Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[JimL]

Being proposed, does not answer the question as to what the evidence would be if it were infinite.

The fact that from nothing, nothing comes, and yet there is an existing something, is pretty good evidence that the something is infinite.

For one, your view of God is mythical. And so that substantive evidence of God is not even something you would even bother to consider - even if you knew of what would be that evidence.

There is no substantive evidence, thats the point.

Why should you? Let alone anyone else for that matter.

Yes, that was the question.

The meaning of the term or what can be observed? The mere meaning of the term can be understood to mean everything (known and not known to us). Limiting the term to mean what is physically observable, our known universe - cosmos as it is sometimes called.

Okay, not sure where you're going with this.

It is a supposition as to the supposed possibility of the observed universe actually being greater than what is observed to be finite.

It is possible, and more likely than not, that the universe is infinite, yes, thats not something that can be proved one way or the other because its beyond our ability to detect.

Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be God. [Everything is not uncaused.]

If the universe is itself infinite, then there is no such thing as a first cause, or a caused existence.

A couple things here. Metaphysical arguments can be nonsensical. Not that they should be. Nowhere in this thread have I proposed any kind of Cosmological Argument. As you seem to resist that there is a fundamental difference between existence and cause. I have argued Uncaused Existence not the Uncaused Cause. The major typical flaw of the Cosmological Arguments is that any infinite regression is disallowed as being impossible.

In order for there to be an infinite regression of cause and effect, time would be necessary, but time, it would seem, is not fundamental.

Which never existed in reality.

Right, and neither do any of the other gods exist, including yours.

[demi-conservative]

Then the question becomes, why wouldn't God be egalitarian, why offer salvation and the Gospel to one sinner and not the other? Is there something that makes Darth or Seer special?

Like Paul says:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Not everyone gets same chance of conversion, by plain scripture. How that is controversial is mystery.

[37818]

The fact that from nothing, nothing comes, and yet there is an existing something, is pretty good evidence that the something is infinite.

That there is an uncaused existence. In that uncaused existence there are caused things which have also come into existence. Now was there always caused things? Is there an infinite regression of caused things where there was never being any first caused things? The Cosmological Argument says no. That there was an Uncaused Cause.

There is no substantive evidence, that's the point.

Oh, there is being no substantive evidence of existence? [Uncaused Existence being the only valid identity of God. Uncaused Existence being the reason for all other existence and needs no God.]

Yes, that was the question.

Uncaused Existence being the only valid identity of God.

Okay, not sure where you're going with this.

Words have meaning. Two people use the same word but mean different things. "Universe." "God." If we are going to use a term, we need to understand what is meant by its use. For example: all food is "organic."

It is possible, and more likely than not, that the universe is infinite, yes, thats not something that can be proved one way or the other because its beyond our ability to detect.

Maybe it is not possible for there to be an infinite universe that can be detected to be infinite.

If the universe is itself infinite, then there is no such thing as a first cause, or a caused existence.

Yes, yes and no. We could still have caused things - which have caused existence - there being no first causes. An infinite regression of ex nihilo things.

In order for there to be an infinite regression of cause and effect, time would be necessary, but time, it would seem, is not fundamental.

There is no absolute time now as we know it.

Right, and neither do any of the other gods exist, including yours.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And JimL you do not exist.

[Tassman]

Being proposed, does not answer the question as to what the evidence would be if it were infinite.

There is considerable mathematical evidence for an infinite universe as opposed to that for an infinite deity, for which there is no credible evidence at all.

For one, your view of God is mythical. And so that substantive evidence of God is not even something you would even bother to consider - even if you knew of what would be that evidence.

Are you saying that there is substantive evidence for god(s)...what is it? Personal mystical experiences don’t count as substantive evidence.

Why should you? Let alone anyone else for that matter.

One accepts what other's have to say based upon supportive evidence.

The meaning of the term or what can be observed? The mere meaning of the term can be understood to mean everything (known and not known to us). Limiting the term to mean what is physically observable, our known universe - cosmos as it is sometimes called.

Why do you limit “the term [universe] to mean what is physically observable in our known universe”?

It is a supposition as to the supposed possibility of the observed universe actually being greater than what is observed to be finite.

No, it is much more than a “supposition”. There actually is quite a lot of evidence for an infinite universe.

Remember that in science many things are predicted based upon existing knowledge long before they can be verified, e.g. Quarks, Cosmic Microwave Background...and it took fifty years to verify the predicted Higgs Boson (or God particle, as it was known).

When these phenomena were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them, but they were confidently predicted to exist.

Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be God. [Everything is not uncaused.]

What evidence do you have of an “uncaused existence”?

A couple things here. Metaphysical arguments can be nonsensical. Not that they should be. Nowhere in this thread have I proposed any kind of Cosmological Argument. As you seem to resist that there is a fundamental difference between existence and cause. I have argued Uncaused Existence not the Uncaused Cause. The major typical flaw of the Cosmological Arguments is that any infinite regression is disallowed as being impossible.

Traditional metaphysical arguments can be perfectly valid, but because they’re based upon an assumed premise they cannot be shown to be true.

Which never existed in reality.

They were just as real as your god, i.e. not real at all. .

[Sparko]

Then don't attribute to your god the attribute of justice. If not one of us is any better than any other, we are all sinners, right, then there has to be a reason for a god to offer the one mercy and salvation, but not the other. You seem to think that's justice, but if it is, it is a type of justice as its defined only in your own mind.

Again read Romans 1. God offered salvation to all but many people didn't think it worth while to keep that knowledge and forgot about him and turned to worshiping false gods instead.

Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Just like YOU JimL.

You turn away from the knowledge of God and think you will be able to say it was somehow God's fault when you are face to face with him. That you can blame God for you ending up in hell, when in fact it will be your own choice and your own sins that send you there. It's not like it is so hard to be saved. Just ask Jesus to save you.

God doesn't make you jump through hoops.

[Sparko]

You’ve missed the point.

How can God blame people for committing sins when for the vast majority of the 200,000 years of human existence they had no knowledge of what constituted “sin”...apart from self-appointed spokesmen of the vast variety of gods that arose over human history. The invention of writing and written codes of behaviour only occurred c. 5,500 years ago.

You are confusing your naturalism with theism again.

Even if a Christian doesn't believe in YEC, they still believe God started with an Adam and an Eve, who sinned and were then shown how to be saved again. They started with the knowledge. Apparently some of them did not think it worthwhile to keep the knowledge and turned to false gods.

They are responsible for their actions. We all are. He gave everyone consciences. Even if you never knew about God, can you say you never did anything that you knew was morally wrong? That your actions never hurt another person? Of course not. You have sinned and you have sinned by your very own standards, so you have no excuse. Just like everyone else on Earth. Past and present.

[37818]

There is considerable mathematical evidence for an infinite universe as opposed to that for an infinite deity, for which there is no credible evidence at all.

Your idea of deity is myth. My understanding is the Uncaused Existence is God. In order for there to be a mathematical model let alone an infinite universe there has to be an infinite Existence, an Uncaused Existence.

Are you saying that there is substantive evidence for god(s)...what is it? Personal mystical experiences don’t count as substantive evidence.

I have already argued that uncaused existence in the only thing which can qualify as God. A personal mystical experience in and of itself does not guaranteed it was actually from God. But genuine Christians can be said to have this (John 7:17; John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-12; 2 Corinthians 13:5).

One accepts what other's have to say based upon supportive evidence.

Yes, the witness of others. Now the issue then becomes how or why or what constitutes acceptable supporting evidence - or if you can even have access to it. [67 moons of Jupiter. The number of protons and neutrons in an atom. And the like.]

Why do you limit “the term [universe] to mean what is physically observable in our known universe”?

I do not. But if you are a materialist how can you not limit it to our known universe? The term universe can be understood to mean everything. Or only refer to creation. Depending on how one uses the term. Most all Christians limit the term to mean all creation after the creation of the angels, without given it thought about the angels which would included "God's Heaven." If one includes the Uncaused Existence being God - then the term universe means everything.

No, it is much more than a “supposition”. There actually is quite a lot of evidence for an infinite universe.

Well, name one piece of this evidence. And please explain how we know it is infinite - and not just supposed.

Remember that in science many things are predicted based upon existing knowledge long before they can be verified, e.g. Quarks, Cosmic Microwave Background...and it took fifty years to verify the predicted Higgs Boson (or God particle, as it was known).

Yeah, but we are mostly taking it on faith based on testimony that such and such was done. Like from accepted text books. Maybe at best some photos from some of the experiments or data sheets with the mathematics explaining data - if we can understand the math.

When these phenomena were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them, but they were confidently predicted to exist.

What evidence do you have of an “uncaused existence”?

By logical deduction. Existence exists for one. If one has an infinite regression of existences or no infinite regress of existences - it is deduce that there is an "uncaused existence" either way. And nothingness in the truest sense of the word nothingness is what never was. Hence there was always an existence - uncaused existence. So either God is that uncaused existence or there is no God. And with the concept of God being the Uncaused Existence, if uncaused existence is not accepted as God, then God is not accepted as God. Denial of a concept does not make a concept not to exist. There are no square circles.

Traditional metaphysical arguments can be perfectly valid, but because they’re based upon an assumed premise they cannot be shown to be true.

But what matters is if they are true. And if true and we do not believe it what does it matter?

They were just as real as your god, i.e. not real at all. .

No. Which of them are identified as the "Uncaused Existence?" Only the Hebrew deity whose Name has been understood as the self-Existent. Exodus 3:14-15.

[JimL]

Again read Romans 1. God offered salvation to all but many people didn't think it worth while to keep that knowledge and forgot about him and turned to worshiping false gods instead.

Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Just like YOU JimL.

You turn away from the knowledge of God and think you will be able to say it was somehow God's fault when you are face to face with him. That you can blame God for you ending up in hell, when in fact it will be your own choice and your own sins that send you there. It's not like it is so hard to be saved. Just ask Jesus to save you.

God doesn't make you jump through hoops.

And because those with a conversion agenda tell you that we all have knowledge of god ipso facto, thats what makes it so for you. You are using the bible in order to convince yourself, and others, that what the bible says is true.
The plain and obvious fact Sparko, is that neither you or I, nor anyone else, has knowledge of God, and if we did we would have no need to say that we believe. What you have knowledge of is the bible, which you've been taught to be the word of god, and so the circular thinking goes.

[Sparko]

And because those with a conversion agenda tell you that we all have knowledge of god ipso facto, thats what makes it so for you. You are using the bible in order to convince yourself, and others, that what the bible says is true.
The plain and obvious fact Sparko, is that neither you or I, nor anyone else, has knowledge of God, and if we did we would have no need to say that we believe. What you have knowledge of is the bible, which you've been taught to be the word of god, and so the circular thinking goes.

I love it! When you and Tassman want to show how the bible is wrong you first try to argue by taking things out of context and twisting it as much as you can. But when finally you can't convince anyone with your distortions, you resort to "well the bible isn't true anyway, so nyah!"

I was explaining how salvation works in Christian theology and that people don't go to hell for "not believing in God"
You don't have to accept the theology, but you can't try to argue against the theology using the bible and then when that doesn't work, just say well it isn't true anyway!

[JimL]

I love it! When you and Tassman want to show how the bible is wrong you first try to argue by taking things out of context and twisting it as much as you can. But when finally you can't convince anyone with your distortions, you resort to "well the bible isn't true anyway, so nyah!"

I was explaining how salvation works in Christian theology and that people don't go to hell for "not believing in God"
You don't have to accept the theology, but you can't try to argue against the theology using the bible and then when that doesn't work, just say well it isn't true anyway!

Tell me then Sparko, if people believe in God, are they saved? You already answered that in the affirmative. So, if they don't believe in God, then they are not saved, right? And yet in either case, whether believer or non-believer, they are both sinners, correct? Ergo, being saved or going to hell is dependent upon nothing other than whether you believe in god or not. Spin does one no good when the spinner is only fooling himself.

[One Bad Pig]

Tell me then Sparko, if people believe in God, are they saved? You already answered that in the affirmative. So, if they don't believe in God, then they are not saved, right? And yet in either case, whether believer or non-believer, they are both sinners, correct? Ergo, being saved or going to hell is dependent upon nothing other than whether you believe in god or not. Spin does one no good when the spinner is only fooling himself.

The key is repentance, Jim.

[Sparko]

Tell me then Sparko, if people believe in God, are they saved? You already answered that in the affirmative. So, if they don't believe in God, then they are not saved, right? And yet in either case, whether believer or non-believer, they are both sinners, correct? Ergo, being saved or going to hell is dependent upon nothing other than whether you believe in god or not. Spin does one no good when the spinner is only fooling himself.

I went over this previously.

If you are in prison for murder, and you can get out by asking for a pardon, and you don't ask for a pardon, that doesn't mean you are in prison for not asking for a pardon. You are in prison for murder.

so yes believing in God (accepting Jesus as your savior) will save you and if you don't you will end up in hell FOR THE SINS YOU COMMITTED.

If you don't want to go to hell, then don't sin. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Tassman]

I went over this previously.

If you are in prison for murder, and you can get out by asking for a pardon, and you don't ask for a pardon, that doesn't mean you are in prison for not asking for a pardon. You are in prison for murder.

so yes believing in God (accepting Jesus as your savior) will save you and if you don't you will end up in hell FOR THE SINS YOU COMMITTED.

If you don't want to go to hell, then don't sin. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

My mother used make me behave by threatening that the Bogeyman would get me if I was naughty. This is the same thing for grown-ups...well immature grown-ups.

You are confusing your naturalism with theism again.

Even if a Christian doesn't believe in YEC, they still believe God started with an Adam and an Eve, who sinned and were then shown how to be saved again. They started with the knowledge. Apparently some of them did not think it worthwhile to keep the knowledge and turned to false gods.

They are responsible for their actions. We all are. He gave everyone consciences. Even if you never knew about God, can you say you never did anything that you knew was morally wrong? That your actions never hurt another person? Of course not. You have sinned and you have sinned by your very own standards, so you have no excuse. Just like everyone else on Earth. Past and present.

But we know for certain that there can't be an original Adam and Eve as per Genesis.

“If humans are descended from a non-human ancestor, which biology shows definitively, then the story of Adam and Eve is wrong in its particulars without question. It is not even a valuable metaphor for people who don't accept it as true, because it suggests that humans have some special status beyond that of other creatures. Additionally, it suggests that we have "dominion" over the earth, which is a terrible idea that has created a very dangerous mindset in many human beings.”

http://www.debunking-christianity.co...ules-tell.html

[Tassman]

Your idea of deity is myth. My understanding is the Uncaused Existence is God. In order for there to be a mathematical model let alone an infinite universe there has to be an infinite Existence, an Uncaused Existence.

Your understanding is unsupported by credible evidence.

I have already argued that uncaused existence in the only thing which can qualify as God.

You have no substantive evidence of “an uncaused existence”, except for a deductive argument based upon a premise which can’t be shown to be true. In short you do not have a sound argument.

A personal mystical experience in and of itself does not guaranteed it was actually from God. But genuine Christians can be said to have this (John 7:17; John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-12; 2 Corinthians 13:5).

Why would one believe anything “genuine Christians” have to say about "personal mystical experience" based upon the say-so of man-made texts?

Yes, the witness of others. Now the issue then becomes how or why or what constitutes acceptable supporting evidence - or if you can even have access to it. [67 moons of Jupiter. The number of protons and neutrons in an atom. And the like.]

What does NOT constitute acceptable supporting evidence is someone’s personal testimony of their relationship with an invisible friend.

I do not. But if you are a materialist how can you not limit it to our known universe? The term universe can be understood to mean everything. Or only refer to creation. Depending on how one uses the term. Most all Christians limit the term to mean all creation after the creation of the angels, without given it thought about the angels which would included "God's Heaven." If one includes the Uncaused Existence being God - then the term universe means everything.

Science is only limited by the tools at its disposal to investigate the universe(s), whereas religion views the universe through the distorted lens religious presuppositions. Oh, and the creation of what angels?

Well, name one piece of this evidence. And please explain how we know it is infinite - and not just supposed.

We don’t know, but there is increasing evidence to suggest it is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#2e3bb49d5b03

How do you know that god is “infinite” and not just supposed?

Yeah, but we are mostly taking it on faith based on testimony that such and such was done. Like from accepted text books. Maybe at best some photos from some of the experiments or data sheets with the mathematics explaining data - if we can understand the math.

It’s not “based on faith” at all, unlike religious beliefs. It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and almost fifty to see the Higgs Boson. When these phenomena were first proposed there were no experiments on the drawing board to falsify them – but they were confidently predicted based upon the current knowledge and mathematical projections.

By logical deduction. Existence exists for one. If one has an infinite regression of existences or no infinite regress of existences - it is deduce that there is an "uncaused existence" either way. And nothingness in the truest sense of the word nothingness is what never was. Hence there was always an existence - uncaused existence. So either God is that uncaused existence or there is no God. And with the concept of God being the Uncaused Existence, if uncaused existence is not accepted as God, then God is not accepted as God. Denial of a concept does not make a concept not to exist. There are no square circles.

Your “logical deduction” is from an assumed premise which cannot be shown to be true. It is not a sound argument.

But what matters is if they are true. And if true and we do not believe it what does it matter?

We have no way of knowing if they are true.

No. Which of them are identified as the "Uncaused Existence?" Only the Hebrew deity whose Name has been understood as the self-Existent. Exodus 3:14-15.

So? And what would Exodus 3:14-15 know about it?

[Jedidiah]

Your understanding is unsupported by credible evidence.

His only argument is that there is no scientific evidence for a god that he claims Christians believe in. His whole argument is dishonest. One has to decide whether the universe (meaning everything that is) simply happens to be what is, or that something not a part of it brought it into existence. Science can not touch that question.