Scientists - How was everything created from nothing? (hate, quote, God)

Originally Posted by Sophronius

Not distinguised as phrased above. Its not a matter of distinguishing a creator from nature, its a matter of representation or reflecting value, which is an absolute. The word choice distinguish is leading.

I am sorry but you don't make any sense to me which is why I do not respond to your posts.

Furthermore, you don't speak for jimmiej so don't presume to do so. He is the one that made the distinction. Stop responding to my points as if they were directed at you and then you correcting me as if I misunderstood you. That is ridiculous! I am not going to engage in that type of dialogue particularly since I can not understand 90% of what you write.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yes, I already said that I believe that matter/energy is eternal and I gave reason why based on logic and science. Nature is what created us humans via evolution - the transformation of matter/energy. But there is no need to call nature - God. You are just confusing the terms by which you started your argument. You had distinguished the creator from nature - the former being the creator the latter being the created. Now you want to combine the two?

What you describe is a "cosmic accident" and well, there are no accidents.

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I am sorry but you don't make any sense to me which is why I do not respond to your posts.

Furthermore, you don't speak for jimmiej so don't presume to do so. He is the one that made the distinction. Stop responding to my points as if they were directed at you and then you correcting me as if I misunderstood you. That is ridiculous! I am not going to engage in that type of dialogue particularly since I can not understand 90% of what you write.

Well that means you can define the exact mechanics in order to be in keeping with the word, language and inference which is being proposed. Very simple things plus I'm only acting in the fair interest of moderation. Language and misleading idea's are what they are.

So how does a believer justify in this context (reflect) what is found to be distinguished, or is that part skipped.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

What you describe is a "cosmic accident" and well, there are no accidents.

No I did not describe a cosmic accident. Strawman!

You are a broken record - I already directed you to those other two threads where I and others have debunked this nonsense that there are no accidents. You just ignore it and repeat. You failed there to back up that claim and you failed here too.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

No I did not describe a cosmic accident. Strawman!

You are a broken record - I already directed you to those other two threads where I and others have debunked this nonsense that there are no accidents. You just ignore it and repeat. You failed there to back up that claim and you failed here too.

If there was no design, then it was an accident.

[Sophronius]

Its more then design ( engineered) because its more then just a single process in time. Agreeing to argue for design just gives the complainers something to avoid the known science, concerning time

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

Could not this energy be our creator? Eternal, uncaused?

OK, let's give you that. Where does the sentient part come in? The omnipotent part? The part that the energy actually gives a rat's patotee about this inconsequential speck called earth and its people within an inconsequential galaxy within this universe?

Originally Posted by Sophronius

Well that means you can define the exact mechanics in order to be in keeping with the word, language and inference which is being proposed. Very simple things plus I'm only acting in the fair interest of moderation. Language and misleading idea's are what they are.

Moderator cut: Moderators can handle all the moderating, thanks.

Go ahead, how does a believer justify rationally what is found to be distinguished ?

I have no idea what it is you are asking - I am not a believer in any god/gods - so distinguishing god/gods from 'creation' is not a burden I bear. That's the creationist burden which frankly has not been met.

If you are asking how I justify distinguishing what we categorize as causal events from that which is not caused - matter/energy - then I would say that this is via our language and logic based upon our science regarding matter/energy. As we define things they are categorized and as such cannot violate the law of identity. Since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed it is not illogical to think that it is eternal and as such uncaused yet able to transform eternally.

The latter transformations that we call causation (cause and effect) cannot necessarily be applied to matter/energy itself but only its transformations. If one does necessitate such a thing they fall into the fallacy of composition - saying that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. You can't say that because we 'see' causes for energy transformations that energy itself was caused that is a fallacy and it violates a scientific principle that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Given that we exist and no one can deny this fact without assuming existence then that is an axiomatic starting point - the reality of physical existence itself - unlike god/s. Given that the existence of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed it is logical to infer that it is the thing that is eternal. Given that something must be eternal otherwise something would never exist and that we know matter/energy exist it is also logical to infer that matter/energy is the eternally existent thing.

The answer really is the answer how you rationally justify anything. I have used science and logic. If you want to challenge the science or logic in what I said - then do it?

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by cupper3

OK, let's give you that. Where does the sentient part come in? The omnipotent part? The part that the energy actually gives a rat's patotee about this inconsequential speck called earth and its people within an inconsequential galaxy within this universe?

Since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been ID. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in a gazillion.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

If there was no design, then it was an accident.

So defend you position that it was designed. You can't and every attempt you have made has failed.

Now what? Looks like you are stuck with the latter accident. Great! Glad you are willing to finally jettison ID.