Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Debating for Creatio ex nihilo

Continued from here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Defending Creatio ex Nihilo

I'll invert the last two points I made since the latter one got a shorter response chain:


Hans Georg Lundahl
6:00 creatio ex nihilo does not mean matter or energy springing into existence without any cause, but with God being that cause.

Matter and energy can come into existence but not of their own previously non-extant causation, but an external one, not tied to matter and energy in order to work : God's.

Atheos Graham

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Atheos Graham You are claiming thought came into existence, not caused by thought, but by matter and energy not tied to thought, don't you?


Hans Georg Lundahl
5:23 "this means the universe has always existed in one form or another"

There is actually scientific arguments against your conclusion too.

In stars, all over the universe (on standard view) or, in Sun and the stars at the edge of the universe (on my geocentric view), H is being fused into He.

No known reversal of this process, no known production of H from non-matter. Hence, a universe with H in it cannot be eternal from eternity.

And a universe without H in it is so unknown a factor, even God is less of a blind chance belief in "x of the gaps".

Atheos Graham
No your wrong. The big bang explains how our universe became at how it is now from a crunched denset smaller then an atom, so the universe was always just in another form

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Atheos Graham Was the crunched denset eternally such? Did it become crunched from a previous universe?

If A, unlike God who has will, there is a paradox about the changed behaviour of the denset.

If B, you are pleading serial multiverse, but what I stated remains true of each universe.

It is not from eternity, but from a point in time.

Atheos Graham
@Hans-Georg Lundahl we don't know if it was eternally such, but we know for sure that is was crunched, so what we know for sure is that the big bang explains only the expansion, we don't know how this crunched universe came to be or how it was before it expanded (big bang) , for anyone to come and to fill the gap with god it's just stupid and his commiting the god of the gap fallacy

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Atheos Graham My point is, first, no, we don't know that it was crunched that way.

Second, you can live with matter of all universe condensed in less space than an atom, but somehow not with creative processes crunched in shorter time than millions or billions of years.

Third, Atheism in its classic version from Democritus and Epicure on, including its revival in 18th C. Atheism, relied on Universe needing no creator since an Eternal Steady State Universe. My point was, this was disproven, and as to "before BB" except for just before, you don't know where to stand.

Atheos Graham
@Hans-Georg Lundahl of course we know that, we know for sure with science that it was crunched together, that's the big bang theory, the big bang theory and the cosmic background radiation proves that, you either accept this unanimously accepted theory or you don't, but for you to go and to refuse the first part (that it was crunched together with other words the universe was already there but in another form and state) and to accept the second part (that the universe that we know now came into existence by the big expansion FROM THAT CRUNCHED FORM) and then refuse the crunched part, that's just wishfull believing from your part and denying science

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Atheos Graham I am not accepting either part.

I am challenging EITHER alternative of what the denset was before being the pre-Big Bang denset just pre-Big Bang, as not just unproven, but a bad argument for atheism.

As to "we know for sure with science" I don't give even unanimously accepted theories (which this isn't, unless you wilfully exclude Creation scientists) the credit as unanimously accepted dogma, because God never gave scientists the promise He gave Catholic bishops.

Atheos Graham
@Hans-Georg Lundahl hahahahhahahahahahahahahhaa

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Atheos Graham Enjoy ... with your sense of humour, perhaps you should be rewatching Laurel and Hardy instead of discussing things ...?

No comments: