Topic: Gods/Divinity is no way anyhow humanist - page 2. (Read 967 times)
are there actually atheists in this group?
To understand the clues and hints of nature in ways that contradict the Bible is foolish... especially when the Bible says things like:
Quote from: https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/20-11.htm
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Yet could this not also be translated as follows?
For in six ages the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh age. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath age and made it holy.
Is such a translation impossible given what we know of the Hebrew word Yom? Clearly evening and morning must mean something other the earthly mornings and evenings if our sun was not made until the forth day/age.
Perhaps the third night for example is referring to something like this?
Life under the Ice – Life on Rogue Planets
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CkdB5z9PY
If life did thrive in the early universe and period of universal warmth and habitability then what seems likely to have followed would be a period of ice and darkness.
Are the erroneous hypotheses and interpretations of modern scientists who might be misinterpreting nature the only error we must consider? What about the hypotheses and interpretations of modern theologians who might be misunderstanding scripture?
The Genesis record says, "And there was evening, and there was morning..." for each day. Plants and animals don't live and grow in millenniums of straight day, or millenniums of straight night.
Would there be plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars in the sky?
...
I suspect that one could stretch meanings and traditions and scientific happenings to imagine that the creation day isn't a standard near-24-hour-day. But why? The Bible is record. Science when used regarding the age of the universe is simply attempts backward extrapolation.
Plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars is actually more possible then is commonly believed. However, our understanding of the early period remains quite limited.
Did the genesis of life occur just after the Big Bang, almost 14 billion years ago?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176106-did-the-genesis-of-life-occur-just-after-the-big-bang-almost-14-billion-years-ago
The Bible is record but its purpose is to save our souls not provide us with unnecessary details of creation that we can eventually figure out on our own. The reason to question the 24 hour narrative is that our science increasingly calls that interpretation into question and other interpretations are possible.
God can of course do anything but the question is what exactly did he do not what can he do. It is my opinion that the wisest course is to maintain an open mind on the exact timeframe of creation and the exact origins of life.
That's the big question, isn't it. What are we going to believe? The record of the Bible that we are finding out more and more to be actually historical in nature? The record of the "the evening and the morning" of each creation day? Or the hypotheses and interpretations of modern scientists who might be misinterpreting what the find in nature?
When we go on a date with a guy or a gal, how do we know what the person feels about us? Do we understand it easiest by their hints? Or is it much clearer when they say it right out?
Science tries to figure out all kinds of things by the clues and hints that nature leaves us. The Bible tells us straight out. Then, because we are so used to trying to ferret answers out of a stubbornly unyielding nature, we think that we need to apply such ferreting processes to the simple, straight-forward speaking of the Bible. And we mix ourselves all up when we try to do this.
To understand the clues and hints of nature in ways that contradict the Bible is foolish... especially when the Bible says things like:
Quote from: https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/20-11.htm
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The Genesis record says, "And there was evening, and there was morning..." for each day. Plants and animals don't live and grow in millenniums of straight day, or millenniums of straight night.
Would there be plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars in the sky?
...
I suspect that one could stretch meanings and traditions and scientific happenings to imagine that the creation day isn't a standard near-24-hour-day. But why? The Bible is record. Science when used regarding the age of the universe is simply attempts backward extrapolation.
Plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars is actually more possible then is commonly believed. However, our understanding of the early period remains quite limited.
Did the genesis of life occur just after the Big Bang, almost 14 billion years ago?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176106-did-the-genesis-of-life-occur-just-after-the-big-bang-almost-14-billion-years-ago
The Bible is record but its purpose is to save our souls not provide us with unnecessary details of creation that we can eventually figure out on our own. The reason to question the 24 hour narrative is that our science increasingly calls that interpretation into question and other interpretations are possible.
God can of course do anything but the question is what exactly did he do not what can he do. It is my opinion that the wisest course is to maintain an open mind on the exact timeframe of creation and the exact origins of life.
Except Moses was a legendary figure, not a historical one.
Prove it.
If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.
I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would patiently explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.
Why would I care to prove it? You should care about such proof.
No physical historical records exist of Moses, so there is nothing to prove.
I have no interest in Jewish or Christian mythology, I am not an ancient history buff.
You would only be proving that it isn't mythology.
Just read my previous post. It is not possible to prove that he was a historical person. There is no historical evidence.
If you turn your back on the proof, there is no evidence only for you. Everybody who looks has evident proof.
Except Moses was a legendary figure, not a historical one.
Prove it.
If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.
I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would patiently explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.
Why would I care to prove it? You should care about such proof.
No physical historical records exist of Moses, so there is nothing to prove.
I have no interest in Jewish or Christian mythology, I am not an ancient history buff.
You would only be proving that it isn't mythology.
Just read my previous post. It is not possible to prove that he was a historical person. There is no historical evidence.
Except Moses was a legendary figure, not a historical one.
Prove it.
If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.
I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would patiently explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.
Why would I care to prove it? You should care about such proof.
No physical historical records exist of Moses, so there is nothing to prove.
I have no interest in Jewish or Christian mythology, I am not an ancient history buff.
You would only be proving that it isn't mythology.
Except Moses was a legendary figure, not a historical one.
Prove it.
If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.
I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would be happy to explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.
Moses and Israel in Egypt are written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. See Proof of Ancient Israel In Egyptian Hieroglyphics - Merneptah Stele - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZ9QQv6gCk. Then look in the Youtube sidebar for more. And watch the fight as other people try to debunk the Egyptian proof.
God said "day." What's wrong with believing God?
Nothing at all but did God really say day? The Hebrew word for day is Yom and it has other meanings then a 24 hour period.
See:
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
I would take the position that when multiple meanings can be assigned to a single word the onus is on us using our reason to determine which interpretation is the correct one to the best of our ability.
The Genesis record says, "And there was evening, and there was morning..." for each day. Plants and animals don't live and grow in millenniums of straight day, or millenniums of straight night.
Would there be plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars in the sky?
There are microbes that wander around in some fluid, touching each other now and again. Perhaps they contact each other in some ways. But do they even have a clue about us? Why would we think that God couldn't exist? So what if he is beyond us farther than we are beyond the microbes? Creating the universe in 6 days is something that He could do easily because, Wisdom is speaking:
Quote from: https://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/8.htm
22“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30Then I was constantly e at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
before his deeds of old;
23I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30Then I was constantly e at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
"When the word 'day' is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day:"
...
Although there is no hint of a confrontation in Genesis 1, it should be noted that the waye phrases (translated ‘and it was’) function to summarize the activities of the previous yôm. So it seems reasonable to place the concluding phrases in Genesis I in this category. The last two types are few in number, but use prepositions to signify a certain yôm as a starting point or a terminal point of an action, and occur a total of 7 times; here too the word yôm is singular, and is associated with an ordinal number. An example of the starting point is in Ezra 3:6, ‘On the first day of the seventh month, they began to offer burnt offerings to the Lord.’ The terminal point is seen in Leviticus 19:6, ‘ … anything left over until the third day must be burned up.’ Terence Fretheim observes, ‘When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day.’21
There is another point which should be brought out when discussing the syntagmatic relationships of yôm and numbers as they are used in a series. Fretheim observes that the use of yôm in a numbered series such as is found in Genesis 1, Numbers 7 and 29 ‘always has reference to a normal "day".22 So, as Fretheim suggests, when the interpreter sees the word yôm, used with a number, occurring several times in succession and in a specific context, this construction serves to denote a solar day.
...
Although there is no hint of a confrontation in Genesis 1, it should be noted that the waye phrases (translated ‘and it was’) function to summarize the activities of the previous yôm. So it seems reasonable to place the concluding phrases in Genesis I in this category. The last two types are few in number, but use prepositions to signify a certain yôm as a starting point or a terminal point of an action, and occur a total of 7 times; here too the word yôm is singular, and is associated with an ordinal number. An example of the starting point is in Ezra 3:6, ‘On the first day of the seventh month, they began to offer burnt offerings to the Lord.’ The terminal point is seen in Leviticus 19:6, ‘ … anything left over until the third day must be burned up.’ Terence Fretheim observes, ‘When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day.’21
There is another point which should be brought out when discussing the syntagmatic relationships of yôm and numbers as they are used in a series. Fretheim observes that the use of yôm in a numbered series such as is found in Genesis 1, Numbers 7 and 29 ‘always has reference to a normal "day".22 So, as Fretheim suggests, when the interpreter sees the word yôm, used with a number, occurring several times in succession and in a specific context, this construction serves to denote a solar day.
...
I suspect that one could stretch meanings and traditions and scientific happenings to imagine that the creation day isn't a standard near-24-hour-day. But why? The Bible is record. Science when used regarding the age of the universe is simply attempts backward extrapolation.
Except Moses was a legendary figure, not a historical one.
Prove it.
If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.
I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would patiently explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.
God said "day." What's wrong with believing God?
Nothing at all but did God really say day? The Hebrew word for day is Yom and it has other meanings then a 24 hour period.
See:
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
I take the position that when multiple meanings can be assigned to a single word the onus is on us using our reason to determine which interpretation is the correct one to the best of our ability.
Entropy shows us that the universe was created recently. How? By the complexity that it has. If the universe had been born by BB 13 billion years ago, entropy would have collapsed the complexity of it into a massless, shapeless "goo" by now. People would not exist because we are way too complex for any complexity that would exist in the universe by now.
...
Entropy shows that our space-time reality had a beginning not too far in the past.
...
Entropy shows that our space-time reality had a beginning not too far in the past.
It is in my opinion error to overly focus on one specific interpretation of fact when other possible interpretations of that fact could be true. - I agree. Your idea here is the major reason much science theory cannot ever become science fact. There is a whole universe full of potential reasons that can nullify almost any science theory... reasons not speculated about, or maybe even known. For example, in Darwin's day, people could not even imagine the cellular biologic operations that we have seen under today's modern microscopes. And we have just barely begun analyzing them ourselves.
When we insist that our faith demands a specific fact when such an assertion is not actually necessary it we ground ourselves on an unstable foundation. If we error in such a false assertion we are forced to ignore ever mounting evidence that our interpretation does not in fact conform to reality. We turn into our famous resident flat earth advocate who must entertain ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to maintain his disbelief in reality. - This is true, and it works in every direction, with everything. Facts are things that are felt. They bring us joy, pain, poverty, wealth, wisdom, understanding, and a lot more, even death. That's why we try to follow the speculations that seems to have the most facts behind them.
For example take Genesis 1. It is often asserted as a foundation for young earth creationism. I personally think that this view may be an error.
Below is my personal take on Genesis one. I make no claims it is absolutely truth. However, in does my opinion restore harmony between the Biblical account and current scientific understanding.
Ages of Creation in Genesis
Day 1: “Let there be light,” = Big Bang
"He separated the light from the darkness". = Photon decoupling thought to occur at about 378,000 years after the Big Bang
Day 2:
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” = Between about 10 and 17 million years the universe's average temperature was suitable for liquid water (273 – 373K). It is possible that rocky planets or indeed life could have arisen briefly, since statistically a tiny part of the universe could have had different conditions from the rest, and gained warmth from the universe as a whole.
The habitable epoch of the early Universe
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/habitable.pdf
Day 3
"Let the land produce vegetation.” = Life did indeed form and thrive during this early habitable epoch.
Day 4
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"" = First stars formed around 400 to 700 million years after the Big Bang.
"God made two great lights—the greater light to governthe day and the lesser light to governthe night." = Earth and moon formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago.
Day 5
"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it." = Life created on earth perhaps first in deep sea vents on the floor of the ocean and then rapidly spreading throughout the ocean in various forms.
Day 6
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds... Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” = God created land animals probably via spread out of the oceans and God created humans the creation which via our knowledge holds dominion over all other creatures in our corner of the universe.
Now I don't claim with certainty that this harmonization is in fact entirely correct, However, it is seems logically sound enough to me so I hold to it at the moment. The exact ordering of creation has no relevance to the foundation of my faith so I am perfectly willing to improve my understanding if in the future I become convinced that my understanding is in error.
Or, God said "day." And it was a "day" that was reasonably similar to our day - 24 hours.
Why believe that God said day? Because of the strength of Moses, the author/"editor" of the wording that used "day."
Who was Moses? He was at least a prince of Ancient Egypt, with access to historical records that we can only dream about. He did miracles that caused him to be revered by the people who followed him out of Egypt, so that they took it to heart to copy his words accurately. He talked to God face to face so that his face glowed with the glory of God.
Why is Moses important? Because the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings show that the things of Moses were important enough to hand down accurately for thousands of years. The handing down wasn't done in simple ways like the writings of Plato and many other of the ancients. Rather, they were handed down with power... forcefully and accurately. This would only be done if they were important, because Moses had strength.
Further, there is the infilling of the Holy Spirit in those people who look for real truth. This is done today, in power.
None of us were there at the time of the beginning. Why make up our own guesswork story, when we have the writings of Power from Moses and others... a whole nation of others, who were reprimanded by God at times, just as it says in their writings?
God said "day." What's wrong with believing God?
Entropy shows us that the universe was created recently. How? By the complexity that it has. If the universe had been born by BB 13 billion years ago, entropy would have collapsed the complexity of it into a massless, shapeless "goo" by now. People would not exist because we are way too complex for any complexity that would exist in the universe by now.
...
Entropy shows that our space-time reality had a beginning not too far in the past.
...
Entropy shows that our space-time reality had a beginning not too far in the past.
It is in my opinion error to overly focus on one specific interpretation of fact when other possible interpretations of that fact could be true.
When we insist that our faith demands a specific fact when such an assertion is not actually necessary it we ground ourselves on an unstable foundation. If we error in such a false assertion we are forced to ignore ever mounting evidence that our interpretation does not in fact conform to reality. We turn into our famous resident flat earth advocate who must entertain ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to maintain his disbelief in reality.
For example take Genesis 1. It is often asserted as a foundation for young earth creationism. I personally think that this view may be an error.
Below is my personal take on Genesis one. I make no claims it is absolutely truth. However, in does my opinion restore harmony between the Biblical account and current scientific understanding.
Ages of Creation in Genesis
Day 1: “Let there be light,” = Big Bang
"He separated the light from the darkness". = Photon decoupling thought to occur at about 378,000 years after the Big Bang
Day 2:
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” = Between about 10 and 17 million years the universe's average temperature was suitable for liquid water (273 – 373K). It is possible that rocky planets or indeed life could have arisen briefly, since statistically a tiny part of the universe could have had different conditions from the rest, and gained warmth from the universe as a whole.
The habitable epoch of the early Universe
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/habitable.pdf
Day 3
"Let the land produce vegetation.” = Life did indeed form and thrive during this early habitable epoch.
Day 4
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"" = First stars formed around 400 to 700 million years after the Big Bang.
"God made two great lights—the greater light to governthe day and the lesser light to governthe night." = Earth and moon formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago.
Day 5
"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it." = Life created on earth perhaps first in deep sea vents on the floor of the ocean and then rapidly spreading throughout the ocean in various forms.
Day 6
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds... Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” = God created land animals probably via spread out of the oceans and God created humans the creation which via our knowledge holds dominion over all other creatures in our corner of the universe.
Now I don't claim with certainty that this harmonization is in fact entirely correct, However, it is seems logically sound enough to me so I hold to it at the moment. The exact ordering of creation has no relevance to the foundation of my faith so I am perfectly willing to improve my understanding if in the future I become convinced that my understanding is in error.
You know that this isn't what I am saying. Why do you know this? Because you know that there isn't any BB.
The Cause of the universe caused the component parts of time, which He later turned into time.
The Cause was not before. It simply was the Cause. Why wasn't the Cause before? Because time didn't exist, yet. Therefore the Cause was simply the Cause. Once the components of time existed... once they were brought into being... time existed after a fashion.
Wake up and stop letting your retarded engineer training keep you from recognizing the truth.
You are putting the cart before the horse. How do you know the universe was created by a guy?
Maybe the universe was always here in one form or another. Have you considered that possibility?
Maybe we are part of a simulation done by some high school students from an alien civilization.
Maybe we are on the other side of a singularity of some black hole in another universe.
Have you considered all the possibilities? Or Maybe you just picked the one that feels most comfortable to you?
As for the cause without time, sorry buddy, no time, no cause. It is pretty self-explanatory.
Our reality is based in spacetime. Just because your imagination takes you outside of it, it does not mean that your delusion is true.
It does not matter how many times you repeat it, or how many copies of a book you give away for free.
The question isn't the gender of the Creator.
Entropy shows us that the universe was created recently. How? By the complexity that it has. If the universe had been born by BB 13 billion years ago, entropy would have collapsed the complexity of it into a massless, shapeless "goo" by now. People would not exist because we are way too complex for any complexity that would exist in the universe by now.
Your other points are simply questions that you don't really have a base for asking. Why? Because they don't fit what you believe to be true. Anybody can ask goofy, off-base questions.
Entropy shows that our space-time reality had a beginning not too far in the past.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your crap. You don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
Our reality... Just because your imagination takes you outside of it, it does not mean that your delusion is true.
It does not matter how many times you repeat it, or how many copies of a book you give away for free.
It does not matter how many times you repeat it, or how many copies of a book you give away for free.
A child born and raised in prison may never have seen the world outside the four walls of his cage. Nevertheless he can still correctly imagine some aspects of that world based on what it is not. It's not a prison.
J.R.R. Tolkien discussed this with C.S. Lewis back when Lewis was an atheist. I found the account of that exchange fascinating.
C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on the power of Fiction
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAE15gtEzg
For humans to understand what is cause and what is effect, does it matter? If a non-time-held cause causes a time-held existence, so what? A timeless cause can do this.
What is the temporal system you are talking about?
The one you exist in. Spacetime.What is the temporal system you are talking about?
Why do you think that having no "before" indicates no cause? After all, time is part of what makes a time-free cause to be evident.
...
...
Effects and causes happen in spacetime. Without spacetime, there are no causes or effects.
It is non-sensical to talk about effects or causes in the absence of time.
Causes happen before effects, in TIME.
It's easy to understand that there is at least one cause without time. What is that cause? It is the cause that time was the effect of.
Your mistake is you are extending (space)time to an instance before the (space)time was created.
You are basically saying that time was not created at the Big Bang moment.
You know that this isn't what I am saying. Why do you know this? Because you know that there isn't any BB.
The Cause of the universe caused the component parts of time, which He later turned into time.
The Cause was not before. It simply was the Cause. Why wasn't the Cause before? Because time didn't exist, yet. Therefore the Cause was simply the Cause. Once the components of time existed... once they were brought into being... time existed after a fashion.
Wake up and stop letting your retarded engineer training keep you from recognizing the truth.
You are putting the cart before the horse. How do you know the universe was created by a guy?
Maybe the universe was always here in one form or another. Have you considered that possibility?
Maybe we are part of a simulation done by some high school students from an alien civilization.
Maybe we are on the other side of a singularity of some black hole in another universe.
Have you considered all the possibilities? Or Maybe you just picked the one that feels most comfortable to you?
As for the cause without time, sorry buddy, no time, no cause. It is pretty self-explanatory.
Our reality is based in spacetime. Just because your imagination takes you outside of it, it does not mean that your delusion is true.
It does not matter how many times you repeat it, or how many copies of a book you give away for free.
For humans to understand what is cause and what is effect, does it matter? If a non-time-held cause causes a time-held existence, so what? A timeless cause can do this.
What is the temporal system you are talking about?
The one you exist in. Spacetime.What is the temporal system you are talking about?
Why do you think that having no "before" indicates no cause? After all, time is part of what makes a time-free cause to be evident.
...
...
Effects and causes happen in spacetime. Without spacetime, there are no causes or effects.
It is non-sensical to talk about effects or causes in the absence of time.
Causes happen before effects, in TIME.
It's easy to understand that there is at least one cause without time. What is that cause? It is the cause that time was the effect of.
Your mistake is you are extending (space)time to an instance before the (space)time was created.
You are basically saying that time was not created at the Big Bang moment.
You know that this isn't what I am saying. Why do you know this? Because you know that there isn't any BB.
The Cause of the universe caused the component parts of time, which He later turned into time.
The Cause was not before. It simply was the Cause. Why wasn't the Cause before? Because time didn't exist, yet. Therefore the Cause was simply the Cause. Once the components of time existed... once they were brought into being... time existed after a fashion.
Wake up and stop letting your retarded engineer training keep you from recognizing the truth.
For humans to understand what is cause and what is effect, does it matter? If a non-time-held cause causes a time-held existence, so what? A timeless cause can do this.
What is the temporal system you are talking about?
The one you exist in. Spacetime.What is the temporal system you are talking about?
Why do you think that having no "before" indicates no cause? After all, time is part of what makes a time-free cause to be evident.
...
...
Effects and causes happen in spacetime. Without spacetime, there are no causes or effects.
It is non-sensical to talk about effects or causes in the absence of time.
Causes happen before effects, in TIME.
It's easy to understand that there is at least one cause without time. What is that cause? It is the cause that time was the effect of.
Your mistake is you are extending (space)time to an instance before the (space)time was created.
You are basically saying that time was not created at the Big Bang moment.
For humans to understand what is cause and what is effect, does it matter? If a non-time-held cause causes a time-held existence, so what? A timeless cause can do this.
What is the temporal system you are talking about?
The one you exist in. Spacetime.What is the temporal system you are talking about?
Why do you think that having no "before" indicates no cause? After all, time is part of what makes a time-free cause to be evident.
...
...
Effects and causes happen in spacetime. Without spacetime, there are no causes or effects.
It is non-sensical to talk about effects or causes in the absence of time.
Causes happen before effects, in TIME.
It's easy to understand that there is at least one cause without time. What is that cause? It is the cause that time was the effect of.
For humans to understand what is cause and what is effect, does it matter? If a non-time-held cause causes a time-held existence, so what? A timeless cause can do this.
What is the temporal system you are talking about?
The one you exist in. Spacetime.What is the temporal system you are talking about?
Why do you think that having no "before" indicates no cause? After all, time is part of what makes a time-free cause to be evident.
...
...
Effects and causes happen in spacetime. Without spacetime, there are no causes or effects.
It is non-sensical to talk about effects or causes in the absence of time.
Causes happen before effects, in TIME.
Jump to: