The creation of time and space? What!

[Tassman]

Only it they can be tested.

Or have the potential of being tested, at least in principle. As well much can be inferred from observation and form the basis of mathematical models which can, in turn, provide testable predictions and outcomes.

hat is simply to repeat what I said, "such things are not in the arena of science."

Science is a disciplined way to study the natural world. We have no substantiated evidence of anything existing other than the natural world. So what’s “not in the arena of science”?

[Tassman]

All cases of intervention fall within the purview of science? That's kind of questionable, especially since (positing that there is a Deity for a moment) we have no way to determine between the cases of "Deity affected this process" or "Deity did not affect this process."

Certainly! But why would one posit that there is a deity?

[technomage]

But why would one posit that there is a deity?

In my case, because I have experienced certain things that make absolute rejection of the concept impossible ... for me.

These experiences are subjective, therefore I cannot count them as "knowledge." They are not interpersonally verifiable, and cannot justifiably be used to persuade someone else. Yet I have experienced them, and at least subjectively, I cannot foreclose the possibility.

[Tassman]

In my case, because I have experienced certain things that make absolute rejection of the concept impossible ... for me.

These experiences are subjective, therefore I cannot count them as "knowledge." They are not interpersonally verifiable, and cannot justifiably be used to persuade someone else. Yet I have experienced them, and at least subjectively, I cannot foreclose the possibility.

I would consider that there is probably a natural explanation for your experience, but you clearly think differently and I respect that. Anecdotally, I’m aware that such experiences can have a powerful influence, but for me the difficulty is that there is that there is nothing these subjective experiences can be measured against – a potential problem if one’s subjective experience conflicts with that of another person’s subjective experience I would have thought.

[technomage]

I would consider that there is probably a natural explanation for your experience, but you clearly think differently and I respect that.

I'm already aware of at least three possible naturalistic explanations. There would be a fourth if I had been drinking.

for me the difficulty is that there is that there is nothing these subjective experiences can be measured against

Precisely. Tass, while I do believe in a Deity, I still technically qualify as a hard agnostic or ignostic--not only do I not know, I strongly doubt knowledge is possible on this topic. Don't get me wrong--someone can look at the situation and say "I use Occam's razor ... it's super effective," and I have no argument. Someone else can say "Oh, I choose to believe anyway," and again, I have no argument.

My argument comes in when someone says "I know." Doesn't matter if they're arguing for or against the existence of Deity, once they claim actual knowledge, that's where I start arguing.

[JimL]

In my case, because I have experienced certain things that make absolute rejection of the concept impossible ... for me.

These experiences are subjective, therefore I cannot count them as "knowledge." They are not interpersonally verifiable, and cannot justifiably be used to persuade someone else. Yet I have experienced them, and at least subjectively, I cannot foreclose the possibility.

Just curious technomage, were you an agnostic/believer prior to your experience so that the experience itself did nothing to change your position. I wonder also, though I understand that for some reason people don't like to define these experiences, but if you will, was the experience, as you experienced it, an internal or an external one? In other words did you observe something, or did you feel something?

[technomage]

Just curious technomage, were you an agnostic/believer prior to your experience so that the experience itself did nothing to change your position.

I was at that time (the first time it occurred) a "soft" atheist--I still believed in the existence of the Christian God, but refused (for various reasons) to accord Him worship. It changed my views, but later reason led me to understand that while I had experienced ... something, I could not claim that experience as "knowledge", because it was not interpersonally verifiable.

I wonder also, though I understand that for some reason people don't like to define these experiences, but if you will, was the experience, as you experienced it, an internal or an external one? In other words did you observe something, or did you feel something?

What I have experienced--and this has been on multiple occasions, both before and after my realization that I could not count these experiences as "knowledge"--would be classified by a materialist as visual and auditory hallucinations. I am not comfortable expressing what I saw or heard, nor the effects of those "conversations," in any detail, save to say that they have more than once changed my course of action when I was being foolish. If they are authentic visions, then my visions very frequently end up with me getting chewed out for being an idiot. Which may be utterly unsurprising to some here.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
Well, I guess atheists here are fearful of exchanging thoughts with me on the proof for the existence for God.

Because they cannot reason with me.


But they can always like Dawkins resort to smokescreens to cover their fear.

Funny, the only one that I see as being fearful of exchanging thoughts and running in fear is you Gerry. I answered you both in this thread and in your own (the universe is evidence of Gods existence) thread, and you failed to respond in both cases. Your "charge" that atheists resort to smokescreens in the face of fear is your own smokescreen. Embarrasing!

I have quite a number of posts, please dear Jiml give me the links, okay.



Everyone, please give me the links when you want me to react to your posts; sometimes I react generally to several posters with the same post.

If you expect me to react to you in particular, please give me the link to the post from you and I will give you a personal response.




Cheers.

Gerry

[gerry]

This post is addressed to all atheists and everyone else.



The OP is from Jiml:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...06#post3421006


If God existed before the universe existed, then how can God have created time? Doesn't the fact that God existed "before" his creation and that the universe existed "after" God, imply that time existed with God? Doesn't a universe that did not exist "before" but now exists "after" imply the existence of time previous to the creation of the universe? And what about space? If God created space, where was he before he created it? Seems to me that the more logical argument is that spacetime always existed.
Last edited by JimL; June 14th 2012 at 12:44 PM.

From my stock knowledge as a Christian, there was no time and no space in the scenario in which creation was not yet done by God: God did not then exist in a time and space scenario; when God had created the universe together with time and space, then He is now both transcendent to time and space and immanent in time and space.

As I read the OP it is obvious that Jiml is making the point though not explicitly, that God did not create time and space therefore He could not be the creator of everything, and thus not as complete a God as in the Christian faith He is taken to be, namely:

God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

The OP of Jiml though edited again when it was already posted is nonetheless still not clearly composed, but his point is clear to people who know the mind and heart of atheists: ultimately his intention is to downgrade God and to show a downgraded God, in this case Who did not create time and space, is not a complete God and wherefore not God at all.



Now there is a talk about man's experience here at this point in the thread.

Here is what I like to tell atheists about man's experience.

Man's experience is in effect his existence, I mean his experience of consciousness; if you are not conscious are you existing as a human being?

Can you see as I see that consciousness = experience = existence? The three things in man are convertible.


Our consciousness or experience of consciousness or existence itself as a conscious entity that reasons out things as we experience things, and the very reasoning out of things is also a conscious experience, all that is the evidence for the proof of the existence of God.


Here, let me expatiate.

Our conscious existence and our experience of the existence of the physical unversed, they are the evidence to the existence of God as

The unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

From the fact of the existence of ourselves and the fact that the universe exists -- and we are a component of the universe, they are evidence of God's existence, how is that?


That is arrived at by reasoning, this way:

1. We ask ourselves did we and the universe create ourselves ultimately?

2. Of course not, for scientists tell us that the universe of which we are a component, including time and space, has a beginning in the Big Bang.

3. So, since everything with a beginning has a cause, wherefore there is an entity who is the creator of the universe and its operator.

4. And that entity is God in concept described thus:

The unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

Now, atheists will say that the universe came forth from absolute nothing, therefore there is no need for God as in concept described thus:

The unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

But that is an irrational thought amounting to mental unsoundness.



Well, let me read the rebuttals of atheists like Jiml and everyone atheist here or their sympathizers.





Cheers.

Gerry

[shunyadragon]

Or have the potential of being tested, at least in principle. As well much can be inferred from observation and form the basis of mathematical models which can, in turn, provide testable predictions and outcomes.



Science is a disciplined way to study the natural world. We have no substantiated evidence of anything existing other than the natural world. So what’s “not in the arena of science”?

Even though I am a theist, I agree with the above and much of your understanding of the problem of the supernatural and miraculous in previous posts.

Considering miracles as 'rare' by some Christians does not help their case, and does not help their claim of a few miracles in a world that believed miracles and the supernatural were accepted events.

[gerry]

Even though I am a theist, I agree with the above and much of your understanding of the problem of the supernatural and miraculous in previous posts.

Considering miracles as 'rare' by some Christians does not help their case, and does not help their claim of a few miracles in a world that believed miracles and the supernatural were accepted events.

The question is the existence of God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

To bring in the question of the supernatural and miracles is obviously a dodging of the question of God.


Don' t talk about the existence of the supernatural and miracles, talk about God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe, unless you are dodging the more relevant and primordial question which is God.


Now in the question of God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe, the thinking and reasoning man takes up several questions, foremost of which is existence, creation, universe, operation, the number one, these are the questions embedded in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

From the formulation of the concept of God we take up these concepts which we will understand in order to see that the concept of God is a valid concept, and then we transit from the concept of God to the existence of God in actual objective reality.

Man is the party occupied with the question God, but first he is occupied with the question of his self, the question of his existence.

Now, I will try to show how conscious man comes to the realization of God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe, by asking himself questions and answering them himself -- people who cannot ask these questions are not human, God knows what they are but not human.

1. How does man know that he exists? From his experience of his consciousness on which and by which consciousness he exists and operates as a consciously operating entity.

2. Is man certain of his existence? As certain as everytime he makes the effort to be aware that he is conscious; when he cannot anymore or even cannot will to make the effort to be aware of his consciousness, then he does not exist anymore as man, wherefore at this point he is just meat even though living meat but still only meat just the same and not man anymore.

3. There are transient states when man no longer exists but except in suspension, namely, when man is in a coma, in deep dreamless sleep, in a fainted state, in general anaesthesia: if he does not come out from such states, he does not exist anymore as man, but only as meat even though living meat, but specially as dead meat like in the meat market.

4. Man asks himself, Where do I come from? And he answers (from and by his thinking and reasoning mind the organ of which is his brain -- so folks who don't ask that question are not humans but something else): from a cause outside the universe; why not from the universe itself, impossible because the universe itself has a beginning. What about from the primordial soup, impossible because the primordial soup being in the universe has also a beginning.

5. So man reaches the conclusion from his examination of his own existence that the universe itself for having a beginning comes from the cause outside the universe.

6. Now, man asks himself how does the universe exists and works? Simple, since the universe comes forth from the cause outside itself, then this cause is the agent of operation ultimately of the universe.


There you have it folks with a functioning brain: the explanation and hence also proof from evidence and reasoning for the existence of God, namely, from the existence of man and the universe, thus described in concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe as:

The unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

What do you say, oh ye atheists and also atheists sympathizers?


Attend to the question of God, don't dodge this question by bringing in the question of the supernatural and miracles, oh ye dodgers and nothing else but dodgers.




Cheers.

Gerry

[gerry]

No more magic please from atheists about time and space and all that to prove that God does not exist.

Read scientists.

You atheists as humans you come from God that is an example of creation from God, and you are not God; you will wind down as also ultimately the material universe winds down, but God exists in Himself and from Himself, He is existence itself, His essence is pure existence: "Before the universe was, I am: for I created the universe," says God.


Don't argue anymore, the material universe has a beginning, it came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, scientists tell us, and mankind knows from Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


No need to harp on induction logic and its deficiency, everyone atheists or atheists' sympathizers here: Tassman, Doug, Pancreas, etc.

No need to question the principle, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Scientists have spoken, the material universe has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, until then it was all God the unique uncreated creator and operator of the material universe.



Read the following cites from the web:

1. The Origin of the Universe: Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-of-the-unive...
The cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago with the big bang. A fraction of a second after the beginning, the universe was a hot, formless soup of the most ...

2. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely ... 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. .... Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently ..... about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7 billion year age of the Universe.

3. Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
This chronology of the universe describes the history and future of the ... as of 2011 suggest that the initial conditions occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

4. The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | Big ...
http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-...rse-birth.html
21 Oct 2011 – Our universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in a massive ... to be important once you get to that place in the history of the universe." ...

5. A Capsule History of the Universe - Dark Energy - HETDEX
hetdex.org/dark_energy/capsule_history.php
The history of dark energy appears to begin with the Big Bang — the instant of creation for... The universe began with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago.

6. History of the Universe
history of the universe.com/index.php?p=tl1.htm
Simple explanation of History of the Universe in the framework of the history of the Universe. ... 13.7 billion years ago. Origin of the Universe 13.7 bya / Energy ...

7. Big Bang Theory
www.big-bang-theory.com/
What are the alternatives to our ultimate question of origins? ... standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.

8. BBC - GCSE Bitesize: The Big Bang
www.bbc.co.uk › ... › AQA (Pre-2011) › Radiation and the Universe
The foremost theory of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory. It suggests that the universe began several billion years ago in an explosion that ... the Big Bang, and happened about 13.7 billion years ago (that's 13,700,000,000 years ...

9. The Big Bang
www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/big_bang.htm
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot ...from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

10. LHC - How did the Universe begin?
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%....../13681.aspx
The top scientific theory regarding the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang, a term first used by ... In this theory, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago.


There are 67,600 cites from scientists in the web.




Cheers.

Gerry