Two Gods or One

Quote: FrGamble

But what predates energy and the Big Bang?

Quote: Nareed

Nothing that we know of. But if you find any evidence for something, I'd be glad to take it from you and show it heto someone who would develop a theory to explain it, or at least try, rather than labeling it "god" arbitrarily and lord it over others with it.

This is why I argue the "creation" is itself a nonsensical term. The observable quality is "change". That's all we can ever talk about sensibly.

Even if you witness "The Alice in Wonderland" Cheshire smiling cat popping into existence right in front of you, your only correct observation barring new information is, that space changed from empty to a Cheshire Cat. Even if you don't have an explanation that doesn't mean it was created.

Declaring a creator, is like giving up figuring something out, and just declaring it magic. And magic is never proven to be magic so far.

btw I'm differentiating the creator from human creators. Humans are just facilitating change.

Quote: rxwine

Even if you don't have an explanation that doesn't mean it was created.

This goes back to where this discussion
started in 2014. God believers erroneously
think they see a creation, so of course they
have to invent a creator to explain it. One
invention followed another, and soon you
have a full blown religion.

Because of the Prime Mover argument, FrGamble has to add a god even if the Universe currently consisted of only a grain of sand.

I don't know if that's good or bad, but just interesting.

Quote: rxwine

Declaring a creator, is like giving up figuring something out, and just declaring it magic. And magic is never proven to be magic so far..

Point well taken, and always worth repeating:

God has to be the very last answer to any
question asked, never the first answer.
Making it any answer but the last means
you've quit trying to find the real answer.

Quote: Nareed

I suppose the church can no longer deny the evidence of evolution and the fact the Earth is billions of years old, but that doesn't mean you've accepted evolution as fact. Otherwise you wouldn't be appealing to design as patently as a Young Earth Creationist would do.

If you want to believe in intellectually bankrupt ideas, that's your right.

See this kind of stupid and childish behavior is useless in our discussion. If you don't think there is amazing complexity, order, and intelligence behind the nature of life and the physical laws of the universe then make a freaking argument. If you can't than just admit it.

Quote:

You think the design of living beings shows intelligence? If Ford were to design cars as shoddily as living beings, it would be out of business within a year

You think the beings who make the cars don't show an amazing gift of intelligence, hmmm?

Quote:

It's so sad you must reduce everything to terms of religion.

It's sad you don't ask the big questions and try to come up with answers for them.

Quote:

Nothing that we know of. But if you find any evidence for something, I'd be glad to take it from you and show it to someone who would develop a theory to explain it, or at least try, rather than labeling it "god" arbitrarily and lord it over others with it.

What possible evidence could you or I or anyone find for the existence of something before any observable thing or energy existed!?! Why do you think all the answers will come through science? Can you not see or believe in anything that you cannot test or find evidence for? Have you ever heard of logic or philosophy or anything that will allow you to address the really big questions about life? Open your eyes and your mind, there is a big world out there and truths that won't be ever discovered in a laboratory.

Quote: kenarman

The second statement can just as easily, and more likely, describe energy and not an omnipotent God. Especially since we have a formulae that describes the relationship between energy and mass.

You see if you hold that energy is a material thing, which I do (as does Nareed) then it too must have a cause and is therefore not the ultimate cause of the universe. If you hold that energy itself is some kind of supernatural thing that is eternal and non-contingent then you fall into pantheism and make this energy your omnipotent god who is an impersonal force. You are then left with trying to explain the laws of the universe and how everything came into being the way it has.

Quote: rxwine

This is why I argue the "creation" is itself a nonsensical term. The observable quality is "change". That's all we can ever talk about sensibly.

Yes change is easier to talk about because it is so observable. However, to talk about change and ignore the more fundamental question as to how and why the things that change came into being is to blind ourselves from fundamental truth. This is what Evenbob often does when he says there is no creation only the illusion of creation. He is really talking about change and he is not thinking about the bigger issue such as where the things that change come from. I grant you that it is a hard question and a question that will not be solved by science. It is a metaphysical question that uses our higher forms of reasoning and logic.

Quote: Evenbob

God has to be the very last answer to any
question asked, never the first answer.
Making it any answer but the last means
you've quit trying to find the real answer.

Why do you say this? Why does God have to be the very last answer? God will always be above and beyond us but that doesn't stop us trying to find out the real answers. Science and the search to understand this world and universe we live it begins when we believe that it follows rules and is ordered and understandable. This belief held by theists is what gave birth to the scientific method and modern science.

Quote: Dalex64

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Explaination of a non-contingent universe that may or may not have already been here forever, which does not violate our current understanding of thermodynamic laws.

Something from nothing, energy and gravity springing forth without cause.

Should I add that until someone presents evidence that proves that wrong, we should choose to believe it?

Interesting link