it then?
> 
> If you don't know, then that puts us back at a timeless, thoughtless, actionless first cause. That doesn't work.



I shrug my shoulders when you want me to describe eternity more than just "outside of time". To fully describe eternity, one must be eternal. That doesn't take away the fact that one can still draw conclusions based on the concept.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> It is an object that exists within time that has no beginning and no end.



.....where time is an irrelevant measure.  If the rock is, always was, always will be, why would it matter how long it takes to get from one place to the next?




atlashunter said:


> String rejected that definition of eternal in order to escape the problem of infinite regression.



An infinite regression exists unless there is an original cause.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> A rock that exists on an infinite timescale is not an object that exists "outside of" time. It is not an object that is timeless or absent time. It is an object that exists within time that has no beginning and no end. String rejected that definition of eternal in order to escape the problem of infinite regression.



This is simply a play on words. If an object has no beginning and no end, then it doesn't exist within time, time is of no bearing on the object in question. There is no such thing as time to anything eternal.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> Maybe this should be a separate discussion but it strikes me that there is a lot of energy being spent on the wrong part of the question.   Where things came from is, absent universally recognized divine intervention, indeterminable.   String is happy with god as the answer.  To me that's just another god of the gaps, but I will confess that I doubt our limited knowledge and intellect is really sufficient to contemplate such matters.
> 
> But even if everything you say is true String, I don't see how that gets you much more than a vague deism.   Now you might say getting over the "is there a god at all" issue is the important point, but in practice I don't know how on stretches from "stuff had to come from somewhere" to "if you believe an invisible sky dude killed his kid that was really himself because a talking snake got a naked lady to eat some fruit you get eternal bliss in a place no one can see after you die."


Why do most of guys have to be disrespectful towards believers? Do any of you really expect that someone wants to have a serious discussion with another person that simplifies their entire belief system down to "if you believe an invisible sky dude killed his kid that was really himself because a talking snake got a naked lady to eat some fruit you get eternal bliss in a place no one can see after you die."



> It's really the next step where you translate that answer into faith in revelation where you have the real issues to sort out.



No doubt. I believe it can be done, certianly not sufficiently from me, but it can, and is done.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> .....where time is an irrelevant measure.  If the rock is, always was, always will be, why would it matter how long it takes to get from one place to the next?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It isn't irrelevant if you make statements about the rock which have time as a required element. A rock that exists on an infinite time scale is capable of eroding or rolling down a hill. A rock that exists without the existence of time isn't capable of the same.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> A rock that exists without the existence of time isn't capable of the same.



Is time required to roll downhill?

I think the point is not that actions require "time," but more that time is irrelevant to the actions of the timeless thing.

Time is a measure.  If your time is infinite, than the measure is irrelevant.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do most of guys have to be disrespectful towards believers? Do any of you really expect that someone wants to have a serious discussion with another person that simplifies their entire belief system down to "if you believe an invisible sky dude killed his kid that was really himself because a talking snake got a naked lady to eat some fruit you get eternal bliss in a place no one can see after you die."
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt. I believe it can be done, certianly not sufficiently from me, but it can, and is done.



I can see why you would think it disrespectful... but that is exactly what the story boils down to... It's just not glorified... which the bible would require it to be. Take the fluff and thes and thous out... and that's what you're left with... The same kind of a myth that NO ONE believes any more.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So every case of a priori knowledge is a case for special pleading?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I feel like it's the definitely of eternal that you are trying to communicate to us that Atlas is asking for. You are making it very confusing (which I believe it is)... The word  may be in scripture, but what scripture are you getting this specific understanding that you have?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is time required to roll downhill?
> 
> I think the point is not that actions require "time," but more that time is irrelevant to the actions of the timeless thing.
> 
> Time is a measure.  If your time is infinite, than the measure is irrelevant.



Maybe this is just me.... but when I try to wrap my mind around these statements, I feel like I am on the edge of a cliff... I can't quite get there... If I do, I'm going to fly off the cliff, one way or the other... 

IMO, that to me is that we are unable to get our minds off of that cliff... because our minds and our thoughts are 100% time bound. So we're spending this time trying to argue something that no one can understand???


----------



## JFS (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do most of guys have to be disrespectful towards believers?



No disrespect intended String, in fact I respect you a lot for sticking it out here, but I don't think it is fair to expect others to avoid the elephant in the room either just because it is awkward for "believers" to have their beliefs addressed directly in the light of day.   Any twitter length synopsis is necessarily going to be overbroad to some extent, but I don't think I misrepresented anything.  

If you discuss sports or politics, people can point out when you say something ridiculous.  But somehow believers expect religion to be given a free pass, at least when it is their own.  You can point out it's silly to think of gods up on a mountain, but don't be dissing the invisible sky god in heaven. Show some respect! I don't think that's accidental.  If people actually examined this stuff rationally it would collapse, so the religious try to smother objective discussions with a veil of socially enforced deference.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Infinite or not, without time thought and action cannot occur.
> 
> How about a scripture that says god existed before time?



Numerous scripture says God is eternal(the first verse of the bible indicates God was before time) Using the definition of eternal, I can conclude that God existed before time.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> No disrespect intended String, in fact I respect you a lot for sticking it out here, but I don't think it is fair to expect others to avoid the elephant in the room either just because it is awkward for "believers" to have their beliefs addressed directly in the light of day.   Any twitter length synopsis is necessarily going to be overbroad to some extent, but I don't think I misrepresented anything.
> 
> If you discuss sports or politics, people can point out when you say something ridiculous.  But somehow believers expect religion to be given a free pass, at least when it is their own.  You can point out it's silly to think of gods up on a mountain, but don't be dissing the invisible sky god in heaven. Show some respect! I don't think that's accidental.  If people actually examined this stuff rationally it would collapse, so the religious try to smother objective discussions with a veil of socially enforced deference.



I expect no free pass. The implications of theological assertions, from either side, come with it a significant need for deep discussion, but if one side reduces the other's complex belief system down to one or two misrepresnted lines, I find that to be a least somewhat disrespectful. It is dishonest in representing what you're trying to critique in the first place. If your discription that I pointed out is actually what you think about Christianity and the bible, then we need to go back to the basics of the doctrine itself, so we can all be on a level playing field of what is being discussed.



> If people actually examined this stuff rationally it would collapse, so the religious try to smother objective discussions with a veil of socially enforced deference


You really don't think that people examine the bible rationally? Ravi Zacherias, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, etc. etc., are not rational people?


----------



## JFS (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> one or two misrepresnted lines, I find that to be a least somewhat disrespectful



I do think the story is silly but honest apology if you felt disrespected.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is time required to roll downhill?
> 
> I think the point is not that actions require "time," but more that time is irrelevant to the actions of the timeless thing.
> 
> Time is a measure.  If your time is infinite, than the measure is irrelevant.



You are inserting yourself into the middle of a conversation apparently without knowing the background. The point is not whether a being with infinite time on his hands cares about the measure of time between point a and b. Completely irrelevant and off topic from my point. String wants to separate the existence of god from the existence of time. To say that god can exist not on an infinite timeline but absent the existence of any time at all. Those are two very different scenarios. Understand? My point is that there is a cost that by definition comes with no existence of time. It carries with it implications that string can't explain away.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

What exactly did JFS misrepresent? I'll never understand why people think it unreasonable that ridiculous beliefs be ridiculed.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> I do think the story is silly but honest apology if you felt disrespected.






atlashunter said:


> What exactly did JFS misrepresent?


The presentation itself was a misrepresentation of the Christian faith.


> I'll never understand why people think it unreasonable that ridiculous beliefs be ridiculed.


The Christian faith is ridiculous to you, but much more intelligent people than you or I have believed, and they didn't think it ridiculous.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> It carries with it implications that string can't explain away.


You're continuing to expect me to explain how God, who is not bound by time, really is bound by time because time still bounds God who is not bound by time.

If you continue to ask me to do this I'm going to continue to not be able to give a serviceable answer.


----------



## Four (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're continuing to expect me to explain how God, who is not bound by time, really is bound by time because time still bounds God who is not bound by time.
> 
> If you continue to ask me to do this I'm going to continue to not be able to give a serviceable answer.



You wont be able to either, because saying "outside of time" is nonsensical. Time is required for having to do anything.

velocity = mass * acceleration.

acceleration = distance / time.

without time, it all breaks down, without time, nothing can move.

When you say things like "outside of time" you're saying outside of reality.

It's like if i told you about something, and you asked what shape it is, and i told you it was a square circle.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence, you don't accept the evidence.



string, if this God is so wonderful, powerful, eternal, everlasting, loving and responsible for all of creation AND he wants his presence known so he can be worshiped there should be more examples outside of  the Bible than you can shake a stick at. If all you have is some verses in a book that was written over 1500 years by various authors, none of which are a God then sorry but YES, I do not accept THAT evidence.



stringmusic said:


> Could you be more specific in which posts I have said that I dismiss things from the scientific world?



I could be more specific but you will dismiss my examples.
(see how frustrating that gets?)




stringmusic said:


> And yes, I can be more specific, and post scripture of why I believe the bible is evidence for God, but that usually frowned upon in here.


Again If ALL that is available about this God is found only in scripture then Yes it is frowned upon.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do most of guys have to be disrespectful towards believers? Do any of you really expect that someone wants to have a serious discussion with another person that simplifies their entire belief system down to "if you believe an invisible sky dude killed his kid that was really himself because a talking snake got a naked lady to eat some fruit you get eternal bliss in a place no one can see after you die."



When you take the all the extra bells and whistles out of it, THAT is really what it boils down to.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can see why you would think it disrespectful... but that is exactly what the story boils down to... It's just not glorified... which the bible would require it to be. Take the fluff and thes and thous out... and that's what you're left with... The same kind of a myth that NO ONE believes any more.



You saying what I'm thinkin!!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> No disrespect intended String, in fact I respect you a lot for sticking it out here, but I don't think it is fair to expect others to avoid the elephant in the room either just because it is awkward for "believers" to have their beliefs addressed directly in the light of day.   Any twitter length synopsis is necessarily going to be overbroad to some extent, but I don't think I misrepresented anything.
> 
> If you discuss sports or politics, people can point out when you say something ridiculous.  But somehow believers expect religion to be given a free pass, at least when it is their own.  You can point out it's silly to think of gods up on a mountain, but don't be dissing the invisible sky god in heaven. Show some respect! I don't think that's accidental.  If people actually examined this stuff rationally it would collapse, so the religious try to smother objective discussions with a veil of socially enforced deference.



Back back back.... to the wall....it's outta here! HomeRun.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

Four said:


> You wont be able to either, because saying "outside of time" is nonsensical. Time is required for having to do anything.
> 
> velocity = mass * acceleration.
> 
> ...



You're a breath of fresh air. Good to know at least someone gets it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

Four said:


> You wont be able to either, because saying "outside of time" is nonsensical. Time is required for having to do anything.
> 
> velocity = mass * acceleration.
> 
> ...



I don't mean that God is *without* time, or that He can't exist within time as we know it, just that He isn't bound by time the way we are. 

Did time even exist before the first person recorded it?


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, if this God is so wonderful, powerful, eternal, everlasting, loving and responsible for all of creation AND he wants his presence known so he can be worshiped there should be more examples outside of  the Bible than you can shake a stick at. If all you have is some verses in a book that was written over 1500 years by various authors, none of which are a God then sorry but YES, I do not accept THAT evidence.


I didn't say that you did, or you would accept the evidence, it clear that you don't.



> I could be more specific but you will dismiss my examples.
> (see how frustrating that gets?)


You can't be more specific because your claim is untrue.



> Again If ALL that is available about this God is found only in scripture then Yes it is frowned upon.



There are other arguments that are considered evidence of God. The Willard argument is one, the question of how inanimate matter turned into animate matter is another, the fact that logic exists, the fact that natural laws exist, the fact that Jesus existed are all evidence for God.


----------



## Four (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't mean that God is *without* time, or that He can't exist within time as we know it, just that He isn't bound by time the way we are.



What's the difference? 



stringmusic said:


> Did time even exist before the first person recorded it?



In a certain sense yes, and in a certain sense no. The concept didn't exist, but certainly events happened, motion occurred, distance was traversed. Time is needed for all these things.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

Four said:


> What's the difference?



If God is looking down on a straight line(time) He sees the beginning, and the end of the line simultaneously. This doesn't mean that He is not allowed to go in between the line, but that He exists both inside the line and apart from the inside of the line.

I believe time only exists for us, because we are finite or not eternal.


----------



## Four (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If God is looking down on a straight line(time) He sees the beginning, and the end of the line simultaneously. This doesn't mean that He is not allowed to go in between the line, but that He exists both inside the line and apart from the inside of the line.
> 
> I believe time only exists for us, because we are finite or not eternal.



My previous point stands. Square circle.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Numerous scripture says God is eternal(the first verse of the bible indicates God was before time) Using the definition of eternal, I can conclude that God existed before time.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternity



> e·ter·ni·ty  (-tûrn-t)
> n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
> 1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
> 2. The state or quality of being eternal.
> ...



There is no "before time" with an eternity. That is what "without beginning" means. For that matter there is no "before time" if time had a beginning either because time is a requirement to have a "before". 

In Genesis everything god brings into existence he does so through speaking it into existence. But he couldn't have spoken time itself into existence because the event of speaking implies that time is already existing.


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. Let's try something different.

Suppose I accept your argument, and I totaly agree with everything your asserting about God being bound by time.

How then, do you get around this argument....


			
				Dr. Willard said:
			
		

> Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle's well-known four "causes." Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions. This means that for any given state, e.g. Voyager II being past Triton, all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state, or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of "efficient" causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.
> 
> Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.
> 
> If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't say that you did, or you would accept the evidence, it clear that you don't.


Exactly




stringmusic said:


> You can't be more specific because your claim is untrue.


I remember a thread where a science article was posted pertaining to other Earths(earth like planets). It was based off of the the best available evidence currently known. You and I went back and forth about it each time with you requiring me to provide more specific proof that there "other" earths were just like ours. No one said they were just like our earth, it was said that given the amount of stars(suns) and the billions upon billions of planets the orbit those suns that scientists best conclusions say that it is more likely than not that life could exist on some planets. It may be life as we know it or some form of life unlike anything we have ever heard of. You dismissed it.





stringmusic said:


> There are other arguments that are considered evidence of God. The Willard argument is one, the question of how inanimate matter turned into animate matter is another, the fact that logic exists, the fact that natural laws exist, the fact that Jesus existed are all evidence for God.



Sorry those are not evidence that a God exists let alone any ONE SPECIFIC God.

Willard makes a good point about the possibility of something else being out there, but in no way is it "evidence" of any way shape or size. All of his arguments put together can be combined to point to any one of the tens of thousands of Gods that have been claimed by mankind, it could point to aliens and it could conceivably point to Energy. Since nothing he says is concrete it is just one of a series of possible scenarios that insert a "GAP" filler. None of which point to anything specific.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok. Let's try something different.
> 
> Suppose I accept your argument, and I totaly agree with everything your asserting about God being bound by time.
> 
> How then, do you get around this argument....



It sounds to me he has made a case for time being infinite because nothing would happen or exist without something before it. It is an on going process.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

(inserting myself again).......

Is time relevant to anything which has an endless supply of it?


----------



## mtnwoman (May 22, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You're a breath of fresh air. Good to know at least someone gets it.


  I don't think he gets it at all.....I get it about science, and I can see where others can only believe in science, I just can't understand people who don't even really understand what some of us believe. 

Whether you all believe it or not, at least try to understand it and not twist things up into a knot, that's the only reason most of us stay here. We keep saying the same things over and over and correcting what you think we believe, I don't even think most of y'all can comprehend something that gets so skewed to the point of ridiculous and silly. I don't care if you think it's all fairy tales, to us it is not and it's just as silly to think that 'science' created itself so perfectly. Otherwise if it had been so simple to replicate, someone would've done it by now. Scientists have never created something out of nothing....something or someone did. It just didn't all pop into place, that to me is quite unbelievable.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> (inserting myself again).......
> 
> Is time relevant to anything which has an endless supply of it?



Nope!


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I remember a thread where a science article was posted pertaining to other Earths(earth like planets). It was based off of the the best available evidence currently known. You and I went back and forth about it each time with you requiring me to provide more specific proof that there "other" earths were just like ours. No one said they were just like our earth, it was said that given the amount of stars(suns) and the billions upon billions of planets the orbit those suns that scientists best conclusions say that it is more likely than not that life could exist on some planets. It may be life as we know it or some form of life unlike anything we have ever heard of. You dismissed it.


You're going to have to find it for me, I don't remember denying that there might be life on other planets.




> Sorry those are not evidence that a God exists let alone any ONE SPECIFIC God.


LOL, if that is not evidence, then what would you consider evidence?



> Willard makes a good point about the possibility of something else being out there, but in no way is it "evidence" of any way shape or size.


So he makes a good point by giving a logical argument for and intelligent being, but that's not evidence? Just because you don't accept the evidence, or you don't think the evidence is very good, does not mean that it is not evidence.



> All of his arguments put together can be combined to point to any one of the tens of thousands of Gods that have been claimed by mankind, it could point to aliens and it could conceivably point to Energy. Since nothing he says is concrete it is just one of a series of possible scenarios that insert a "GAP" filler. None of which point to anything specific.



Go back and read the third argument.

Which part of what he says in the article is not concrete?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're going to have to find it for me, I don't remember denying that there might be life on other planets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People make a great "ARGUMENT" or "POINT" about the mysterious BIGFOOT. It is not evidence. People SEE Bigfoot and it is not enough to be considered evidence. Making a great case for something is all good right up until the point where it takes cold hard facts to put it over the top and be beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> People make a great "ARGUMENT" or "POINT" about the mysterious BIGFOOT. It is not evidence. People SEE Bigfoot and it is not enough to be considered evidence. Making a great case for something is all good right up until the point where it takes cold hard facts to put it over the top and be beyond reasonable doubt.



Definition of evidence 

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

Based on the definition, everything I named is evidence for God.

Will you answer the questions I asked?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 23, 2013)

evidence... statements of witnesses written down in the bible would be hear say, not admissible as evidence...


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2013)

string, I'll respond to your post to me soon. Just been busy but I haven't forgotten about you.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> string, I'll respond to your post to me soon. Just been busy but I haven't forgotten about you.



Lookin' forward to it, I've enjoyed the conversation.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Definition of evidence
> 
> ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
> 2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
> ...



Not one single thing you mentioned is acceptable in a court of law.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not one single thing you mentioned is acceptable in a court of law.



Are you even going to attempt to answer the questions?


..... and, you're completely wrong. Do you think O.J.'s glove was the only acceptable evidence in his trial?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you even going to attempt to answer the questions?
> 
> 
> ..... and, you're completely wrong. Do you think O.J.'s glove was the only acceptable evidence in his trial?



I am not talking about OJ. I am talking specifically about the things you used as "evidence". None of what you used is credible evidence.

I can't answer questions to make believe. Once we establish a God exists we can certainly start narrowing down the specifics.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am not talking about OJ. I am talking specifically about the things you used as "evidence". None of what you used is credible evidence.
> 
> I can't answer questions to make believe. Once we establish a God exists we can certainly start narrowing down the specifics.



It is a subjective question, not objective.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 23, 2013)

String - you are arguing about the existence of cats with people who don't believe in cats. Cats are just small dogs in drag.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am not talking about OJ. I am talking specifically about the things you used as "evidence". None of what you used is credible evidence.


Ok, so now you're admitting that it's evidence, just that it's not credible. Thank you. That has been point all along. 



> I can't answer questions to make believe. Once we establish a God exists we can certainly start narrowing down the specifics.



I didn't ask you any questions about make believe. I asked you what would you consider evidence, and what in the article is not concrete.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> String - you are arguing about the existence of cats with people who don't believe in cats. Cats are just small dogs in drag.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

I think Dr. Craig does a decent job of answering this question about God,time, and cause and effect......

It's about the first 3-4 mins of this podcast.....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/I-Didnt-Ask-To-Be-Born


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

I came across this while doing a little reading, it's an answer to the question we are discussing....

"Genesis 1:1... Stephen Hawking has demonstrated the time-space dimension experienced in this universe is specific to this universe. If God was around to create this universe he necessarily would be outside of the time-space dimension experienced by this universe because that time-space dimension did not exist prior to the creation of the universe."


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I came across this while doing a little reading, it's an answer to the question we are discussing....
> 
> "Genesis 1:1... Stephen Hawking has demonstrated the time-space dimension experienced in this universe is specific to this universe. If God was around to create this universe he necessarily would be outside of the time-space dimension experienced by this universe because that time-space dimension did not exist prior to the creation of the universe."



I could have used that in one of my threads a while back.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I could have used that in one of my threads a while back.



Yep, it definitely goes with the topic you brought up as well.


----------

