shadeyinka:

On a hindsight I saw that you have actually answered my question in this post. So, I'm going to answer you.

Your Question:
How do you know concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics (the observables) apply beyond our observable universe?

Answer:
What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in in relation to Him.

Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetics may still be true to some extent.

While we remain on earth however except by our experience we don't have any other suitable means of getting to an understanding of what we see as Truth.

Haven answered your question, the following facts follow:
1. It is impossible to prove God using Logic, Physics, Chemistry or any other natural law for if God is the First Cause our present knowledge is insufficient to grasp Him
2. It is therefore ridiculous to disprove the existence of God with any natural means of Logic, Physics, Chemistry etc.
3. Experience is the only way to know the reality of God even though experiences may be subjective and unconvincing to those outside the experience.
4. With the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Logic and Mathematics, the best we can do (in making meaning from issues) is to project our present realities into the past or future so as to be able to make a meaning of our present realities.


All the arguments on this thread had hinged on this item 4 if we decide to ignore item 1, 2 & 3. The difference between the two divides is those with experience of God AND those with no experience.

Finally:
Using item 4 as basis:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

This would mean either
a. Causes or Effects don't exist (which by our experience is untrue)
OR
b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
Or
c. We have a conflicting Logic

An infinite regress of cause and effect is self contradictory because to take away the cause, no effect is possible or take away the effect and there is no cause. If there is no first cause there is no others.

Hence, Unless the rule is broken at least once at the beginning with a First Cause can 1 & 2 hold.

If you feel that another conclusion exist, please be my guest

On these hinged all my arguments using our present understanding of science and logic.


This is it for those who need "EVIDENCE" for a First Cause. Like I said earlier, the First Cause needn't be God. The First Cause could be a Thing or a Being. It is left for you to decide if the Uncaused First Cause is a Thing or a Being.

Denying the First Cause is rejecting the only argument that can lead to the discovery of the identity of the First Cause.
The Agnostics best argument is this to be "Based on my knowledge, I don't know if the First Cause is a Thing or a Being!"

Here, I rest my case.

shadeyinka2:

Ok Sir.
But it is difficult describing God as a Spirit to skeptics and those who deliberately reject God. However, for the sake of education, here it is

1. A Spirit is a non localized (not bound in space and time) Personality or Living Being with a non Physical body (Spirit Body). "

2. A spirit being has the characteristics of Emotion, Will and Intellect and can change things in the spirit realm and sometimes in the physical.

3. The Spirit realm is everywhere where spirit beings act and activities take place.

4. The spirit realm seems superimposed even on the Physical realm at a higher dimension.

5. There are unknown number of spirits in the universe. Examples of spirits include Angels, Demons and others

6. Even though humans are Physical beings, they have a Spirit components and the voice of their spirit is their conscience.

7. God is a Spirit.

He is the Uncaused First Cause!

He is the source of all Spirits!

He is the giver of Life and Consciousness!
He made everything seen and unseen!

shadeyinka2:

Spiritually, the universe as we know it has an end.
Rev 21:1:
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

But here, I speak not in light of this but in light of the Heat Death of the Universe.

The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze,[1] is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

kkins25:

you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.

shadeyinka:

What we know is based strictly on our observations....., it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events

1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause is impossible. This would mean either
a. Causes or effects don't exist

b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible

c. We have a conflicting logic...

kkins25:

you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.
let me elaborate, what is a spirit?
can this question actually be answered? the demon in you might be looking and laughing saying; "this shadeyinka no know anything self".
you have not seen a spirit in your life. prove me wrong.
the bible or any other religious book for that matter does not clearly define the nature of a spirit/God.

kkins25:

shade, if a spirit is not bound by time and space does that mean that God or any spirit can decide to re-live the past? can other spirits be in two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension.
if what you define up there is indeed through then my friend wouldn't it seem ridiculous; God flooding the earth when he could simply rewind time.
i remember this same brouhaha with another devil of a wordsmith muttleylaff. can you shade elaborate what it means to not be bound by space?

kkins25:

what do you understand by the concept emotion? do you know my dear shade that i can feed you the seratonin hormone and you will feel a little bit more happy? if you sniff cocaine it might make you artificially happy? huh?
do you get the point i intend to make? no? of course not! so let me tell a tale of the nervous system.
shade dear, what you call emotion is simply the effect of inbalance in hormonal secretion of the body. im sure your familiar with serotonin, dopamine amongst numerous more; are responsible for all thing you call emotions

kkins25:

how can God feel emotion when he doesn't have a body regulated by hormones? what mechanism triggers his anger/love/jealousy,etc?

kkins25:

you know, my mind has always had a mind of its own. now its telling me to ask you even though i do not intend to bother you much- that do spirits float, glide or walk in this universe of thiers? do angels have legs, or do they primarily make use of wings powered by chicken feathers suggesting angels evolved from birds probably.
does angel gabrael visit angel micheal in his home? do angels talk about 'life'? do they talk about back pains and cholera outbreak too?

kkins25:

ok.
ok.
so tell me, which is the real governor amongst the two? those the body govern the spirit or does the spirit govern the body?
what makes you say humans have a spirit? does it have a mind of its own like my mind?

kkins25:

i am a lost soul who like the devil is trying to reconcile with daddy. kindly guide me to the right path. for years my spirit and i have searched for God but google isn't giving us what i want. my spirit has been serching using the less popular bing too.

ok
couldnt there be a first cause in another dimension that God doesnt even know about
is he creating this spirits or is he diving himself into smaller fragments to sustatin life
how can God see when he doesnt have eyes?

budaatum:

I think you mean, "It is written". See how wiki calls it "conjecture", as in 'guesswork'. Neither is worth believing, except when I argue for climate change.

Its a rather huge universe, evolving everyday. Its more likely humans die off than the universe stops existing, though our ability to learn and evolve should not be discounted, and who can tell what God has in store for us and it all so far in the future?

budaatum:

By ones words is one known, and buda's are poison to the blind I find. Looking, even twice and thrice, they still do not see but make out they do.

TheArranger:

Personal experience is subjective, thus, useless


I'm guessing "a" is the only possible conclusion based on your postulates


Violates postulate 3


If this is the case, it means one (or more) of your postulates is false, but it does not tell you which one. Worse, infinite regresses are possible was not one of your postulates, so you will never be able to show that statement is false with this line of attack (proof by contradiction). It's a dead end.

This I have written simply based on my [b]subjective understanding [/b]of experiences and knowledge I've had with respect to my studies.

So, I don't have to prove nor justify anything. I can only explain if need be and if I have a little understanding of the "behind the scene"! There is no single human who understands completely the spirit realm: for we are more tuned to the Physical feather than the spiritual.

By non localized in space:
What I mean is like several Spirits can occupy the same Physical volume (without a conflict). To explain it, several demons can inhabit the same one person.

By non localized in time:
They live in the realm where our local time is meaningless (doesn't exist). Living for a 10,000 years seems long to a person who measure time by the sun but if time doesn't exist, time is irrelevant.

My understanding of emotion is more like the underlying operating system/software that runs in a living being (hardware). The chemicals such as dopamine etc are just components of the hardware of the person/personality.

There are two ways the brightness of a computer screen can be controlled

1. Through the hardware button

2. Through the Software program.Even though you can influence the brightness of the screen through these two means, ultimately it's the software that controls the picture quality, pixel color, hue, saturation at any particular screen location etc.

That is why, once the software (Soul/Spirit) leaves a body, no amount of dopamine or serotonin will cause a response from the corpse. BTW, death is simply a Disconnection between the Body and Soul/Spirit

[s]Our soul is like the living software responsible for our emotion. Dopamine or Serotonin are released into the physical body by the instruction of the soul for PHYSICAL EXPRESSION to manifest.

You'll agree that a person can be extremely angry yet look very cool. This is because a man isn't just chemicals but a Soul (Emotion, Will, Intellect)

Your body is not required for you to feel Emotion. Your Soul/Spirit is. Your body only expresses the inward Emotion outwardly.
[/s]

Angels don't need wings to move, neither do they need legs. They can appear to humans in any suitable. There true form I doubt if human knows. No one knows really much about them apart from occasional experience a person can have with them.
I assume they should be social.

A human being[b] seem[/b] to have two bodies.
1. A Physical Body
2. A Spiritual Body

These two are inter-connected with
3. A Soul

The Soul is the Governor of both the Physical and Spiritual Body.

The Soul is the center of Emotion, Intellect and Will (volition). It is also the "Self/Personal Identity" of an individual

The Body is the Physical Identity of an Individual
The Spirit is the Spiritual Identity of an Individual.
The Soul is

A person at any time t must have at least a Body.
I have given you my understanding (not necessarily the exact reality) of the spiritual.
No one fully comprehend such.

[s]Could there be another First Cause that God doesn't know about?
You'll need to see God and ask for yourself
Is God creating spirits or dividing Himself to form other spirits?
I don't have a clue! You'll need to ask Him for yourself
How can God see when he doesnt have eyes
You seem to believe that there cannot be other senses other than for sight, sound, feel etc.[/s]

[s]It's like an autonomous vehicle asking if humans have obstacle avoidance chip installed in them!?

The vehicles mimic us , not the other way round.
[/s]

TheArranger:

Logic is by and large a human concept

shadeyinka:

Answer:
What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in in relation to Him.

Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetics may still be true to some extent.

While we remain on earth however except by our experience we don't have any other suitable means of getting to an understanding of what we see as Truth.

shadeyinka:
2. It is therefore ridiculous to disprove the existence of God with any natural means of Logic, Physics, Chemistry etc.

shadeyinka:
With these sciences, the best we can do in establishing facts is to project our present realities into the past or future

shadeyinka:
Every effect has a cause

shadeyinka:

You decided to give him a cryptic paragraph to chew!
LOL

budaatum:

So that looking he may not perceive, and hearing he may not understand, lest at any time he should be converted and his sins be forgiven.

orisa37:
God forgive 0temSapien for he doesn't know what he's doing.

shadeyinka:

The theory ( I think) was arrived at from looking at the stars and concluding that every star would die at a point, become a black hole...and maximum entropy would occur much later.

God sustains the universe in any case. Despite the theories, the universe will not cease to exist. It could be recreated but most likely not totally dissipate away

XxSabrinaxX:
Allow me to come in here for a brief moment:

Cc. Shadeyinka

shadeyinka:

There exist no reason to justify anything. You asked questions. I have answered you. I didn't ask for you views or your interpretation of what I have said.

If you still have problems. Go and sleep.

Thanks

0temSapien:
God doesn't get offended not to talk of forgiving. God is not human beings, but the totality of existence is God. So how can the totality of existence get angry or pick offence over an insignificant subset of it.

orisa37:




The same God said, "If any part of you makes you sin, pluck it out of your Totality"
So I am begging God, The Totality of existence, not to plug you, out of the Totality.

Ihedinobi3:

Having said that, if you can bear it, I would caution you about budaatum. He/she is not one of us. But do as you please in this matter.

XxSabrinaxX:
Allow me to come in here for a brief moment:

Cc. Shadeyinka

TheArranger, Logic doesn't actually need a physical universe for its rules to apply since it is, in fact, an abstract construct. All that it needs is the existence of propositions with truth-values, and these are abstract entities.

As for the application of entropy and thermodynamics beyond the observable universe (this should interest you, shadeyinka), this, again is an active research topic in the field of cosmological physics, and as a corollary, the details thereof are questions remaining to be answered by said research. As an example of the sort of research being conducted, I point to you to this paper, which covers the analysis of thermodynamics in a particular braneworld setup, and this paper, which covers a more general examination of the operation of thermodynamic laws in braneworld physical setups. Now, shadeyinka if you can understand the content of those papers, you're doing pretty well, because those papers are describing cutting edge cosmological physics research, which takes us well into the realm of branches of mathematics that are understood by, at best, less than 1% of the population. Tell me, shadeyinka, can you handle the Ricci calculus in 26 dimensions? No? Neither can most of the posters here. Which is why we leave the requisite questions to those who can, and rely upon their expertise to answer them.

XxSabrinaxX:

That's true, but we can also infer upon the god hypothesis, what we understand of human nature.

Do humans make up myths in order to control behavior? Yes! (I.e. Santa with kids)

Do humans make up mythical deities to explain certain phenomena? Yes! (The Greek and roman gods, in regards to natural phenomena, such as thunder, earthquakes and so fourth.

Do humans tell lies in order to gain advantages? Yes!

Is it in our nature, our very biological make up, to do whatever necessary to gain resources and climb hierarchical structures? A resounding yes!

XxSabrinaxX:

Now add to that... is there any causal link that is not explained by natural laws? So far, none! Not even close.

Is there any objective evidence of the supernatural? No.



This isn't rocket science...


It's perfectly proper to reject assertions about such an entity, when those assertions are associated with consequences that are ridiculous in the light of scientific knowledge, or involve logical contradictions.

XxSabrinaxX:

Furthermore, there are other elementary principles at work here. The first being that assertions do not equal fact, and attempting to present them as such is a violation of the proper rules of discourse. The second being that any entity about which we only have assertions and no data, can be safely disregarded, because such entities are indistinguishable from non-existent entities. Another issue centres upon the fact, that most of the assertions presented about a purported god-type entity, arise from mythologies, and adherence thereto on the part of supernaturalists, and mythologies are notoriously unreliable. The unreliability of mythologies arises from the presence therein of assertions that are untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, and the presence therein of assertions about the universe and its operation that are not merely plain, flat, wrong in the light of scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. As a corollary of those two fatal features of mythologies, their provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is pretty much worthless.

Of course, a non-mythological candidate for the "god role", one that operates in accordance with known physics, or provides consistent and comprehensible extensions to known physics, will be rejected outright by supernaturalists, because such a candidate won't provide them with the infantile comforts they seek. Not least, because the concerns of any non-mythological god-type entity of this sort, will almost certainly have no connection at all to the concerns of the fatuous mythological gods. A god consonant with modern scientific knowledge, will almost certainly have concerns more akin to that of an experimental cosmologist, than the assorted narcissists and celestial dictators contained in human mythologies, and for that reason alone will provide supernaturalists with no satisfaction whatsoever. Instead, supernaturalists want a god that embodies their own inner, and frequently, darkest, desires - a god that subjects the favourite hate targets of the supernaturalists in question to eternal sadistic torture, and preens the egos of the supernaturalists in question. Right wing evangelicals in the US Bible Belt are merely the most floridly pathological in this regard, who want their god to be a cosmic Donald Trump.

Finally, another elementary principle at work here, pretty much tosses all the mythological candidates into the bin for another reason. Namely, that when scientists establish that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for and explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including classes that the authors of mythologies knew nothing about, were incapable of even fantasising about, but which scientists have placed within usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The few, increasingly vanishingly small gaps remaining that are the subject of active research, offer no hope of a reversal of precedent, and appeal thereto is futile.

Moving on ...

XxSabrinaxX:

And with that statement, you've just demonstrated your wholesale ignorance of scientific knowledge. I'll just let you have fun seeing how it's done properly in another post

Moving on again ...


You appear to be unaware that quantum mechanics has pretty much destroyed classical causation. Indeed, said destruction of classical causation, is one of the reasons a particle physicist's job is sometimes extremely hard. See, for example, the hunt for the Higgs Boson.

XxSabrinaxX:

Plus, the whole "first cause" garbage presumes in advance, the existence of an entity that violates the initial premise of the argument. That you appear not to understand this elementary concept, speaks volumes at this juncture. Even elementary students of philosophy understand this. Far from being a "proof" of an imaginary magic man, it's an exercise in "black is white" rhetorical gymnastics, and has nothing to do with any proper, rigorous application of the principles of logic. Though I don't find myself in the least surprised to see this sort of nonsense emanating from pedlars of apologetics, most of whom would not recognise rigour if it backed an M! Abrams main battle tank into their ribcages.

Indeed you should rest your case. You have NO idea what you're talking about! If you want to understand the epistemological limits of our understanding of the origins of the universe, go to a scientific website that deals with those topics.

Pretending an "I don't know" answer from atheists is some sort of validation for your unevidenced superstitious beliefs is fallacious, and dishonest.

You need to watch this video/

RELIGION MADE ME TALK LIKE AN IDIOT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr0O9aHW38&t=132s

Ihedinobi3:

About your second paragraph, you are right that the universe will not cease to exist, at least not indefinitely. But at the end of the Lord Jesus's Millennial reign, He will destroy the universe.

[7]But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[10]But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
[11]Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
[12]looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
[13]But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:7,10-13 NASB

[11]Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
[1]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Revelation 20:11, 21:1 NASB

So, the universe will be destroyed. But it will be resurrected, just like we too will be. Re-creation is not a bad word to use to describe it, but it may be better to say Resurrection because the former word applies more to what God did in Genesis 1:3-31, and the latter word is more in tune with what the Lord does at the end of time: assigning eternal status to all things that had previously been temporal.

Having said that, if you can bear it, I would caution you about budaatum. He/she is not one of us. But do as you please in this matter.

shadeyinka:

Your bias is making you blind.

I have given all the possible solutions to the postulates.

POSTULATES:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

0temSapien:
God Almighty has never and will never make such statement. That impostor most be Jehovah or any of his ilks. Those guys are slowpoke aswear To even burst your bubble, anything in existence cannot fail to exist anymore. They only change form. That's the law of preservation of energy.

TheArranger:

I think it is you who is letting bias cloud your judgement. You have formed a contradiction with those postulations. As I said, that means one (or more) of the postulates is false. But any of those 3 being false seems fatal to your whole arguments because you've been insisting they are true. It appears you have shot both of your legs off and have nothing to stand on.

I'm guessing postulate 3 should have read: An infinite regress of cause and effect is possible. That way, when (or if) you reach a contradiction, it would be tempting to go back and claim that the new postulate 3 must be false thereby reaching the conclusion i think you want to reach: the impossibility of infinite regress.

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

There are other ways to resolve your "contradiction" too, namely the possibility of postulates 1 & 2 being false

kkins25:
you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.

kkins25:
let me elaborate, what is a spirit?
can this question actually be answered? the demon in you might be looking and laughing saying; "this shadeyinka no know anything self".
you have not seen a spirit in your life. prove me wrong.
the bible or any other religious book for that matter does not clearly define the nature of a spirit/God.

kkins25:
shade, if a spirit is not bound by time and space does that mean that God...

kkins25:
or any spirit can decide to re-live the past? can other spirits be in two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension.

kkins25:
if what you define up there is indeed through then my friend wouldn't it seem ridiculous; God flooding the earth when he could simply rewind time.

kkins25:
i remember this same brouhaha with another devil of a wordsmith muttleylaff. can you shade elaborate what it means to not be bound by space?

kkins25:
what do you understand by the concept emotion? do you know my dear shade that i can feed you the seratonin hormone and you will feel a little bit more happy? if you sniff cocaine it might make you artificially happy? huh?
do you get the point i intend to make? no? of course not! so let me tell a tale of the nervous system.
shade dear, what you call emotion is simply the effect of inbalance in hormonal secretion of the body. im sure your familiar with serotonin, dopamine amongst numerous more; are responsible for all thing you call emotions

how can God feel emotion when he doesn't have a body regulated by hormones? what mechanism triggers his anger/love/jealousy,etc?

kkins25:
you know, my mind has always had a mind of its own. now its telling me to ask you even though i do not intend to bother you much- that do spirits float, glide or walk in this universe of thiers? do angels have legs, or do they primarily make use of wings powered by chicken feathers suggesting angels evolved from birds probably.
does angel gabrael visit angel micheal in his home? do angels talk about 'life'? do they talk about back pains and cholera outbreak too?

kkins25:
so tell me, which is the real governor amongst the two? those the body govern the spirit or does the spirit govern the body?
what makes you say humans have a spirit? does it have a mind of its own like my mind?

kkins25:
i am a lost soul who like the devil is trying to reconcile with daddy. kindly guide me to the right path. for years my spirit and i have searched for God but google isn't giving us what i want. my spirit has been serching using the less popular bing too.

kkins25:
couldnt there be a first cause in another dimension that God doesnt even know about
is he creating this spirits or is he diving himself into smaller fragments to sustatin life

kkins25:
how can God see when he doesnt have eyes?