And yet you are doing just that.let me reassure you. I have no fear of moral accountability. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of religious apologists. I am a way better person than your God is.The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses have nothing to do with each other, by the way. You need to stop confusing evolution with the origin of the universe. One has nothing to do with the other.
The fact that our universe exists; one universe implies at least the possibility of others. Our understanding of the structure of spacetime and the Big Bang implies various ways in which a new universe could spawn off an old one. And so on.
Again; you have yet to demonstrate that such a law exists, or that humans couldn’t discover such a law if it existed. And gods add nothing to the debate, since something does not become true just because a god says so.
Because “collectively undesirable” pretty much IS evil.
Nonsense. Any modern scientist or philosopher who says he buys the argument from design reveals himself as ignorant, irrational or a liar. It’s a long and completely discredited idea.
What “moral accountability?” God has nothing to do with moral accountability; quite the opposite. The God of myth is evil, and belief in him leads to evil.
1> Objective moral laws exist. The abhorrence of child abuse being just one. On moral issues mankind is notoriously incapable of consensus, let alone objectivity.
2> Your ‘not convinced by actual science’ is amusing. Have you interviewed them? I bet not. But more the point, many, if not most, come from an a-priori position of unbelief.
3> What is a question on peer reveiws other than an apeal to authority?
Oh I think the point of my illustration was fairlly obvious, even if you missed it.
As for the multiverse and panspermia hypotheses, there is no confusion here. Merely both fit the illustartion. And yes evolution cannot explain origins.
So your claim is that an implication of existence of second universe, derived from the existence of one universe, is an apsect of physics? Nothing you state extends beyond science fiction.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:202, topic:551952”]
I have given an example of one objectove moral law…the abhorrence of child abuse.
How do you recognise evil?
The multiverse, panspermia and other ideas still do not answer the fundamental question.
How does something (physical) come from nothing?
There are no other examples of this in the natural universe that we are aware of, yet somehow a purely naturalistic explanation is accepted. Why?
No they don’t. Sorry. If you disagree, then point to an “objective moral law” and prove that it can exist outside of human thought.
This is not an “objective moral law.” This is a widely shared (though not universal) subjective, human emotional response based in an evolutionary impulse to protect offspring.
It’s not necessary to interview them to know they have not produced any scientific reasoning to support their religious beliefs. I have read some of them, like Behe and Dembski. They are charlatans.
This is complete horsehit. You’re a big Lee Strobel fan, aren’t you? The “skeptical atheist persuaded by hard evidence canard.” I love that one.
Peer review is the method of empirically reviewing evidence. It’s not just “authorities” giving opinions. Add that to the long list of terms, phrases and concepts you don’t seem to comprehend very well.
That’s because it isn’t a theory about “origins” in the first place. That’s abiogenesis, not evolution. Unless you are referring to the origin of species, in which case like it or not it explains them quite well.
Hardly, it’s a well known idea in cosmology and has been for many years.
By its effect on people.
Because as previously mentioned in quantum mechanics something can come from nothing, and does. And because in all of human history there’s never been any evidence for anything not “naturalistic”; you are ignoring the fact that even if “the multiverse, panspermia and other ideas” don’t pan out that makes “God” no less baseless and ridiculous an alternative.
And by the way; panspermia isn’t all that popular an idea in scientific circles anyway. Nor do I see what relevance it has to this conversation.
Not to make things overly complicated; I would be interested if a person could give a definition of a god that would not be in contradiction with itself.
God is all powerful and made everything. Ok then God gave man laws, man breaks the laws, God is not all powerful.
I do not see how any can say a God exist unless they can give a definition of a God that holds water.
If any are interested in a “not so” all powerful God, I don’t know what to tell you, other than live a good life and don’t hurt any one, as stories abound to no end, and do we ever love our stories.
I always thought to disprove an all powerful god would body shaking, mind redeploying, with great emotional travail in pain, but not so. Two sentences does it and easily understood.
So look on the bright side, if you count yourself a sinner don’t worry about an all powerful god as one does not exist. You might forgive yourself and do better next time.
Welcome to the human race, it is not so bad.
Don
[quote=“aigonz, post:132, topic:551952”]
What you claim to be knowledge of God, is not knowledge, but 'Belief". Some thing you were taught, read, or thought in your own mind. What is called evidence for God is a matter of belief, not fact.
Do you realize you are also pretending to ‘know’ the mind of God? Some human said God set the 7th day aside for rest. it is belief in that person…not God!!
Who says that something came from nothing?
It seems to me that theists do. IIRC, most philosophers accept the B theory of time, which means, there is no need to accept the idea that something came from nothing.
That said, let’s suppose it’s possible that something can come from nothing.
It make no sense to say that this could be caused by anything - unless you mean something by ‘caused’ that is not what is commonly understood.
To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something.
Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act?
It’s nonsensical.
Saw this on the previous page.
So God is not a physical entity.
What is God then?
I recognize that religion is evil, therefore that is evidence that God exists?!?
But here, your first sentence disproves your second! You yourself recognize that humans can’t agree on what morality IS, which is another way of saying that morality is not objective.
Then you go on to baldly assert that morality is objective. Do you not see how you’ve contradicted yourself here?
Oh really? Then you should be able to offer a few examples of this rather easily. Please do so.
Already cited above. Virtual particles are uncaused.
So then, at the time when the causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies, and warts were beyond man’s knowledge, you would classify them as being “causeless”, as well?
I’m not sure you’re using the concept of “cause” the same we others are.
See above.
The current understanding of quantum physics is that these particle events are really uncaused. The idea that there are some as-yet unknown hidden causes has been disproved, and until that proof is shown to be incorrect I think DtC is correct in saying they are causeless.
This is not correct. There might not be proof, but there is evidence. And that evidence is that every single thing we are aware of has a cause—EVERYTHING. This is a foundational tenet of science, discovery and learning. We have bazillion beyond bazillion events we look at and see that they ALL have causes. We asked to be shown the other side of the ledger, those events that are causeless, the one example than is offered up is Quantum Mechanics, and presented incorrectly. QM is silent on cause. It simply observes that the particles can appear and disappear in and from different locations it what we perceive as random. There are two possibilities, neither having anything to do with a god of any sort:
-
We simply do not understand what the causes are, but we will. The same way we came to see that there are actual causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies and warts. And they were not just the will of Og.
-
They are, in fact, causeless.
So, in weighing those two possibilities, we look for evidence as to which is more likely to be true. And since the thing we are looking at is QM, we look elsewhere and find ZERO instances of things existing without a cause. That makes Option 1 a much, much, much, much more likely scenario, does it not.