IamMichael:
As the name suggests, this thread is my own simple way of trying to help religious people be free of their mental bondage that has been compounded over years.
These group of Indoctrinated Religious adherents include but not limited to:
Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Juduiasm, Traditionalists, etc


Still going further,

Isn't your atheism a form of indoctrination: to believe that nothing created everything?

shadeyinka:

Isn't your atheism a form of indoctrination:

I'm not an atheist.

to believe that nothing created everything?

Atheism doesn't mean belief that nothing created everything.
Atheism simply means non-belief that religious god's exist!!!
To an atheist, believing that Yahweh or Allah or Jesus exists is equivalent to believing that Santa Claus and Superman are real.

IamMichael:

I'm not an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean belief that nothing created everything.
Atheism simply means non-belief that religious god's exist!!!
To an atheist, believing that Yahweh or Allah or Jesus exists is equivalent to believing that Santa Claus and Superman are real.

Good that you aren't one.

I know how atheists will like to define atheism. Purely as a DISBELIEF in the existence of any God/God/Spirits.

The implication is what I am talking about: NOTHING CREATED EVERYTHING!

Or how do you answer the question of the origin of the Universe without involving extraterrestrial beings?

And by the way, the teachings of every form of organized knowledge is INDOCTRINATION

shadeyinka:

Good that you aren't one.

I know how atheists will like to define atheism. Purely as a DISBELIEF in the existence of any God/God/Spirits.

Alright.

The implication is what I am talking about: NOTHING CREATED EVERYTHING!

Or how do you answer the question of the origin of the Universe without involving extraterrestrial beings?

Everyone is free to form their own opinion/theory of how they think/believe the universe came to be.
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.
In otherwords, if you are saying your village Iroko tree created the whole world, you must be able to answer questions relating to how, when, where, etc of the said creation assertion of your village Iroko tree.

And by the way, the teachings of every form of organized knowledge is INDOCTRINATION

Not every organized knowledge is indoctrination. Some organized knowledge is meant to give you basic understanding of things as well as help make things easier to understand.
E.g Maps, Technical Education, University Education, Physics, Chemistry, Laws, Biology, etc.
In this sense, you cannot say it is indoctrination.



Experience is relative.

IamMichael:

Alright.

Everyone is free to form their own opinion/theory of how they think/believe the universe came to be.
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.
In otherwords, if you are saying your village Iroko tree created the whole world, you must be able to answer questions relating to how, when, where, etc of the said creation assertion of your village Iroko tree.


Not every organized knowledge is indoctrination. Some organized knowledge is meant to give you basic understanding of things as well as help make things easier to understand.
E.g Maps, Technical Education, University Education, Physics, Chemistry, Laws, Biology, etc.
In this sense, you cannot say it is indoctrination.



Experience is relative.

The Universe has been scientifically shown to have a beginning just as every religious teaching that speaks of the origin of the universe.

The fundermental question then is HOW did the material universe come into existence.
The religious people say the Universe was created BY non material beings
The scientific atheists say the Universe came out of nothing.
The non scientific atheist either blindly support the scientific atheists or pretend not to care.

Now you say:
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?

shadeyinka:

The Universe has been scientifically shown to have a beginning just as every religious teaching that speaks of the origin of the universe.

The fundermental question then is HOW did the material universe come into existence.
The religious people say the Universe was created BY non material beings
The scientific atheists say the Universe came out of nothing.
The non scientific atheist either blindly support the scientific atheists or pretend not to care.

Now you say:
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?

Unfortunately, Atheists are not given to Deductive reasoning.

Your last question especially exposes their flawed reasoning processes.

Jeromejnr:


Unfortunately, Atheists are not given to Deductive reasoning.

Your last question especially exposes their flawed reasoning processes.

Thank you my bro!
They are bent on using a ruler to measure the mass of an electron: and they call this their EVIDENCE!

I couldn't reply yesterday cuz I was banned while trying to quote this post. All efforts to get the mods to unban me proved abortive apparently.

shadeyinka:

The Universe has been scientifically shown to have a beginning just as every religious teaching that speaks of the origin of the universe.

The fundermental question then is HOW did the material universe come into existence.
The religious people say the Universe was created BY non material beings
The scientific atheists say the Universe came out of nothing.
The non scientific atheist either blindly support the scientific atheists or pretend not to care.

Now you say:
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?

I have always known where you are going... But, i will still sincerely indulge in the discuss.
As to your questions, see the below:

"It is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts..."

IamMichael:

I couldn't reply yesterday cuz I was banned while trying to quote this post. All efforts to get the mods to unban me proved abortive apparently.

Sorry for the ban. Nairalands spam bots misbehave at times.

IamMichael:

I have always known where you are going... But, i will still sincerely indulge in the discuss.
As to your questions, see the below:

Your quote below:

I have always known where you are going... But, i will still sincerely indulge in the discuss.
As to your questions, see the below:

"It is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts..."

In summary is saying (if I understand you well) : that science does NOT yet have an answer to the question of the origin of the Universe BUT work is still ongoing to unravel the mystery behind the universe.

Unfortunately, science isn't atheism!
It may be reasonable as a scientist to take such a position BUT it is illogical for an atheist to take such position.

WHY?!!
Atheism comes from a gnostic position (the universe doesn't have an extraterrestrial source)
Theism also comes from a gnostic position (the universe has an extraterrestrial source)
Science has NO position except that arrived at from physical evidence (which for now doesn't exist)

Now except you disagree, let me answer the question for you.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
NO!
It doesn't exist

2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
No!
Scientifically or logically impossible!

3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?
No!
There must be a suitable instrument for any particular subject. It's impossible to use for instance an instrument for measuring mass to measure light wavelengths

Do you have an objection to these three questions and answers?

But the answers betray the basic flaws and claims of atheism

shadeyinka:

Sorry for the ban. Nairalands spam bots misbehave at times.

Thanks.

In summary is saying (if I understand you well) : that science does NOT yet have an answer to the question of the origin of the Universe BUT work is still ongoing to unravel the mystery behind the universe.

@bolded, semantics bro, semantics.
Science does not have ALL the answers yet.
But surely, science do have some of the answers about our universe.
I mean if not for science and technology, people will still be pointing to the sky and calling it heaven when we all know what is the above the sky is space and other planetary bodies.

Unfortunately, science isn't atheism!
It may be reasonable as a scientist to take such a position BUT it is illogical for an atheist to take such position.

What position is illogical for an atheist to take?

Atheism comes from a gnostic position (the universe doesn't have an extraterrestrial source)
Theism also comes from a gnostic position (the universe has an extraterrestrial source)
Science has NO position except that arrived at from physical evidence (which for now doesn't exist)

Now except you disagree, let me answer the question for you.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
NO!
It doesn't exist.

Are you a christian?

2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
No!
Scientifically or logically impossible!

Why is it scientifically and logically impossible?

I ask this because the universe is a physical place, and the non-physical things within our environment we have derived instruments to see/observe them. (Microscope, Telescope... Also check the Hubble Telescope or the Telescope centre in China.)
Do you know about all the probes into our universe that has been going in the scientific community? (Please research on outer space probes from NASA, China, Russia, Elon Musk, etc.
A blackhole was recently observed in the science community, one of the wonder's of the 21st century when you count how far away in light years it was.
How do you think scientists have been getting information about the universe?

3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?
No!
There must be a suitable instrument for any particular subject. It's impossible to use for instance an instrument for measuring mass to measure light wavelengths

This is correct.
Also, that one cannot get conclusive indication also means that the right instrument for the task have not been discovered/built yet.

Do you have an objection to these three questions and answers?
But the answers betray the basic flaws and claims of atheism

I have raised my objections.

IamMichael:

Thanks.



@bolded, semantics bro, semantics.
Science does not have ALL the answers yet.
But surely, science do have some of the answers about our universe.
I mean if not for science and technology, people will still be pointing to the sky and calling it heaven when we all know what is the above the sky is space and other planetary bodies.

Heaven isn't space. It's not even a location in space. People point to the sky because it's that which surrounds and is beyond us.
The Creator gave us the power and intellect to master the universe and make the elements serve our purpose. Don't forget that science cannot create matter and life but science can deconstruct and reconstruct with what is already existing.

IamMichael:

What position is illogical for an atheist to take?

The definition of atheism by atheists make it impossible for them to take any other position except their choice of gnosticism.

IamMichael:

Are you a christian?

Of course, I am.

IamMichael:

Why is it scientifically and logically impossible?

I ask this because the universe is a physical place, and the non-physical things within our environment we have derived instruments to see/observe them. (Microscope, Telescope... Also check the Hubble Telescope or the Telescope centre in China.)
Do you know about all the probes into our universe that has been going in the scientific community? (Please research on outer space probes from NASA, China, Russia, Elon Musk, etc.
A blackhole was recently observed in the science community, one of the wonder's of the 21st century when you count how far away in light years it was.
How do you think scientists have been getting information about the universe?

Science has shown us enough evidence to show that
1. the universe has a beginning
2. the universe started as a singleton/singularity.
3. Every known physical laws has its origin AFTER the expansion of the universe

Therefore another sets of laws other than the known laws set in motion the expansion of the universe
Using laws that has an origin well after the initiation of the expansion of the universe to unravel the laws that created it is logically impossible.

IamMichael:

This is correct.
Also, that one cannot get conclusive indication also means that the right instrument for the task have not been discovered/built yet.

I have raised my objections.

Have you thought about the impossibility of using a wrong tool (present laws of nature) to unravel the laws which created this new nature?

Eg.
How would you use gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear , gravitational forces etc to unravel the forces that created these same forces? Do you think it is possible?

How do you define "Indoctrination"?

shadeyinka:

Heaven isn't space. It's not even a location in space. People point to the sky because it's that which surrounds and is beyond us.
The Creator gave us the power and intellect to master the universe and make the elements serve our purpose. Don't forget that science cannot create matter and life but science can deconstruct and reconstruct with what is already existing.

@bolded, really? Because I clearly remember the bible referring to it as heavenly bodies.
You could say what you opined in the bolded now because science and technology has made it possible for you to know... Those that wrote the Bible couldn't have known this because they lacked the knowledge, ability and capacity to know that a lot of solar systems lie just above the earth.
I mean, if they saw a meteorite hurtling down to earth like we do observe now, they will find one superstition or the other to explain it off.
So, respectfully, the bible nor any other religious book never understood the power of intellect nor the ability to make the elements serve our purpose.
If the bible did understand intellect, it wouldn't say that donkeys speak human or that horses fly or that a person can stay three day's in the belly of a fish or that the earth is 5000yrs old or that the earth is the centre of the universe or that a certain prophet raised their hand and the sun stood still. This is only things Ignorant superstitious people tell from generation to generation in folktales to pass time...
Surely, if God as you said gave us the power and intellect to master the elements to serve our purpose, the bible is supposed to be filled with such stories of people doing exactly as their lord commanded them.
The stories of Jesus for example, would have been stories of Inventions and discoveries not impossible thing's like performing miracles, raising the dead and walking on sea... It's like the popular Pastor Chris Oyakilome and T.B Joshua fake miracle parading TV shows which they pass off to their gullible followers as real...

The definition of atheism by atheists make it impossible for them to take any other position except their choice of gnosticism.

No, their definition of atheism makes it possible for them not to take any religion seriously. Seems like you're probably not understanding what atheism is.
Church of Satan for instance is an atheist way of mocking the catholic church and their idolatrous worship. All church of Satan exists to do is to mock and nothing more because atheists do not believe in religious god's and demons and angels and what have you.
But, ignorant people go about thinking it is actually the church of Satan where Satan is worshipped because in their respective religions, Satan is a central figure, their God's arch-enemy.

Of course, I am.

Just had to confirm. I already knew!!!

Science has shown us enough evidence to show that
1. the universe has a beginning
2. the universe started as a singleton/singularity.
3. Every known physical laws has its origin AFTER the expansion of the universe

What science has so far shown is a likely proposition that the universe as we know it today likely started out in a bang, and that the universe has continued to expand.
Every other thing is simply deduction and induction seeing as science doesn't know when exactly or where exactly or how exactly the universe started.
Science chose the big bang theory because it is the likeliest possibility using simulations as our brains can conceptualise in this very moment.
Some theories have been proved to be wrong over time, while others have been modified or repealed entirely.

Therefore another sets of laws other than the known laws set in motion the expansion of the universe
Using laws that has an origin well after the initiation of the expansion of the universe to unravel the laws that created it is logically impossible.

I honestly don't understand this. Care to explain more?

Have you thought about the impossibility of using a wrong tool (present laws of nature) to unravel the laws which created this new nature?
Eg.
How would you use gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear , gravitational forces etc to unravel the forces that created these same forces? Do you think it is possible?

I am a lawyer.
Let me tell you something about Laws since it's my area of speciality.
The Criminal Code Laws of the various States in Nigeria has offences which when you commit them, you have breached the peace and are liable to be prosecuted for it when caught.
E.g a section of the law may state that if you steal, upon conviction, you will be sentenced to 27yrs imprisonment depending on if it was armed robbery or just theft( stealing with no arms of any kind). Now, that's the law.
In this instance, what the law envisages are likely outcomes to follow once you do something ( commit a crime). The law doesn't know how you are going to orchestrate/execute your plan, but it knows that once caught, the punishment is certain no matter how the act was done.

Now, to relate it to your questions, I will tell you also that yes, it is logically possible to use the law's of gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces to unravel the law's that govern them. In fact, it is the only way of unraveling them.
It is by understanding this law's of gravity for instance that aircrafts, space orbitals and space station have been created and sent outside of our own gravitational forces on earth.
How else are you going to unravel something if not by understanding how it works?

The law's of nature are static per se. 2 Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water.
As with the criminal code law example i gave, the law's of nature are such that if the right elements are in place, it will always give you the same outcome.
This is why instead of relying on chance, Law's of physics, Biological and Chemical Law's exist. Which is why a crackhead can cook meth so long as they follow the meth cooking procedure laid down for it.
So in conclusion, there is no way to unravel this law's you are referring to without using their own governing Law's because this law's governing them are the sum total of the phenomenon in description itself.

Maximus69:
How do you define "Indoctrination"?

To me, indoctrination means teaching people things, especially belief's without allowing what you are teaching them to be questioned or critically analysed.
In other words, even if what you are teaching is wrong, they should swallow it without questioning the truthfulness or otherwise of the teaching itself.

IamMichael:

To me, indoctrination means teaching people things, especially belief's without allowing what you are teaching them to be questioned or critically analysed.
In other words, even if what you are teaching is wrong, they should swallow it without questioning the truthfulness or otherwise of the teaching itself.

So how do you distinguish between well meaning, purposeful and benefitial teaching from indoctrination?

Heaven isn't space. It's not even a location in space. People point to the sky because it's that which surrounds and is beyond us.

IamMichael:

@bolded, really? Because I clearly remember the bible referring to it as heavenly bodies.
You could say what you opined in the bolded now because science and technology has made it possible for you to know... Those that wrote the Bible couldn't have known this because they lacked the knowledge, ability and capacity to know that a lot of solar systems lie just above the earth.
I mean, if they saw a meteorite hurtling down to earth like we do observe now, they will find one superstition or the other to explain it off.
So, respectfully, the bible nor any other religious book never understood the power of intellect nor the ability to make the elements serve our purpose.
If the bible did understand intellect, it wouldn't say that donkeys speak human or that horses fly or that a person can stay three day's in the belly of a fish or that the earth is 5000yrs old or that the earth is the centre of the universe or that a certain prophet raised their hand and the sun stood still. This is only things Ignorant superstitious people tell from generation to generation in folktales to pass time...
Surely, if God as you said gave us the power and intellect to master the elements to serve our purpose, the bible is supposed to be filled with such stories of people doing exactly as their lord commanded them.
The stories of Jesus for example, would have been stories of Inventions and discoveries not impossible thing's like performing miracles, raising the dead and walking on sea... It's like the popular Pastor Chris Oyakilome and T.B Joshua fake miracle parading TV shows which they pass off to their gullible followers as real...

I think you forget that sometimes a single word can have more than one meaning.
Heaven=Spiritual Abode of God
Heaven=Sky
Heaven=Space
I am not sure where the bible describes heaven as "Heavenly Bodies" (Not sure it exists like that)
You claim I now know because "science and technology has made it possible for you to know". That may not be correct. Of cause Science helps me to sometimes comprehend spiritual truths and there is no crime in that because spirituality isnt opposed to scientific knowledge . For instance the concept of trinity can be understood in physical terms when you consider the scientific phenomenon of "wave-particle duality of matter"!

The natural laws are not desinged to be broken at will and it rarely happens BUT when natural laws are suspended, it is called MIRACLE! In other words, if Donkeys speak, A man survives 3 days in the belly of a fish etc it is not normal but if it happens, it just simply means something out of the ordinary happend. The fact that the Sun stood still is a figurative expression for the observation of the writer (the time seem to freeze) which was a true statement of what happened expressed as the sun stood still.

The bible never said that the earth is 6000 years old. What the bible said was that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The beginning is the beginning of Time (you will observe that there was no where God created the Waters: It was already present before God separated the water from the land). Some Bible scholars believe that the account of creation in Genesis was actually a RE-CREATION/RE-POPULATION of the earth. So, it is completely wrong to say the earth is 6000 years old.

IamMichael:

No, their definition of atheism makes it possible for them not to take any religion seriously. Seems like you're probably not understanding what atheism is.
Church of Satan for instance is an atheist way of mocking the catholic church and their idolatrous worship. All church of Satan exists to do is to mock and nothing more because atheists do not believe in religious god's and demons and angels and what have you.
But, ignorant people go about thinking it is actually the church of Satan where Satan is worshipped because in their respective religions, Satan is a central figure, their God's arch-enemy.

The definition of Atheism is a GNOSTIC position. Atheists are too sure without any appropriate evidence that the spirit realm and God does not exist. If atheists affirm that God doesnt exist but berate thesists of having no eviddence, you may want to ask, what appropriate evidence do they have. The scientist takes no definite stance until it is backed up by scientific data which can be brought into the laboratory and repeated at will.

Please dont forget that there are "spiritual atheists"; their stance is a DEFIANCE of God and a dare for Him to do His worst.

IamMichael:

Just had to confirm. I already knew!!!

OK

IamMichael:

What science has so far shown is a likely proposition that the universe as we know it today likely started out in a bang, and that the universe has continued to expand.
Every other thing is simply deduction and induction seeing as science doesn't know when exactly or where exactly or how exactly the universe started.
Science chose the big bang theory because it is the likeliest possibility using simulations as our brains can conceptualise in this very moment.
Some theories have been proved to be wrong over time, while others have been modified or repealed entirely.

In other words, even science do not have a fool-proof answer for many things AND even when science has a position on a subject, the possition could be very wrong.
Is the earth the center of the universe? The truth is that no one knows! But is earth the most unique planet in the whole of the known universe? Probably YES! Why?
What is the probability that another planet like the earth could exist in the universe? Its in the realm of an impossibility! Even when you have a planet with identical elements and chemical compounds like the earth, can the same events that led to the creation of life occur on that planet?

Unfortunatly, some people have made science their "god": as far as they are concerned, science is infallible!

IamMichael:

I honestly don't understand this. Care to explain more?

Therefore another sets of laws other than the known laws set in motion the expansion of the universe

At time t=0 (point when the universe began to suddenly inflate/expand), non of the physical laws like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear etc exist. Something/Someforce must have been responsible for the change of state of the universe. That force isn't any of the known laws operational in the present universe.

This is the place where theists place God as the "Uncreated Change-Maker"!

It is impossible for science to go back in time beyond time t=0!

IamMichael:

I am a lawyer.
Let me tell you something about Laws since it's my area of speciality.
The Criminal Code Laws of the various States in Nigeria has offences which when you commit them, you have breached the peace and are liable to be prosecuted for it when caught.
E.g a section of the law may state that if you steal, upon conviction, you will be sentenced to 27yrs imprisonment depending on if it was armed robbery or just theft( stealing with no arms of any kind). Now, that's the law.
In this instance, what the law envisages are likely outcomes to follow once you do something ( commit a crime). The law doesn't know how you are going to orchestrate/execute your plan, but it knows that once caught, the punishment is certain no matter how the act was done.

Now, to relate it to your questions, I will tell you also that yes, it is logically possible to use the law's of gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces to unravel the law's that govern them. In fact, it is the only way of unraveling them.
It is by understanding this law's of gravity for instance that aircrafts, space orbitals and space station have been created and sent outside of our own gravitational forces on earth.
How else are you going to unravel something if not by understanding how it works?

The law's of nature are static per se. 2 Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water.
As with the criminal code law example i gave, the law's of nature are such that if the right elements are in place, it will always give you the same outcome.
This is why instead of relying on chance, Law's of physics, Biological and Chemical Law's exist. Which is why a crackhead can cook meth so long as they follow the meth cooking procedure laid down for it.
So in conclusion, there is no way to unravel this law's you are referring to without using their own governing Law's because this law's governing them are the sum total of the phenomenon in description itself.

Unfortunately the definition of LAWS in science differ from man made laws. In scientific laws matter operate/behave as if they follow a rule/law unlike humans who are compelled to obey a set of rules and consequences set as a deterrent to law breakers. In other words matter behave and exhibit certain measurable properties by default. When those default behaviour are unraveled, scientists call them LAWS. Hence, your proposition/postulate in bold is NOT correct.

Now scientifically, all laws are inherent properties of Energy and Matter. To be able to unravel the force behind the creation of the laws, you have to look at the laws behind the creation of Energy and Matter. Hence you are locked in a dilemma of "which came first: the chicken or the Egg!"
In other words, from Energy/Matter emanates the Physical Laws. Without Energy/Matter, no known physical law will exist. Do you think it is then possible to use the laws in existence to unravel the LAW that produced Energy/matter?

An argument could have been that Energy and Matter had always existed! Unfortunately the INFLATION theory/Big bang theory does not agree with it because it can be shown clearly that the universe has an ORIGIN. Even if they had existed as a Singleton, what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?

shadeyinka:



I think you forget that sometimes a single word can have more than one meaning.
Heaven=Spiritual Abode of God
Heaven=Sky
Heaven=Space
I am not sure where the bible describes heaven as "Heavenly Bodies" (Not sure it exists like that)
You claim I now know because "science and technology has made it possible for you to know". That may not be correct. Of cause Science helps me to sometimes comprehend spiritual truths and there is no crime in that because spirituality isnt opposed to scientific knowledge . For instance the concept of trinity can be understood in physical terms when you consider the scientific phenomenon of "wave-particle duality of matter"!

The natural laws are not desinged to be broken at will and it rarely happens BUT when natural laws are suspended, it is called MIRACLE! In other words, if Donkeys speak, A man survives 3 days in the belly of a fish etc it is not normal but if it happens, it just simply means something out of the ordinary happend. The fact that the Sun stood still is a figurative expression for the observation of the writer (the time seem to freeze) which was a true statement of what happened expressed as the sun stood still.

The bible never said that the earth is 6000 years old. What the bible said was that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The beginning is the beginning of Time (you will observe that there was no where God created the Waters: It was already present before God separated the water from the land). Some Bible scholars believe that the account of creation in Genesis was actually a RE-CREATION/RE-POPULATION of the earth. So, it is completely wrong to say the earth is 6000 years old.



The definition of Atheism is a GNOSTIC position. Atheists are too sure without any appropriate evidence that the spirit realm and God does not exist. If atheists affirm that God doesnt exist but berate thesists of having no eviddence, you may want to ask, what appropriate evidence do they have. The scientist takes no definite stance until it is backed up by scientific data which can be brought into the laboratory and repeated at will.

Please dont forget that there are "spiritual atheists"; their stance is a DEFIANCE of God and a dare for Him to do His worst.


OK


In other words, even science do not have a fool-proof answer for many things AND even when science has a position on a subject, the possition could be very wrong.
Is the earth the center of the universe? The truth is that no one knows! But is earth the most unique planet in the whole of the known universe? Probably YES! Why?
What is the probability that another planet like the earth could exist in the universe? Its in the realm of an impossibility! Even when you have a planet with identical elements and chemical compounds like the earth, can the same events that led to the creation of life occur on that planet?

Unfortunatly, some people have made science their "god": as far as they are concerned, science is infallible!



At time t=0 (point when the universe began to suddenly inflate/expand), non of the physical laws like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear etc exist. Something/Someforce must have been responsible for the change of state of the universe. That force isn't any of the known laws operational in the present universe.

This is the place where theists place God as the "Uncreated Change-Maker"!

It is impossible for science to go back in time beyond time t=0!


Unfortunately the definition of LAWS in science differ from man made laws. In scientific laws matter operate/behave as if they follow a rule/law unlike humans who are compelled to obey a set of rules and consequences set as a deterrent to law breakers. In other words matter behave and exhibit certain measurable properties by default. When those default behaviour are unraveled, scientists call them LAWS. Hence, your proposition/postulate in bold is NOT correct.

Now scientifically, all laws are inherent properties of Energy and Matter. To be able to unravel the force behind the creation of the laws, you have to look at the laws behind the creation of Energy and Matter. Hence you are locked in a dilemma of "which came first: the chicken or the Egg!"
In other words, from Energy/Matter emanates the Physical Laws. Without Energy/Matter, no known physical law will exist. Do you think it is then possible to use the laws in existence to unravel the LAW that produced Energy/matter?

An argument could have been that Energy and Matter had always existed! Unfortunately the INFLATION theory/Big bang theory does not agree with it because it can be shown clearly that the universe has an ORIGIN. [Even if they had existed as a Singleton, what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?

I have been having issues with my phone and system, so couldn't post. Sorry about the unfortunate delay.

A lot of questions here, but i will summarize using your last question @bolded.
This is the type of question i actually like as it is direct and affects every other discussion we have been having.
At the point where one asks this question " what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?" which you asked, is supposed to be the point where the best answers should be:
1) Something or
2) I/We don't know yet.

If you go with the first answer that something caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating, why do you think/believe that that something is God? Why is the immediate answer that comes to your mind in replacing that something be with your religious God?
When you defer so forcibly to the notion that it must be God, that is the end of knowledge seeking for you. You stop seeking to know, to unravel because you have already predetermined the answer, and therefore can not go further... Self imposed limitation!!!
As i say, it comes mainly from religious indoctrination where every unanswered question is explained off with the God of the Gap theory.

With regards to the second answer of "I/We don't know," you will find that it leaves opportunity to find out more. Which is the path science often toes, and which is the difference between an indoctrinated religious individual and someone who is not indoctrinated with any religious views whatsoever.

From my interactions with you, it's obvious you are more than knowledgeable about law's of nature and the rest, but you are the one limiting how far you could go because you have decided to defer to the God of the Gap theory which is a logical fallacy.
You probably have the potential to discover how the universe actually began, but you are the one now limiting yourself by deferring to God of the Gap theory.
Who says the big bang theory cannot be disproved with a more sound logical explanation? Who says the big bang theory cannot be better understood in a different way to make things more uncomplicated?
So, unless you stop deferring to the God of the gap theory, you will always come to the end of knowledge seeking too fast with hasty conclusions that cannot survive simple scrutiny.

IamMichael:

I have been having issues with my phone and system, so couldn't post. Sorry about the unfortunate delay.

A lot of questions here, but i will summarize using your last question @bolded.
This is the type of question i actually like as it is direct and affects every other discussion we have been having.
At the point where one asks this question " what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?" which you asked, is supposed to be the point where the best answers should be:
1) Something or
2) I/We don't know yet.

If you go with the first answer that something caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating, why do you think/believe that that something is God? Why is the immediate answer that comes to your mind in replacing that something be with your religious God?
When you defer so forcibly to the notion that it must be God, that is the end of knowledge seeking for you. You stop seeking to know, to unravel because you have already predetermined the answer, and therefore can not go further... Self imposed limitation!!!
As i say, it comes mainly from religious indoctrination where every unanswered question is explained off with the God of the Gap theory.

With regards to the second answer of "I/We don't know," you will find that it leaves opportunity to find out more. Which is the path science often toes, and which is the difference between an indoctrinated religious individual and someone who is not indoctrinated with any religious views whatsoever.

From my interactions with you, it's obvious you are more than knowledgeable about law's of nature and the rest, but you are the one limiting how far you could go because you have decided to defer to the God of the Gap theory which is a logical fallacy.
You probably have the potential to discover how the universe actually began, but you are the one now limiting yourself by deferring to God of the Gap theory.
Who says the big bang theory cannot be disproved with a more sound logical explanation? Who says the big bang theory cannot be better understood in a different way to make things more uncomplicated?
So, unless you stop deferring to the God of the gap theory, you will always come to the end of knowledge seeking too fast with hasty conclusions that cannot survive simple scrutiny.

God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:

At the point where one asks this question " what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?" which you asked, is supposed to be the point where the best answers should be:
1) Something or
2) I/We don't know yet.

Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

[/b]

shadeyinka:

God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a [b]something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"

shadeyinka:

God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a [b]something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"[/b]

shadeyinka:

God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the following question:
"How did this Originator come about?

IamMichael:
[/b]
So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"[b]
So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"
So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the following question:
"How did this Originator come about?

You have repeated the same question for which you'll receive an answer.
1. If this Being was made of matter, then it makes sense for it to have an origin as ALL materials trace their origin to the big bang
2. It may interest you to know that TIME originated with the creation of matter
3. This Being must have to exist in the timeless past before the creation of time.
4. Since infinite regress is impossible with respect to the origin of things, ALL existence must originate from/ at a point.

At that point, you have an Uncreated First-Cause of Everything. That Uncreated First-Cause is what we describe as God!

This Uncreated First-Cause is a Being because He is a self existent Consciousness!


You are a lawyer, I believe you can breakdown this into simple comprehendsion

shadeyinka:

You have repeated the same question for which you'll receive an answer.
1. If this Being was made of matter, then it makes sense for it to have an origin as ALL materials trace their origin to the big bang
2. It may interest you to know that TIME originated with the creation of matter
3. This Being must have to exist in the timeless past before the creation of time.
4. Since infinite regress is impossible with respect to the origin of things, ALL existence must originate from/ at a point.

At that point, you have an Uncreated First-Cause of Everything. That Uncreated First-Cause is what we describe as God!

This Uncreated First-Cause is a Being because He is a self existent Consciousness!


You are a lawyer, I believe you can breakdown this into simple comprehendsion

That repetition was probably a bug in the platform.

Uncreated First Cause?
First of all, who is the Chief proponent of this argument? Thomas Aquinas, a theological philosopher.
You are still swimming in the God of the gap waters bro.
Uncreated First Cause is still an indirect way of trying to scientifically explain the origin of the universe while also failing at it repeatedly. At the end of the day, the explanation always leads to trying to justify the fact that the religious God created the universe.

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?

IamMichael:

That repetition was probably a bug in the platform.

Uncreated First Cause?
First of all, who is the Chief proponent of this argument? Thomas Aquinas, a theological philosopher.
You are still swimming in the God of the gap waters bro.
Uncreated First Cause is still an indirect way of trying to scientifically explain the origin of the universe while also failing at it repeatedly. At the end of the day, the explanation always leads to trying to justify the fact that the religious God created the universe.

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?

Don't forget I told you that several people have personal relationships with this God. If we say anything however remotely scientific about God, it's not just a "God of the gaps fallacy". It is a statement based on knowledge.

I do NOT know who the Chief proponent of this argument of "Uncaused First-Cause". It can however be seen through logic alone.

Scientifically, it can be shown that
1. Matter exists
2. Matter had not always existed
3. The origin can be traced back to about 14 billion years ago.
4. The universe started from a pin point singleton/singularity which inflated/expanded to form the stars and planets.

NOW,
1. Whatever initiated this expansion/inflation does not follow the rule of extant Scientific laws.
2. It is thus illogical to point to theists of using the "God of the gaps fallacy": as there is no science in the first place.
Does science apply to spirits?
3. Whatever initiated the formation of the universe is beyond time or the laws of science.

Now you say:

The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?

But science already proved that the universe has an origin.
The law entropy says the Universe cannot exist forever. If the universe created itself, then it must remain forever. So, you see why it cannot be conceded that the universe self existed.

Do you think ORDER can come out of disorder without a constraining ordering force from the outside?

Since infinite regress isn't possible as per the origin of the universe, there must be a START POINT of everything. This start point must be
1. Beyond matter
2. Uncaused
3. First-Cause of everything
4. Powerful
5. Intelligent
6. Not bound by time

shadeyinka:

Don't forget I told you that several people have personal relationships with this God. If we say anything however remotely scientific about God, it's not just a "God of the gaps fallacy". It is a statement based on knowledge.

I do NOT know who the Chief proponent of this argument of "Uncaused First-Cause". It can however be seen through logic alone.

Scientifically, it can be shown that
1. Matter exists
2. Matter had not always existed
3. The origin can be traced back to about 14 billion years ago.
4. The universe started from a pin point singleton/singularity which inflated/expanded to form the stars and planets.

NOW,
1. Whatever initiated this expansion/inflation does not follow the rule of extant Scientific laws.
2. It is thus illogical to point to theists of using the "God of the gaps fallacy": as there is no science in the first place.
Does science apply to spirits?
3. Whatever initiated the formation of the universe is beyond time or the laws of science.

Now you say:

But science already proved that the universe has an origin.
The law entropy says the Universe cannot exist forever. If the universe created itself, then it must remain forever. So, you see why it cannot be conceded that the universe self existed.

Do you think ORDER can come out of disorder without a constraining ordering force from the outside?

Since infinite regress isn't possible as per the origin of the universe, there must be a START POINT of everything. This start point must be
1. Beyond matter
2. Uncaused
3. First-Cause of everything
4. Powerful
5. Intelligent
6. Not bound by time

Lol... Guy, at this point, i still don't understand why you are not seeing the flaw in your own logic.
My question is:

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?




By the way, where did Science prove with certainty that it knows the origin of the universe? Lol.
By saying, Science has already stated that it knows the origin of the universe, you wanted to indirectly deflect the question. But science hasn't stated that.
It's just two exact phenomena placed side by side, but see how you are playing selective bias?
It's easy for you to align with one but deny the other because it serves your religious education better.
Then you also say some people have personal relationship with this God... Emphasis on some people, but not you.
This is the flaw in your logical reasoning bro, I hope you do begin to realise/detect them.

By the way: scientifically the age of the universe is about 14.8 billion years ago

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

IamMichael:

Lol... Guy, at this point, i still don't understand why you are not seeing the flaw in your own logic.
My question is:

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?




By the way, where did Science prove with certainty that it knows the origin of the universe? Lol.
By saying, Science has already stated that it knows the origin of the universe, you wanted to indirectly deflect the question. But science hasn't stated that.
It's just two exact phenomena placed side by side, but see how you are playing selective bias?
It's easy for you to align with one but deny the other because it serves your religious education better.
Then you also say some people have personal relationship with this God... Emphasis on some people, but not you.
This is the flaw in your logical reasoning bro, I hope you do begin to realise/detect them.

I think you are the one missing the logical flow. I have in logical terms explained the scientific basis of the temporal nature of the universe. If the universe is temporal, it cannot then have always existed.

Let me break it down again:

If the universe had always exist, it must by implication last FOREVER.
But
The law of entropy shows us that the universe CANNOT last forever. The entropy of the universe is increasing continuously (in lay man's terms, the universe is disintegrating continuously).

If the universe will cease to exist in the future, how can it have an infinite past?

Also, galaxies of the universe have been shown with enough evidence that they are drifting apart. In other words, the universe is EXPANDING.

If the universe is expanding, trace it back in time, you'll find an epicenter. This epicenter is the minimum the universe will ever be in size and the time is the time of the big bang.

I said:

Don't forget I told you that several people have personal relationships with this God. If we say anything however remotely scientific about God, it's not just a "God of the gaps fallacy". It is a statement based on knowledge.

Of course, you should know that I speak of myself inclusive. I don't just have a head knowledge of God, I have a relationship with Him. I have said before: let atheists find their own experience.

As a proof, check a snippet of what I said earlier:

shadeyinka:

Don't forget I told you that several people have personal relationships with this God. If we say anything however remotely scientific about God, it's not just a "God of the gaps fallacy". It is a statement based on knowledge.

Has any theist you know described a God/god made of material things?

If God isn't material then do you think the physical laws hold on Him?

Think about this:
It is logical to speak about the origin of matter. Is it logical to speak about the origin of that which exist as an ordering force before matter?

If yes, on what basis?
(FYI: your rules of existence differ)

shadeyinka:

By the way: scientifically the age of the universe is about 14.8 billion years ago

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


I think you are the one missing the logical flow. I have in logical terms explained the scientific basis of the temporal nature of the universe. If the universe is temporal, it cannot then have always existed.

Let me break it down again:

If the universe had always exist, it must by implication last FOREVER.
But
The law of entropy shows us that the universe CANNOT last forever. The entropy of the universe is increasing continuously (in lay man's terms, the universe is disintegrating continuously).

If the universe will cease to exist in the future, how can it have an infinite past?

Also, galaxies of the universe have been shown with enough evidence that they are drifting apart. In other words, the universe is EXPANDING.

If the universe is expanding, trace it back in time, you'll find an epicenter. This epicenter is the minimum the universe will ever be in size and the time is the time of the big bang.

I said:

Of course, you should know that I speak of myself inclusive. I don't just have a head knowledge of God, I have a relationship with Him. I have said before: let atheists find their own experience.

As a proof, check a snippet of what I said earlier:



Has any theist you know described a God/god made of material things?

If God isn't material then do you think the physical laws hold on Him?

Think about this:
It is logical to speak about the origin of matter. Is it logical to speak about the origin of that which exist as an ordering force before matter?

If yes, on what basis?
(FYI: your rules of existence differ)

My brother, the question requires a "Yes" or "No" answer biko.
You are talking about things i didn't ask you, answering questions that you laid your own foundations to answer, answering and emphasizing on things that just stand to give you a leeway to explain away things i didn't ask you questions about.
You are talking about the God of the Gap's theory when obviously, you don't even understand what God of the Gap's theory is about nor have you taken your time to actually read on the subject. For, if you have done, you wouldn't still be committing the fallacy over and over and over again... Na wao.

A fallacy is a cog in the wheel of logical reasoning. How can you say your reasoning is sound when in fact you are breaking one of the key rules of logical reasoning by committing a fallacy?
This is not rocket science now!!!


For emphasis sake, this is the question again:

- If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

Yes or No?

Let's stick to answering what is asked rather than what is not asked or epistle's to answer simple question.

IamMichael:

My brother, the question requires a "Yes" or "No" answer biko.
You are talking about things i didn't ask you, answering questions that you laid your own foundations to answer, answering and emphasizing on things that just stand to give you a leeway to explain away things i didn't ask you questions about.
You are talking about the God of the Gap's theory when obviously, you don't even understand what God of the Gap's theory is about nor have you taken your time to actually read on the subject. For, if you have done, you wouldn't still be committing the fallacy over and over and over again... Na wao.

A fallacy is a cog in the wheel of logical reasoning. How can you say your reasoning is sound when in fact you are breaking one of the key rules of logical reasoning by committing a fallacy?
This is not rocket science now!!!

I had to give you the basis to aid your understanding.

1. The Universe has a beginning and is coming to an end. (This is scientifically proved)
2. If the Creator-God (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.
3. He thus cannot be said to require a Creator because an infinite regression is Logically IMPOSSIBLE.

As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this

IamMichael:

For emphasis sake, this is the question again:


Yes or No?

Let's stick to answering what is asked rather than what is not asked or epistle's to answer simple question.

If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

It's NOT a yes or no question for the universe certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

The Universe DOES NOT exist as an Uncreated First Cause! It is a scientific fallacy!

How do you want me to concur with a scientific fallacy?

The universe has a beginning and it will have an end!

shadeyinka:

I had to give you the basis to aid your understanding.

It's not me you are aiding his understanding bro. What you are doing is running round and round in a circle, beating around the bush and then coming up with unrelated discourse.
You had to go and Google the estimated age of the universe as we know it to support your claim that the universe has a beginning... I expected you to quote the bible to support your claim as a christian.
You have already shown that the 5000yrs stated with certainty by your bible as the age of the universe is wrong, and therefore the basis of your belief system is rooted in false grounds.
I just didn't want to push it.

1. The Universe has a beginning and is coming to an end. (This is scientifically proved)

Here again, you try to wrongly use science to justify and lay a false foundation.
Of course, your two conclusions above is scientifically wrong and totally misinforming. You should actually read up/research on the Big bang theory, and get yourself reorientated instead of making false assertions and presenting it as true because you want to use it as a basis to not answer a very simple question.

2. If the Creator-God (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.

This Creationist Christians... Lol, this is absurd and an insult on all grounds of seeking knowledge.
What you are saying sound's like:
If the Creator-Lizard (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Millipede (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Fish (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
I hope the three examples make sense to you too.

3. Creator-Fish thus cannot be said to require a Creator because an infinite regression is Logically IMPOSSIBLE.

Please do well to read about God of the Gap's fallacy... I can't be the only one burdened with pointing them out for you.
Apparently, according to you, God came out of nothing. But to justify it logically since something cannot come out of nothing, you have to subscribe to the view that he is the Creator that doesn't require a creator. Yet, you don't see how this is a God of the Gap's fallacy?
I mean, the logical reasoning to subscribe to here would have been that "you don't know yet how God came to be!"
But, your religious indoctrination has caused you to fill the gap with what seemed feasible within the confines of your religious doctrines.

As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this.

It's NOT a yes or no question for the universe certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

Lol...
I can't help but laugh out really loud bro For someone who said:
"As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this"
You find it hard to answer a "Yes or No" question.
If you are asked a yes or no question, you answer as you are asked in my profession.
If a question requires an open-ended answer, you will be told same...
You were asked a simple question bro, and it requires a Yes/No answer. Writing long epistles is how you fail exam or in my profession, give out details which will be used against you.

It's NOT a yes or no question for the universe certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

The Universe DOES NOT exist as an Uncreated First Cause! It is a scientific fallacy!

What i gave you my friend is a hypothetical question.
Hypothetical questions are replied with hypothetical answers.

Your two definite assertions can also be read like this:

It's NOT a yes or no question for God certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

God DOES NOT exist as an Uncreated First Cause! It is a scientific fallacy.

And it will also be true.

Peace!!!

IamMichael:

It's not me you are aiding his understanding bro. What you are doing is running round and round in a circle, beating around the bush and then coming up with unrelated discourse.
You had to go and Google the estimated age of the universe as we know it to support your claim that the universe has a beginning... I expected you to quote the bible to support your claim as a christian.

If I have you bible quotes will you believe it? NO!
Now I gave you a science quote and you are still complaining! What's your problem?

IamMichael:

You have already shown that the 5000yrs stated with certainty by your bible as the age of the universe is wrong, and therefore the basis of your belief system is rooted in false grounds.
I just didn't want to push it.

This bolded is untrue and a serious misinformation. Internet keeps record!
Check below what I truely said.

shadeyinka:

.......

The bible never said that the earth is 6000 years old . What the bible said was that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The beginning is the beginning of Time (you will observe that there was no where God created the Waters: It was already present before God separated the water from the land). Some Bible scholars believe that the account of creation in Genesis was actually a RE-CREATION/RE-POPULATION of the earth. So, it is completely wrong to say the earth is 6000 years old.
......

Do you still believe your assertion that I have shown that "the 5000yrs stated with certainty by your bible as the age of the universe is wrong"?

IamMichael:


Here again, you try to wrongly use science to justify and lay a false foundation.
Of course, your two conclusions above is scientifically wrong and totally misinforming. You should actually read up/research on the Big bang theory, and get yourself reorientated instead of making false assertions and presenting it as true because you want to use it as a basis to not answer a very simple question.

You insinuate that I wrongfully use science to postulate two wrong conclusions.
Since you know more science as a "learned man", would you please contradict the following scientifically based statements of mine
1. The universe has a beginning!
2. The universe will have an end!

The law of Entropy alone will bail you out here!

IamMichael:

This Creationist Christians... Lol, this is absurd and an insult on all grounds of seeking knowledge.
What you are saying sound's like:
If the Creator-Lizard (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Millipede (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Fish (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
I hope the three examples make sense to you too.

Knowing that you are most-likely going to get offended with the term "Creator-God", I have put in parentheses the phrase "(that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding)" as existing before the universe.

Your English language comprehension should be better than mine. The fact that you ignored the parentheses where I qualified the definition of Creator-God suggest that you have a sinister bias that abhors logical correctness. If not, would you then logically or scientifically answer the following
1. Was there "something" existing before the big-bang that initiated the sudden inflation/expansion of the universe?
2. Do you think "that something" will be subject to the natural (physical, chemical) laws?

IamMichael:

Please do well to read about God of the Gap's fallacy... I can't be the only one burdened with pointing them out for you.
Apparently, according to you, God came out of nothing. But to justify it logically since something cannot come out of nothing, you have to subscribe to the view that he is the Creator that doesn't require a creator. Yet, you don't see how this is a God of the Gap's fallacy?
I mean, the logical reasoning to subscribe to here would have been that "you don't know yet how God came to be!"
But, your religious indoctrination has caused you to fill the gap with what seemed feasible within the confines of your religious doctrines.

I told you a filling of gaps with God/gods can only be said to be true if there is no basis (subjective or objective experience of God) to come to such a conclusion. If you don't have such experience, look for it!

1. I never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing. God had always existed.
2. Every physical thing (matter) has an origin. This is an infallible statement.
If God was physical, He aught to be bound by this and also have an origin. But God is NOT physical hence He doesn't have to have an origin. Has any one described God as being made of matter?
3. By the extant laws of science, infinite regression is NOT possible. For if God has an origin, then the creator of God will also have and origin, whose creator will also have an origin.

If you don't understand, at a point, infinit regression of creation MUST stop. It is IMPOSSIBLE!

IamMichael:

Lol...
I can't help but laugh out really loud bro For someone who said:
"As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this"
You find it hard to answer a "Yes or No" question.
If you are asked a yes or no question, you answer as you are asked in my profession.
If a question requires an open-ended answer, you will be told same...
You were asked a simple question bro, and it requires a Yes/No answer. Writing long epistles is how you fail exam or in my profession, give out details which will be used against you.


What i gave you my friend is a hypothetical question.
Hypothetical questions are replied with hypothetical answers.

Your two definite assertions can also be read like this:

And it will also be true.

Peace!!!

A simple YES or NO question assumes that the Postulate is VALID as it is Reasonable AND has only two outcomes. What if the question is NOT reasonable, then the "student" may need to lecture the "lecturer".

We know that only the four colours of Red, Green, Yellow and White exist in the universe. Do you agree that houses can only be painted with any of these four colours?

The question above is like your question. Saying YES is an agreement that the postulate is correct. Saying NO is not a complete answer except with explanation that there are more than four colours of red,free, yellow and white exist.

That is what I have done.

Your so called question again:

If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true,
then
The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

The second highlight in YELLOW IS WRONG and INVALID!
Why!?
1. The big bang occured about 14.8billion years ago
2. The universe will dissipate into nothing showing that it isn't eternal.

Based on the scientific reasons above
Your answer is a BIG FAT NO!

Do you really think ORDER can come out of CHAOS?
If it is possible, there is no need for any "Uncaused First-Cause"!

shadeyinka:

The Universe has been scientifically shown to have a beginning just as every religious teaching that speaks of the origin of the universe.

The fundermental question then is HOW did the material universe come into existence.
The religious people say the Universe was created BY non material beings
The scientific atheists say the Universe came out of nothing.
The non scientific atheist either blindly support the scientific atheists or pretend not to care.

Now you say:
However, as with any opinion/theory, the holder must also be ready to logically defend it, as well as for such opinion/theory to face thorough scrutiny for verification of facts using existing evidence.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?

As for your number 3 question, many of the scientific findings and breakthroughs were mysteries before instruments and tools were made to understand them.

Just as it is error to conclude that something doesn't exist because you dont understand it , it is also error to use "Gods of the gaps" as answers to things that are not understood or known at this time.

sotall:


As for your number 3 question, many of the scientific findings and breakthroughs were mysteries before instruments and tools were made to understand them.

Just as it is error to conclude that something doesn't exist because you dont understand it , it is also error to use "Gods of the gaps" as answers to things that are not understood or known at this time.

I agree with you.

Only an ignorant person use "God of the gaps" as an excuse for what science doesn't have answers to.

But

Not everyone is however in this category. Some of us have a relationship with this invisible and non-material God.

Filling of gaps with God/gods can only be said to be true if there is no basis (subjective or objective experience of God) to come to such a conclusion.

If a person doesn't have such an experience, he should look for it rather than concluding that NO-ONE has an experience as to justify his position.

shadeyinka:

I agree with you.

Only an ignorant person use "God of the gaps" as an excuse for what science doesn't have answers to.

But

Not everyone is however in this category. Some of us have a relationship with this invisible and non-material God.

Filling of gaps with God/gods can only be said to be true if there is no basis (subjective or objective experience of God) to come to such a conclusion.

If a person doesn't have such an experience, he should look for it rather than concluding that NO-ONE has an experience as to justify his position.

They will not look for it, but rather wasting away their lifes on a faceless forum demanding for the coordinates of God's location, or even more foolishly for a visit from him in their homes.
I don't think I can ever have enough of atheists' foolishness on this forum. Their foolishness sometimes fills my day with laughter. May God forgive me.