Comparing Atheism and Christianity (agnostic, believers, verse, belief)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

*I'll deal with your answers to the 3 questions one at a time...

Question 1: Origin of the Universe

TotN: “the state of a singularity is purely theoretical. No such state can be observed, and the very existence of such a state [i.e. singularity] cannot currently be explained by classical physics.”

So we both agree that a singularity could be described as ‘supernatural’?

Supernatural: The concept of the supernatural encompasses anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
———

TotN: "there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before."

"Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of energy which already existed."

That’s a theory, but not one that has the credibility of the Big Bang theory. As I noted earlier, from the wikipedia page:
"Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if the singularity was primordial (i.e. existed prior to the Big Bang)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
———

TotN: "The question 'Where did the energy for our universe come from' is echoed in the question, 'Where did the energy in a black hole go?' The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive."

"So when the question is asked, "where did the energy of the big bang come from, the answer, based on the example of black holes, is someplace else."

"What occurred prior to the big bang? The implication is, a period of massive gravitational collapse. And prior to THAT? Attempting to answer that question would be getting too far ahead of ourselves."

Are you suggesting a scenario where another universe existed, prior to our ‘big bang’, that contained a star (several times the mass of our Sun) that collapsed, resulting in a black hole that provided the energy that caused the Big Bang that created our universe? If so, please cite a source for this theory. I would like to investigate its credibility.

Also, I don’t see attempting to answer the "prior to THAT" question as getting ahead of ourselves. This is the infinite regress issue and you’re just kicking the can down the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Even if you entertain the multiverse theory, there had to be a cause that preceded the 'event' of the first ‘big bang’?
------

TotN: “the state of a singularity is purely theoretical. No such state can be observed, and the very existence of such a state [i.e. singularity] cannot currently be explained by classical physics.”

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

}
So we both agree that a singularity could be described as ‘supernatural’?

If "supernatural" is defined as existing only as an exercise of the imagination, but having no actual physical existence, then I suppose there may be a correlation.

"Astronomers observe that the universe is expanding in all directions. This leads to the conclusion that everything in the universe was once together all in an infinitely dense state that physicists refer to as the initial or cosmic singularity. Understand that the state of a singularity is purely theoretical. No such state can be observed, and the very existence of such a state cannot currently be explained by classical physics. So the current expansion of the universe seems to indicate that the universe was once in a very VERY condensed state, at least, and at a critical juncture all of the energy of the universe underwent a period of nearly instantaneous expansion. As the universe expanded, it cooled, allowing for subatomic particles, protons, neutrons and electrons to form. Matter was born." - TotN

In the full and complete state of a theoretical singularity, there is no space, and there is no passage of time. There is no up, no down, no side to side, no front to back. There is no variation of any kind. I submit that this is a description of the perfect state of nothingness.

One possible answer to why such a state cannot be reconciled with modern physics, is that such a state is purely theoretical.

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

Are you suggesting a scenario where another universe existed, prior to our ‘big bang’, that contained a star (several times the mass of our Sun) that collapsed, resulting in a black hole that provided the energy that caused the Big Bang that created our universe? If so, please cite a source for this theory. I would like to investigate its credibility,

I am pointing out that energy can neither be created or destroyed. I am pointing out that matter is one of the forms that energy takes. And I am pointing out that matter is made up mainly of empty space, and is subject to being compressed by gravity. All of which are direct observations.

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

Even if you entertain the multiverse theory, there had to be a cause that preceded the 'event' of the first ‘big bang’?

Effect is always preceded by cause. If one does not know an answer, EVERY POSSIBILITY is derived from the imagination. Some possibilities are the result of reason and direct observation. Deductive reasoning. Other possibilities are derived from pure make believe.

*****


Now it's my turn to ask the question.

The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that Jesus died, was resurrected from the dead on the third day, and bodily rose up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Most Christians however would agree that the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is insupportable, because it makes assertions that are contradicted by all common observation, common experience and common sense. The story of a flying reanimated corpse ALSO contradicts all common observation, common experience and common sense. What case is there to be made, outside of blind faith and abject gullibility, that the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is more believable than the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Now it's my turn to ask the question.

The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that Jesus died, was resurrected from the dead on the third day, and bodily rose up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Most Christians, however, would agree that the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is insupportable because it makes assertions that are contradicted by all common observation, common experience, and common sense. The story of a flying reanimated corpse ALSO contradicts all common observation, common experience, and common sense. What case is there to be made, outside of blind faith and abject gullibility, that the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is more believable than the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer?

Why choose to use the "straw man" version that is "contradicted by all common observation, common experience, and common sense" that was born of abject ignorance and superstition by primitive barbarians? The popularity of it within Christianity may well be your excuse, but it is prima facie absurd. The rebirth as Spirit (NOT as reanimated physical corpse flying into the sky) is what the primitives could NOT bear because they were terrified of Spirits! The disappearing corpse was the only version they could remotely accept. Elohim refers to a disembodied spirit which is what God is and what Jesus became after His crucifixion and what we will all become after our deaths.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Why choose to use the "straw man" version that is "contradicted by all common observation, common experience, and common sense" that was born of abject ignorance and superstition by primitive barbarians? The popularity of it within Christianity may well be your excuse, but it is prima facie absurd. The rebirth as Spirit (NOT as reanimated physical corpse flying into the sky) is what the primitives could NOT bear because they were terrified of Spirits! The disappearing corpse was the only version they could remotely accept. Elohim refers to a disembodied spirit which is what God is and what Jesus became after His crucifixion and what we will all become after our deaths.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Elohim refers to a disembodied spirit which is what God is and what Jesus became after His crucifixion and what we will all become after our deaths.

Other possibilities are derived from pure make believe. - TotN

[Iwasmadenew]

Hi TotN. You asked me a question about my belief that Jesus' resurrection was real. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you have for me after we finish going through the 3 questions. The proposal was that we both answer all 3 questions and provide reasons for our answers (which we've completed). The next step was to discuss/debate each of the 3 questions, one at a time, so we wouldn't get side-tracked and also to ensure we'd both get a chance to adequately address each of the questions before moving on to the next one...

Post #1: https://www.city-data.com/forum/56016023-post1.html
Comparing Atheism and Christianity
This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."

Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

So far, I'm quite happy about how this thread is going. Aren't you finding this exchange more enjoyable than the average discussion thread? We've managing to stay on-topic pretty well and others have been great about not posting many distracting or off-topic comments. I think if we keep going about it the way we are this could end up being a high-quality, intellectually gratifying thread.

Q: Can we stick with the "origin of the universe" question until we've adequately discussed it?

[Sorry for my delays in responding. I'd been busy lately and not available to comment, but I will be available most of today and tomorrow.]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

...

Now it's my turn to ask the question.

The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that Jesus died, was resurrected from the dead on the third day, and bodily rose up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Most Christians however would agree that the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is insupportable, because it makes assertions that are contradicted by all common observation, common experience and common sense. The story of a flying reanimated corpse ALSO contradicts all common observation, common experience and common sense. What case is there to be made, outside of blind faith and abject gullibility, that the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is more believable than the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

Hi TotN. You asked me a question about my belief that Jesus' resurrection was real. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you have for me after we finish going through the 3 questions. The proposal was that we both answer all 3 questions and provide reasons for our answers (which we've completed). The next step was to discuss/debate each of the 3 questions, one at a time, so we wouldn't get side-tracked and also to ensure we'd both get a chance to adequately address each of the questions before moving on to the next one...
So far, I'm quite happy about how this thread is going. Aren't you finding this exchange more enjoyable than the average discussion thread? We've managing to stay on-topic pretty well and others have been great about not posting many distracting or off-topic comments. I think if we keep going about it the way we are this could end up being a high-quality, intellectually gratifying thread.

Q: Can we stick with the "origin of the universe" question until we've adequately discussed it?

[Sorry for my delays in responding. I'd been busy lately and not available to comment, but I will be available most of today and tomorrow.]

Your observation that we may begin to repeat ourselves is a valid one. Over the course of three responses I answered your three questions thoroughly and I answered in detail. Fair is fair. Now I deserve, not only a turn to ask a question, I deserve a response.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Other possibilities are derived from pure make believe. - TotN

I was under the impression that you consider the flying corpse version pure make-believe. Was that incorrect?

[Iwasmadenew]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Your observation that we may begin to repeat ourselves is a valid one. Over the course of three responses I answered your three questions thoroughly and I answered in detail. Fair is fair. Now I deserve, not only a turn to ask a question, I deserve a response.

You deserve to change the format for our discussion after agreeing to what I proposed?

We didn't even finished discussing the first question. I haven't made all my points or asked all my questions yet. Do you really think you've adequately answered the questions I've already posed? You completely skipped my question related to the infinite regress issue I pointed out.

I'd like to continue with what we planned to do. If you wish to do that, do you have any questions for me related to my answer to the "origin of the universe" question?

If you don't want to continue with the agreed-upon format and you want to stop, just say so. I am happy to continue the discussion with someone else who doesn't have a problem with the format for this thread.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

You deserve to change the format for our discussion after agreeing to what I proposed?

We didn't even finished discussing the first question. I haven't made all my points or asked all my questions yet. Do you really think you've adequately answered the questions I've already posed? You completely skipped my question related to the infinite regress issue I pointed out.

I'd like to continue with what we planned to do. If you wish to do that, do you have any questions for me related to my answer to the "origin of the universe" question?

If you don't want to continue with the agreed-upon format and you want to stop, just say so. I am happy to continue the discussion with someone else who doesn't have a problem with the format for this thread.

If God popped into existence from nothing, than something appearing from nothing is possible. If God has existed eternally, than eternity is possible. If God is Himself the result of creation, than we are faced with the infinite regression question. Happy?

I did not agree that you should be allowed to shape the direction of the discussion to your choosing indefinitely. I am by no means requesting that we discontinue. But I have answered your three questions in detail. I now feel that I should have a turn at asking a question. It's hardly a question that is unfamiliar to you. It is a question that goes to the heart of Christian belief. You should be anxious to answer it in fact. Here it is again:

"The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that Jesus died, was resurrected from the dead on the third day, and bodily rose up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Most Christians however would agree that the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is insupportable, because it makes assertions that are contradicted by all common observation, common experience and common sense. The story of a flying reanimated corpse ALSO contradicts all common observation, common experience and common sense. What case is there to be made, outside of blind faith and abject gullibility, that the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is more believable than the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer?"

A discussion that considers the viability of all common observation, common experience and common sense, will necessarily repeatedly return us to the viability of the concept of the existence of God. You are free to ask your questions, and state your conclusions, each time the question reappears.

[Iwasmadenew]

Your question to me was off-topic. You agreed to the format of this discussion. I'm happy to continue if you're still agreeable to the format, but if not, it seems like you're saying you're done having the type of discussion we both agreed to.

If you don't want to follow the format, you are essentially saying you no longer agree with what you already agreed to. Please clarify if you are done with this thread, or not?

Ask me a question about my answer to the "origin of the universe" question if you want to continue.

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

If God popped into existence from nothing, than something appearing from nothing is possible. If God has existed eternally, than eternity is possible. If God is Himself the result of creation, than we are faced with the infinite regression question. Happy?

I did not agree that you should be allowed to shape the direction of the discussion to your choosing indefinitely. I am by no means requesting that we discontinue. But I have answered your three questions in detail. I now feel that I should have a turn at asking a question. It's hardly a question that is unfamiliar to you. It is a question that goes to the heart of Christian belief. You should be anxious to answer it in fact. Here it is again:

"The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that Jesus died, was resurrected from the dead on the third day, and bodily rose up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Most Christians however would agree that the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is insupportable, because it makes assertions that are contradicted by all common observation, common experience and common sense. The story of a flying reanimated corpse ALSO contradicts all common observation, common experience and common sense. What case is there to be made, outside of blind faith and abject gullibility, that the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is more believable than the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer?"

A discussion that considers the viability of all common observation, common experience and common sense, will necessarily repeatedly return us to the viability of the concept of the existence of God. You are free to ask your questions, and state your conclusions, each time the question reappears.

[TroutDude]

I'm sensing a duckin' n' runnin'....