Are Jesus, God, and the holy Spirit a Trinity in 1 Timothy?
It is frequently asserted by Bible preachers and teachers that Jesus Christ Is Almighty God, along with God the Father, and ‘God the Holy Spirit,’ they are part of a Trinity. If this is so, then we should find plenty of scriptural evidence to support it. Do we find the Trinity in 1 Timothy? Since 1 Timothy was written by Bible scholar and teacher, the apostle Paul, to counter false teachers and false teachings, let’s see what it says.
“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Timothy 1:1 NIV). God and Christ are here clearly portrayed as two separate and distinct individuals. As if this is not enough, it is further emphasized in verse 2:
“Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Timothy 1:2 NIV). “Grace, mercy and peace” are said to come from both God and Christ, with no mention of the Holy Spirit. This omission of the Holy Spirit would be surprising and confusing if the Trinity were true, but since the Holy Spirit is not a person, this statement makes perfect sense.
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV). This sets Almighty God totally apart as being “eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God”, since Christ was created, died, and was visible while on earth.
“There is one God and one mediator between God and Christ, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5 NIV). By definition, the mediator cannot be either of the two parties that he mediates “between”. Therefore, it is obvious that Christ cannot be either”God” or “mankind”. No, Christ is “the man”, the “one mediator”. This one scripture is enough to obliterate Trinitarian notions.
“Who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6 NIV). “Sacrificed himself” (REB). Jesus died as a ransom sacrifice. Almighty God “Yahweh . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB), therefore Jesus cannot be Almighty God. This one fact also obliterates the Trinity.
“He appeared in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16 NIV). KJV and NKJV have “God was manifest in the flesh”, however, footnoted editions admit that the Greek did not originally read this way. Notice the following footnotes to 1 Timothy 3:16:
“Many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read ‘God,’ possibly for theological reasons”—NAB note
“NU-Text reads Who”—NKJV note. [NU-Text means the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (N-A) and the United Bible Societies Greek Text (UBS). By the 26th edition of N-A and the 3rd edition of UBS, the two Greek texts were identical.]
John 1:14 says “The Word [Christ] became flesh” (NASB). Numbers 23:19 says that “God is not human” (NIV), and John 1:18 says that “No one has seen God at any time” (NASB). God has never been on earth, nor “in the flesh”, nor “human”, but the Bible says Christ was seen by a lot of people on earth (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3), and was “fully human in every way” (Hebrews 2:17 NIV), obviously Christ cannot be Almighty God.
“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels, I warn you” (1 Timothy 5:21 NRSV). God and Jesus are just as separate and distinct from each other as they are from the angels.
“Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—-God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:14-16 NIV). Here, we plainly see that Almighty God is set apart from Jesus Christ, and God is the only one who has eternally been immortal (compare Revelation 1:18), and whom no one has ever seen (John 1:18).
In each of the eight times that God and Jesus are mentioned in 1 Timothy, their being distinct and separate is made very clear. Also, the Holy Spirit is only mentioned twice, and each time it is called “the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1), which is not something that a person is called. These eight simple Biblical statements of God and Jesus together devastate the Trinity dogma. In fact, the Trinity doctrine confuses pure Biblical truth, because it fits the description of one of the “false doctrines” that Christians are commanded in this letter “not to teach” (1 Timothy 1:3,4 NIV).
Based on the textual evidence, the Trinity doctrine is not found in 1 Timothy.
68 thoughts on “Are Jesus, God, and the holy Spirit a Trinity in 1 Timothy?”
I believe you have clearly shown that God and Jesus are different persons, but what about verses which seem to point to a Holy Spirit? What is this Holy Spirit?
Hi Gary I have been reading the articles of this blog from the start of the archives (Feb 2015). I noticed you did put in questions to the owner of this blog on a quite frequent basis across several different posts. From your questions and answers I presume you are atheist is it? No matter but I sense a very eager and diligent truth seeking heart in you. Especially regarding articles whereby science and discovery reinforce that Bible can be trusted. Because let’s assume I am an atheist and I am totally convinced that God does not exist, in my case I won’t even bother wasting my time and energy trying to convince other people who believe in God that they are wrong, I would just let them continue in their delusion and move on with my life. But you are eagerly trying to show that God does not exist, as though in your heart you are actually doing the very opposite of your intention, in this case being to seek a reassurance that God do actually exist after all, a small chance that your conviction that God does not exist might be wrong. That’s the reason I see behind all your diligent questions and comments to this blog. Also something different in your reply is that you are very polite and does not use vulgar, swear and rude words when questioning and replying, which is not normally the case because most atheist who refute God will do this. I hope you can continue to give yourself the chance to seek diligently after God with an open mind and come to conviction that He exists. Have a good day Gary!
Thank you very much for your interest in, and readership of, the articles on this site! Also, thanks for your reaching out to Gary Whittenberger, trying to reason with him!
The Holy Spirit is real, but it is not a person. The reply to you on October 28, 2019 explains what the Holy Spirit is. Additional information from the scriptures is also helpful. “Send forth your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30 NAB). God uses his Holy Spirit in creating. “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2 NIV). “And John bore witness: I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove and it remained on him” (John 1:32 ESV). The use of the neuter gender “it” to describe the Holy Spirit indicates that it is not a person, although it is real.
The Holy Spirit has been understood in different ways by different Christians. Some view it as a person, one of the three persons of the Trinity team. Others view it as some tool of God. Others view it as some temporary manifestation of God. As an atheist, I don’t place much credence or value in it. The important concepts are God and Jesus.
There certainly are various and conflicting views of what the Holy Spirit is. The Bible does not indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person, nor does it present the Holy Spirit as one of the three persons of any Trinity. This site is dedicated to presenting the Bible’s view, not only of the Holy Spirit, but also other Biblical subjects, to the public.
Your interpretation of the Bible on the Holy Spirit differs from the interpretation on the Bible on the same topic of other Christians. You think your view is correct, but they think their view is correct. This controversy is just one more piece of evidence that God does not exist. If he did exist, he would make regular grand revelations, we would have one true religion, and these controversies would not exist. God would not be a bungler or a shy person.
Hi Gary in response to your remarks regarding different views on the Holy Spirit is evidence that God does not exist. If you look at John 7:40-43 there is division about who Jesus really is. If there is division about who Jesus (a physical real person) really is, I think it make sense that there will be confusion about who or what Holy Spirit is.
I believe I found the purpose for the different view points from God’s perspective. I quote 1 Corinthians 11:19 from English Standard Version (but it is better to read from verse 17 to 19 for better clarity but I will only list verse 19 to save space).
“For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Two key words here are factions and genuine, in regard to what? Regarding belief, doctrines and conduct? Likely so. I mean look at it this way, if this can happen in group established by Paul in new testament times how much more likely it will happen in our times.
Lastly an analogy again to your comment different views mean that God does not exists. Let’s suppose we are in the past that the law of gravity has not yet being discovered by Newton. Two person are standing at a tall and steep cliff facing the sea and having different opinions about if you jump off the cliff will you go down or up. Does the different opinions negate the existence of the law of gravity? Even if one say down and another up, when they both jump the law of gravity will applied to both of them regardless of what each of them believe. The same can be said for when people are debating whether earth is flat or round, earth rotate around sun or sun rotate around earth.
Truth is truth and is not affected by the fact that there is many conflicting views about it.
EP1: Hi Gary in response to your remarks regarding different views on the Holy Spirit is evidence that God does not exist. If you look at John 7:40-43 there is division about who Jesus really is. If there is division about who Jesus (a physical real person) really is, I think it make sense that there will be confusion about who or what Holy Spirit is.
GW1: Yes, but less confusion about Jesus than about the Holy Spirit. It is pretty clear from reading the NT that Jesus is a hypothetical human person with supernatural powers.
EP1: I believe I found the purpose for the different view points from God’s perspective. I quote 1 Corinthians 11:19 from English Standard Version (but it is better to read from verse 17 to 19 for better clarity but I will only list verse 19 to save space).
GW1: Well, God does not exist, but I’ll listen to your point of view anyway.
EP1: “For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Two key words here are factions and genuine, in regard to what? Regarding belief, doctrines and conduct? Likely so. I mean look at it this way, if this can happen in group established by Paul in new testament times how much more likely it will happen in our times.
GW1: Well sure, there would be factions if God does not exist or has not made proper revelations. And so, we have factions in our world. Would there be factions in the hypothetical Heaven? Of course not! Why? Because in that world, God would have made himself and his rules clear through one or more revelations.
EP1: Lastly an analogy again to your comment different views mean that God does not exists. Let’s suppose we are in the past that the law of gravity has not yet being discovered by Newton. Two person are standing at a tall and steep cliff facing the sea and having different opinions about if you jump off the cliff will you go down or up. Does the different opinions negate the existence of the law of gravity?
GW1: The objective reality is the same, regardless of their understandings, predictions, or opinions in this case. God is not a part of objective reality, but gravity is.
EP1: Even if one say down and another up, when they both jump the law of gravity will applied to both of them regardless of what each of them believe. The same can be said for when people are debating whether earth is flat or round, earth rotate around sun or sun rotate around earth.
GW1: True for both circumstances. As people learn more and more about the nature of reality, their different opinions converge on the truth. But if God did exist, this kind of convergence process would not occur regarding his existence and rules for living. Why? Because he would present the truth about these in a current, universal, unambiguous, and objective revelation. This has not happened. So we know that God does not exist.
EP1: Truth is truth and is not affected by the fact that there is many conflicting views about it.
GW1: I agree. But once there is clear knowledge of the truth, there are no factions. Regarding himself, God would ensure clear knowledge, if he did exist. But unfortunately, he doesn’t.
Hi Gary would like to share with you again about God’s existence.
I am no scientist nor a philosopher. But what I share with you can be reach by logical thinking from every layman (of which I am one).
First off I myself need strong reason and conviction that God exists even before I go to the bible.
There are many aspects of reasoning for God’s existence for example cosmological, morality and so on. I will touch on a few of these in simple point format:
1) First cause:
a) It is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself, and if it somehow already exist beforehand well then there is no need to cause itself anyway)
b) It is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes back into the eternity past. For example: universe caused by big bang, big bang caused by A, A caused by B, B caused by C and so on. The list has to start somewhere from the other direction in the eternity past right?
c) Therefore, there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused. Now for those who ask the question if God make universe who or what make God? Notice that the first cause itself has to be uncaused in order to break the infinite chain of causes as per point b). So God has always been there right from the start.
d) Title of God in the bible to reinforce point c)
– Alpha Omega
– The first and the last
– The beginning and the end
– Who is, who was and who is to come
– These are all from book of revelation. Because a few of them overlap with one another across multiple verses therefore I dont list the verses here but if you are keen I can show you where they are from.
2) Designer:
a) If you see a car or a skyscraper for the first time will your first thought be:
1) It exist by random chance
2) It is designed, built and created by intelligent designer
b) The whole universe, planet earth or even the human body is much more complex than either a car or a skyscraper.
c) Cosmology shows us that there are several physical constants that govern the universe as we know it (these are too technical a term for layman like me so I won’t list them here). If any one of those were tweaked even the smallest bit the universe as we know it would not exist. It’s highly improbable that this would occur by chance without a fine-tuning creator so it’s more probable that a creator does exist and is responsible for this fine-tuning. I mean there are quite a number of constants out there to keep the universe in existence. Imagine that for each and every single one of those constants you have to roll a perfect number needed to win lottery or else the universe will not exist.
d) Back to point a) the term intelligent designer mean a conscious being rather than lifeless cosmological force.
3) Morality:
a) If god does not exist objective moral values don’t exist. Meaning I can like kill anyone and not being held accountable for it.
b) Imagine that a serial killer murder your loved ones and before he is caught he detonate himself with explosives. He did bad things and because he died before he is caught no punishment and justice can be served him. Since atheist do not believe in God and afterlife it all ends here.
c) But God is both the lawgiver (Ten Commandments) and the judge (Judgment Day). With the above example the murderer might escape earthly laws but he will still be liable to God’s judgment later on.
4) Futility.
a) If one does not believe in God and afterlife then the general outlook is that we are born by chance on this planet trying to survive financially and being a slave to money, maybe get married and have a family and then sooner or later we die and then that is the end of story. Nothing we build or achieve in this life ultimately matters because when we die it is the end. Which means life is ultimately meaningless and futile. That is quite a sad outlook to behold. What if life is much much more than that?
Hi sir may I know whether there is and if yes what is the word or character limit for the comment section? I thought I want to share with Gary a couple points of why God exists and I want to be aware of the words limit.
Thank you for your question and all your comments. There is not a limit on the number of words, or the number of comments, as long as they are appropriate, and in good taste. Your comments meet this standard, so you can feel free to make longer comments, if you’d like to.
Edmond Pak’s comments to you on June 19, 2021 are quite instructive! What do think of them?
My mission is to discover and proclaim the truth. I now know that God does not exist and that Jesus almost certainly did exist but did not come back to life after he died. I am willing to talk to anybody about these issues. I avoid incivility.
Edmund Pak’s comments to you yesterday are again very instructive. Apostle Paul said that “some false believers had infiltrated our ranks” (Galatians 2:4 NIV), so the existence of such today should not surprise us. It was accurately predicted, under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21) that Christians would “turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:5 NIV), and “there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies . . . these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories” (2 Peter 2:1,3 NIV), and this exactly what has happened throughout the history of Christianity, right up to today. The Trinity doctrine, and various ideas about what the holy spirit is, etc., fit these predictions very well. The existence of differing views about the shape of the earth doesn’t mean that the earth doesn’t exist.
I already refuted Mr. Pak’s position on this point. See the comments I made today to him.
Your problem is that you want to dictate to God what and how he should be, which is impossible. “He alone stretches out the heavens . . . He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him . . . Who can say to him, what are you doing?” (Job 9:8,10-12 NIV). “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. If he comes along and confines you in prison and convenes a court, who can oppose him?” (Job 11:7-10 NIV).
RT1: Your problem is that you want to dictate to God what and how he should be, which is impossible.
GW1: God doesn’t exist, so there is nobody there for me to dictate to. If God did exist, he would clearly show us how he is. We wouldn’t be guessing about this. Also, if God did exist, I wouldn’t be dictating to him, he would be dictating to me and you.
GW1: I just use a standard definition of “God.” This is what most people have believed about God for a few thousand years.
RT1: “He alone stretches out the heavens . . . He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him . . . Who can say to him, what are you doing?” (Job 9:8,10-12 NIV).
GW1: The writer of Job just presented his God hypothesis, but we now know that God does not exist.
RT1: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. If he comes along and confines you in prison and convenes a court, who can oppose him?” (Job 11:7-10 NIV).
GW1: If God did exist, there would be no mysteries about him for us to fathom. As I have said repeatedly, if God did exist, then he would present himself and his rules for living in a current, universal, unambiguous, and objective manner. This has not occurred. Therefore, God does not exist. The idea of God is really silly, when you think carefully about it.
Hi Gary sorry I am in a time constraint just now so I kind of rush it off for my last reply especially towards the end.
To continue on a few more points.
Regarding your comment that if God exists then there will be no factions and conflicting opinions and everything will be reveal clearly by Him.
That is what you wish and hope for as an ideal scenario if God exists. However often in this life not exclusive only to matters pertaining God what we wish or think do not necessarily tally with how reality functions.
In the gospel of Luke Jesus gave a parable about a king giving out invitations for his son wedding feast. Many and most of the people rejected the invitation and gave many excuses as to why they can’t make it to the banquet. In the book of revelation Jesus said he will come and knock on the door and if anyone open and welcome him he will come in and sup with him (I don’t think he mean it literally but more like God will approach you in life and knock on the door of your heart using convictions and circumstances in life and it is up to you to whether accept or not)
Also there are also places in the Bible where God says those who seek him will find him.
So you see on one hand God actually approach and invite people and on the other hand those who seek Him will find Him. Jesus also said those who seeks finds, those who knock doors will be opened and those who ask received.
So you see I believe the relationship between God and man is dual way for it to works. If like you said God reveal Himself in a grand and sure way then God would not have said those who seek Him will find Him. Because when God reveal Himself that way there is no more seeking to be done and needed. All people regardless of their heart condition would have submitted to him (whether by willingness, reluctance, grudge, love or obligation).
Can it be that God purposely choose not to reveal Himself the way that you described just so that he can filter out the true and sincere seekers? Possible and likely so.
I stop listing the exact book and verses because I figure it might annoy you especially seeing that you as an atheist does not give credence to Bible. If I put myself in your shoes I think I would be pretty annoy too if people keep quoting from the book that I don’t even believe in the first place.
Ok talking about Bible credibility I would like to refer to one book in particular which is the book of Job. Even if you don’t believe I think it is good if you at least read through the book once especially towards the end where God talks to Job. It is a fascinating book and you lose nothing and no harm done. Especially in your journey to prove that God does not exists.
Now ultimately the Bible is a book that guide us to salvation. But because the Author who inspire this book is the One who creates the universe and everything in it, we see in the book of Job there is quite a number of scientific facts mentioned casually in the conversation. For example there is a mention of Earth being a sphere and hanging in the middle of nothing. There are quite a few of other facts mentioned as well they are all mostly nature related like there are springs in the depth of the sea and the water cycle and so on.
The thing is the book of Job is very old. I am not going to go into details when is Job written and what is the scientific method used to determine how old the book of Job is. My point is there is a huge gap of time between when Job is written and when people finally discover and confirm the scientific facts mentioned in this book.
How is it even possible that Job wrote down facts that science discover only much later? If not for the fact that God, who inspire Job to wrote down what he did, is the one who creates everything and he knows about them?
Gary, thanks! “You will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you” (Acts 1:8 NAB). As this verse indicates, the Holy Spirit is God’s power. Another clue is that the Holy Spirit is described by the article “the”, which is not used to describe persons, although the Holy Spirit is personified frequently. For instance, Jesus said, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because to neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you and will be in you” (John 14:16,17 NAB). Describing the Holy Spirit with the use of “the” and “it”, is a clear indication of the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit. God’s angel was used to foretell facts about the child that would grow up to be “John the Baptist”, “He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15 NAB). A person cannot be filled with another person, but they can be filled with God’s power.
Mr. Pack, I didn’t see a Reply button immediately after your post, so I just made my reply right here.
EP1: Hi Gary would like to share with you again about God’s existence.
GW1: Again? Did you do this before? If so, I don’t remember it. Sorry.
EP1: I am no scientist nor a philosopher. But what I share with you can be reach by logical thinking from every layman (of which I am one).
GW1: My view that God does not exist can be reached by any logically thinking layperson. One of us is mistaken, and I think it is you.
EP1: First off I myself need strong reason and conviction that God exists even before I go to the bible.
GW1: Yes. The authors of the Bible just assume that God exists. They don’t prove it.
EP1: There are many aspects of reasoning for God’s existence for example cosmological, morality and so on. I will touch on a few of these in simple point format:
GW1: Good idea.
EP1: 1) First cause:
a) It is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself, and if it somehow already exist beforehand well then there is no need to cause itself anyway)
GW1: I agree with this claim, as long as you define “being” as “anything which exists.”
EP1: b) It is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes back into the eternity past.
GW1: I disagree. If the past is eternal, as I believe it is, then it is possible for there to be an infinite chain of causes. I don’t think you can prove that this is impossible.
EP1: For example: universe caused by big bang, big bang caused by A, A caused by B, B caused by C and so on. The list has to start somewhere from the other direction in the eternity past right?
GW1: It doesn’t have to. If the causal chain is infinite in infinite time, then it had no start.
EP1: c) Therefore, there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused. Now for those who ask the question if God make universe who or what make God? Notice that the first cause itself has to be uncaused in order to break the infinite chain of causes as per point b). So God has always been there right from the start.
GW1: Even if you were correct that there was a first cause, and you haven’t proven that, then the first cause was not necessarily God. You’d have to prove that also. If there were a first cause, it might be a nonintelligent thing, a minor god, or an alien of some type, not God at all.
EP1: d) Title of God in the bible to reinforce point c)
– Alpha Omega
– The first and the last
– The beginning and the end
– Who is, who was and who is to come
– These are all from book of revelation. Because a few of them overlap with one another across multiple verses therefore I dont list the verses here but if you are keen I can show you where they are from.
GW1: The idea of “Creator” is only one of many features attributed to God. “Creator of the Universe” is just part of the definition of “God.” But that doesn’t meant that God exists.
EP1: 2) Designer:
a) If you see a car or a skyscraper for the first time will your first thought be:
1) It exist by random chance
2) It is designed, built and created by intelligent designer
GW1: We have proof that cars and skyscrapers were produced by intelligent agents, but we have no such proof for other things like rocks, rainbows, planets, and universes.
EP1: b) The whole universe, planet earth or even the human body is much more complex than either a car or a skyscraper.
GW1: If you define complexity as “the number of interacting parts,” then your claim is true.
EP1: c) Cosmology shows us that there are several physical constants that govern the universe as we know it (these are too technical a term for layman like me so I won’t list them here).
GW1: This is false. The constants are just facts. They don’t “govern” anything.
EP1: If any one of those were tweaked even the smallest bit the universe as we know it would not exist.
GW1: There is no evidence that they could be any different than what they are. They are just brute facts of the universe. There is no evidence that they could be tweaked or that there was anybody to tweak them.
EP1: It’s highly improbable that this would occur by chance without a fine-tuning creator so it’s more probable that a creator does exist and is responsible for this fine-tuning.
GW1: First, you have not shown that these constants could be any different. Secondly, if they could be different, you have not shown that an intelligent agent chose them. They could be the result of chance. And thirdly, if they were chosen by an intelligent agent, you have not shown that this agent was God. It could be another god or an alien of some type.
EP1: I mean there are quite a number of constants out there to keep the universe in existence.
GW1: False. They do not “keep the universe in existence.” They are just brute facts about the universe, e.g. the speed of light.
EP1: Imagine that for each and every single one of those constants you have to roll a perfect number needed to win lottery or else the universe will not exist.
GW1: You are assuming that these constants were all determined independently, like each roll of a dice. Maybe one constant was determined by chance and all the others are dependent on that one.
EP1: d) Back to point a) the term intelligent designer mean a conscious being rather than lifeless cosmological force.
GW1: I agree with your definition here.
EP1: 3) Morality:
a) If god does not exist objective moral values don’t exist. Meaning I can like kill anyone and not being held accountable for it.
GW1: I think you made a grave mistake here. I think you meant “God” not “god.” But anyway, the claim is false. Objective moral values exist even though God does not exist. (I will show this is the case in an article in the next issue of Skeptic magazine. Stay tuned.)
EP1: b) Imagine that a serial killer murder your loved ones and before he is caught he detonate himself with explosives. He did bad things and because he died before he is caught no punishment and justice can be served him. Since atheist do not believe in God and afterlife it all ends here.
GW1: Yes, some people who commit immoral acts are never punished. That is just a fact of life. There is neither a God nor an afterlife so that they would be punished.
EP1: c) But God is both the lawgiver (Ten Commandments) and the judge (Judgment Day). With the above example the murderer might escape earthly laws but he will still be liable to God’s judgment later on.
GW1: This would be true, if God existed, but he doesn’t. Besides, if God existed, his punishments would be immediate, not delayed. He would be very effective in anything he did because he would be all-powerful.
EP1: 4) Futility.
a) If one does not believe in God and afterlife then the general outlook is that we are born by chance on this planet trying to survive financially and being a slave to money, maybe get married and have a family and then sooner or later we die and then that is the end of story.
GW1: I am an atheist, but I am not a slave to money. I have been married, but my spouse died in 2020. I will die, and so will you, and that will mostly be the end of our stories. You can’t change the fact of death by wishing it weren’t so.
EP1: Nothing we build or achieve in this life ultimately matters because when we die it is the end.
GW1: False. What we build or achieve helps other human persons who live on after us. But there is evidence that natural processes will destroy all life in the universe in maybe a hundred billion years. Wishing it were different doesn’t make it different.
EP1: Which means life is ultimately meaningless and futile. That is quite a sad outlook to behold. What if life is much much more than that?
GW1: People develop their own meanings and purposes in life. For example, some of mine are: 1) Make the world a better place. 2) Discover and spread the truth. 3) Care for family and friends. And 4) Diminish the influence of religion in the world. Life is not as gloomy and sad without God as you make it out to be.
GW1: Thanks for presenting your views, but you have not even come close to proving that God exists. I have tried to point out all the flaws in your reasoning, but I might have overlooked some.
Once again, there was no Reply button following your post, so I made my reply at the end.
EP2: Hi Gary sorry I am in a time constraint just now so I kind of rush it off for my last reply especially towards the end. To continue on a few more points.
GW2: No problem. Please continue as your time permits.
EP2: Regarding your comment that if God exists then there will be no factions and conflicting opinions and everything will be reveal clearly by Him.
GW2: Yes, that is my position.
EP2: That is what you wish and hope for as an ideal scenario if God exists. However often in this life not exclusive only to matters pertaining God what we wish or think do not necessarily tally with how reality functions.
GW2: Oh, it is not a mere wish! It is a sound rational conclusion based on the nature of God. If God did exist, he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. He would not punish or reward anybody in an afterlife without first presenting himself and his rules for living in this life. This presentation would occur in a grand revelation which is current, universal, unambiguous, and objective. That’s just what all-powerful perfectly moral teachers do. If you disagree, then present and defend the alternative.
EP2: In the gospel of Luke Jesus gave a parable about a king giving out invitations for his son wedding feast. Many and most of the people rejected the invitation and gave many excuses as to why they can’t make it to the banquet. In the book of revelation Jesus said he will come and knock on the door and if anyone open and welcome him he will come in and sup with him (I don’t think he mean it literally but more like God will approach you in life and knock on the door of your heart using convictions and circumstances in life and it is up to you to whether accept or not)
GW2: I think that is a ridiculous idea! If God did exist, he would approach EVERYBODY at once in a grand revelation which is current, universal, unambiguous, and objective. God would not be shy, reticent, hiding, or deceptive.
EP2: Also there are also places in the Bible where God says those who seek him will find him.
GW2: Another ridiculous idea! If God did exist, nobody would need to look for him. He would be clearly here for all to see and hear.
EP2: So you see on one hand God actually approach and invite people and on the other hand those who seek Him will find Him. Jesus also said those who seeks finds, those who knock doors will be opened and those who ask received.
GW2: Jesus was just mistaken about this. This is more evidence that Jesus was not divine. If he had been, he would have known better.
EP2: So you see I believe the relationship between God and man is dual way for it to works. If like you said God reveal Himself in a grand and sure way then God would not have said those who seek Him will find Him.
GW2: God did not say that and never would, if he existed. That is just some ancient author’s speculation.
EP2: Because when God reveal Himself that way there is no more seeking to be done and needed.
GW2: That’s exactly right! God would make himself so obvious that seeking would be unnecessary. God’s existence would be more obvious to me than your existence is.
EP2: All people regardless of their heart condition would have submitted to him (whether by willingness, reluctance, grudge, love or obligation).
GW2: Submitted? Not necessarily. Although after a grand revelation of God, as I have described, almost all persons would embrace God, there would be a few stragglers who would not. Just like there is a small group of people who still think the Earth is flat!
EP2: Can it be that God purposely choose not to reveal Himself the way that you described just so that he can filter out the true and sincere seekers? Possible and likely so.
GW2: That would be immoral and so God would not behave that way. He would be perfectly moral. He would do the filtering by discriminating those who followed the rules he clearly presented from those who did not.
EP2: I stop listing the exact book and verses because I figure it might annoy you especially seeing that you as an atheist does not give credence to Bible. If I put myself in your shoes I think I would be pretty annoy too if people keep quoting from the book that I don’t even believe in the first place.
GW2: Good thinking on your part.
EP2: Ok talking about Bible credibility I would like to refer to one book in particular which is the book of Job. Even if you don’t believe I think it is good if you at least read through the book once especially towards the end where God talks to Job. It is a fascinating book and you lose nothing and no harm done. Especially in your journey to prove that God does not exists.
GW2: I have read Job several times. I am quite familiar with it. Bart Ehrman wrote an excellent book which does a good job of analyzing the book of Job. I recommend it to you – “God’s Problem”.
EP2: Now ultimately the Bible is a book that guide us to salvation.
GW2: There is no salvation! You, I, and everyone else is going to die.
EP2: But because the Author who inspire this book is the One who creates the universe and everything in it, we see in the book of Job there is quite a number of scientific facts mentioned casually in the conversation.
GW2: Unfortunately, God does not exist. We now know this in the 21st century.
EP2: For example there is a mention of Earth being a sphere and hanging in the middle of nothing. There are quite a few of other facts mentioned as well they are all mostly nature related like there are springs in the depth of the sea and the water cycle and so on.
GW2: Well, the authors were bound to get some things right. They also got a lot of things wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are not presented as facts in the Bible. If God did exist and even inspired the Bible, those facts would be in there. They aren’t.
EP2: The thing is the book of Job is very old.
GW2: It’s a terrible book! In this piece of fiction God gives power to Satan over Job, and then Satan uses that power to torture Job. What a farce! If God did exist, he would never do that. It would be immoral.
EP2: I am not going to go into details when is Job written and what is the scientific method used to determine how old the book of Job is. My point is there is a huge gap of time between when Job is written and when people finally discover and confirm the scientific facts mentioned in this book.
GW2: I am not impressed by Job at all! It’s a terrible book.
EP2: How is it even possible that Job wrote down facts that science discover only much later? If not for the fact that God, who inspire Job to wrote down what he did, is the one who creates everything and he knows about them?
GW2: I already said that people back then were partly knowlegeable and partly ignorant. God did not inspire Job. God does not exist. God would not act in the immoral way which is described in the book of Job. He would never give Satan the power to torture in order to make a test of loyalty. Who would believe such a thing?
The Bible does mention the “Big Bang”, just not by that name. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “This is what the God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens who stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV). “I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens” (Isaiah 44:24 NIV). “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts” (Isaiah 45:12 NIV). Both the Bible and the “Big Bang” say the universe had a beginning and expanded or “spread out” from there. The differences are that the Bible said it thousands of years ago, and that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV), and human science was forced by its own discoveries to admit the universe’s beginning only about 50 years ago, and still doesn’t know why the universe came into existence suddenly out of nothing. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
RT1: The Bible does mention the “Big Bang”, just not by that name.
GW1: No, it doesn’t.
RT1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “This is what the God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens who stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV). “I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens” (Isaiah 44:24 NIV). “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts” (Isaiah 45:12 NIV).
GW1: None of those verses provides a correct description of the Big Bang. The Bible authors did not know anything about correct cosmology, including the Big Bang.
RT1: Both the Bible and the “Big Bang” say the universe had beginning and expanded or “spread out” from there.
GW1: It depends on how you define “beginning.” The Big Bang was the beginning of a new phase of the universe, but not the beginning of the existence of the universe. The Bible verses refer to the stretching out of the heavens, not the expansion from a primordial particle.
RT1: The differences are that the Bible said it thousands of years ago and that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (revelation 4:8,11 NIV), and human science was forced by its own discoveries to admit the universe’s beginning about 50 years, and still doesn’t know why the universe came into existence suddenly out of nothing.
GW1: The universe never came into existence out of nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. I believe we agreed on this a long time ago.
RT1: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW1: Faith is a vice, not a virtue. God does not exist, and there are several sound proofs of this. All things which exist are not visible, e.g. dark matter, but they are not nothing.
GW1: If God did exist and he authored the Bible, then he would have provided an accurate description of both the Big Bang and evolution within the Bible. But this is not the case. Therefore, either God does not exist or he is not the author of the Bible. Based on other proofs, we now know that God does not exist. Because he does not exist, he could not be the author of the Bible.
Something cannot come from nothing, very true! “What is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV). Current science/astronomy has been forced by its own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning in which energy was converted into matter. Isaiah 40:26 (NIV) says the “One who created all these” has “great power”. With his “mighty strength” he converted some of his “great power”, or energy, into matter. Humans scientists/physicists have been forced to admit this had to have happened at the beginning of the universe. Your assertions that the “Big Bang” was only a beginning of a new phase of the universe do not solve your dilemma, because the universe cannot be infinitely old, without an Almighty Creator/controller of the universe. Why? because without a Creator and a beginning of the universe, all the hydrogen in stars would have already been converted into helium, and thus the universe would have wound down and be dead, and obviously it’s not.
RT: Something cannot come from nothing, very true!
GW: Then we agree on that point. I believe we have always agreed on it.
RT: “What is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW: That is not true of all visible things. For example, a human baby (visible) is made out of a sperm and egg and necessary nutrients (visible).
RT: Current science/astronomy has been forced by its own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning in which energy was converted into matter.
GW: You are talking about the beginning of matter, not the beginning of the universe. It is likely that the universe is eternal.
RT: Isaiah 40:26 (NIV) says the “One who created all these” has “great power”.
GW: This is begging the question. The author does not know that there was anyone who created “all these.” All these what?
RT: With his “mighty strength” he converted some of his “great power”, or energy, into matter.
GW: Still question begging. We know that sometimes energy is converted to matter through NATURAL PROCESSES, no god required.
RT: Humans scientists/physicists have been forced to admit this had to have happened at the beginning of the universe.
GW: What beginning? The Big Bang was very probably a transition event, not a creation event.
RT: Your assertions that the “Big Bang” was only a beginning of a new phase of the universe do not solve your dilemma, because the universe cannot be infinitely old, without an Almighty Creator/controller of the universe.
GW: I don’t have a dilemma. Of course the universe can be infinitely old! You cannot prove this is impossible or even unlikely.
RT: Why? because without a Creator and a beginning of the universe, all the hydrogen in stars would have already been converted into helium, and thus the universe would have wound down and be dead, and obviously it’s not.
GW: You are talking in a circle. If the universe is eternal, then it never had a beginning, a creation, or a creator. Nor will it have an end. The universe itself has never been alive and thus can never be dead. The process of increasing entropy which we observe is probably just a subset of a larger process. Anyway, increasing entropy would not cause the universe to go out of existence!
GW: I’d like to hear both your opinion and Edmund’s opinion of this essay:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/creation-ex-nihilo-is-in-the-bible?msclkid=4be5f812d15511ecacccf675ee86a785
Thank you for referring to this excellent article! I have read it, and it is in perfect harmony with both the Bible and the most current proven and documented science/physics/astronomy/cosmology. I highly recommend that you give more credence to such truth, rather than the myths of atheism.
I mostly disagree with the author on the points he made. I will show you why.
Psalms 33:6 (RSV) By the word of the LORD [i.e., not by existing matter] the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
GW: It is cheating to insert the words in []. But the Lord could have spoken to make these things out of existing things.
Isaiah 44:24 . . . “I am the LORD, who made all things . . . “
GW: The opposite of all things is no thing, but the Lord himself would be a thing. So, this verse means that the Lord is claiming that he made all things except for himself. Since something or a thing cannot come from nothing, then it must be the case that the Lord made things, which were not himself, from himself! He snipped off a part of himself and made all other things out of this part of himself. He transformed a part of himself into many other things, like electrons or other basic building blocks of the universe. This is NOT a process of creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing! It is a process of creation of something from something else.
Wisdom 1:14 For he created all things that they might exist, . . .
GW: Same interpretation as for Isaiah 44:24
John 1:3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
GW: Same interpretation.
Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. . . .
GW: Same.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
GW: Same
Ephesians 3:9 . . . God who created all things;
GW: Same
Colossians 1:16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.
GW: Same interpretation. Even the word “through” can imply both the means and the constituent substance.
Hebrews 2:10 . . . he, for whom and by whom all things exist . . .
GW: Same interpretation.
2 Peter 3:5 . . . by the word of God [i.e., not by existing matter] heavens existed long ago . . .
GW: It is cheating to insert the words in []. Same interpretation.
Revelation 4:11 “. . . our Lord and God, . . . didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.”
GW: Same interpretation.
“If God created all “things” then he must have created ex nihilo because no thing (nothing) existed initially if there was no thing that he did not create.”
GW: God was a thing, and he didn’t create himself. A thing did exist initially, and it was God. There was one thing that God did not create – himself. So this claim by the author is mistaken in many ways.
“The standard Big Bang model, as the Friedman-Lemaître model came to be called, thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover, – and this deserves underscoring – the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. . . . On the standard model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity”
GW: It is not clear if this quote is from Dave Armstrong (author of the essay) or WLC,
GW: But the statement is false anyway. The Big Bang model is agnostic regarding whether the universe was eternal or not. Also, it is agnostic about whether matter, energy, space, and time existed before the BB. In addition, a singularity of primordial particle is not nothing.
“These beginningless models have been repeatedly shown either to be physically untenable or to imply the very beginning of the universe which they sought to avoid. . . . “
GW: False. Many of these models have not been refuted. See Steinhardt and Turok, whom I have recommended to you previously.
“Given the metaphysical impossibility of the universe’s coming into being from nothing, belief in a supernatural Creator is eminently reasonable.”
GW: But there are other beliefs which are more reasonable:
1. That the universe existed eternally.
2. That the universe was created by some natural nonintelligent thing.
3. That the universe was created by some alien.
4. That the universe was created by some god, not God.
“Given the metaphysical impossibility of the universe’s coming into being from nothing, belief in a supernatural Creator is eminently reasonable. At the very least we can say confidently that the person who believes in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo will not find himself contradicted by the empirical evidence of contemporary cosmology but on the contrary fully in line with it.”
GW: This is a contradiction. If it is impossible for the universe to come into existence from nothing, then creatio ex nihilo, the creation of the universe from nothing by God, cannot happen and contemporary cosmology is not in line with that.
“The logical, straightforward interpretation is that God made the heavens (the universe); we know that he did so out of nothing, from all the passages presented above.”
GW: False. We know no such thing! If God did exist, then he transformed a part of himself into the heavens and the earth.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This mentions a beginning of the universe, without using any so-called preexisting matter, because there was none. God converted some of his “great power”, or energy (Isaiah 40:26 NIV), into matter [E=MC2]. “Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being” (2 Peter 3:5 NIV). Something that comes into being had no prior existence.
RT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
GW: From what? Not from nothing. The only thing which makes sense is from the substance of God himself. But again, God does not exist. We now know this.
RT: This mentions a beginning of the universe, without using any so-called preexisting matter, because there was none.
GW: The verse doesn’t say that. You are overgeneralizing.
RT: God converted some of his “great power”, or energy (Isaiah 40:26 NIV), into matter [E=MC2].
GW: You didn’t quote the whole verse, and you are merely giving your interpretation of the verse. A better interpretation, as I argued yesterday, is that God converted some of his own spiritual substance into energy-matter. But alas, God does not exist. It is only a story.
RT: “Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being” (2 Peter 3:5 NIV). Something that comes into being had no prior existence.
GW: Still, you are just making your own interpretation, and it is not the best one. God could have said “Let this part of myself become the heavens” and so it was done. This makes more sense since we have agreed that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: I don’t think you have ever thought about this novel creation hypothesis. Time to rethink. But if God did exist and the Bible were the word of God, then the Bible would say that God formed the heavens and the earth from a part of himself. The conclusion is obvious – either God does not exist, or the Bible is not the word of God, or both. It happens to be both.
“Without an extremely hot dense, creation event, the large amount of helium evident in the universe today cannot be explained. “We cannot understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural” (Alan Sandage, astronomer). “Do you know the laws of the heavens?” (Job 38:33 NIV).
RT: “Without an extremely hot dense, creation event, the large amount of helium evident in the universe today cannot be explained.
GW: There is no doubt that the primordial particle was very hot and dense, but there is doubt that the Big Bang was a creation of the universe. It probably wasn’t. The universe is probably eternal.
RT: “We cannot understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural” (Alan Sandage, astronomer).
GW: Of course we can! Sandage is just wrong about this. For a better view, watch this video: God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll), 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI
RT: “Do you know the laws of the heavens?” (Job 38:33 NIV).
GW: At the time that the Book of Job was written, the smartest people knew very little about the laws of the heavens, but this has changed greatly. Now the smartest physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers know a great deal MORE, and new discoveries are made everyday. Furthermore, the story of Job is ludicrous since God would never give Satan the power to cause harm to human beings. That would be immoral, and if he did exist, God would be perfectly moral.
“Why is there something rather nothing?” (Lucretious). Ex nihilo nihil fit—From nothing, nothing comes. “How extraordinary that anything should exist” (Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosopher). “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these?” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV). When the Bible says that we should look into the heavens, we discover a self-evident truth, as obvious as if we could hear it in words, available to people of every language, in every part of the earth, and we’re in denial if we don’t believe it. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they our forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words their words to the ends of the earth” (Psalm 19:1 NIV). This self evident truth is the simple, rational deduction that all we see in the heavens is an effect which demands a very great, supernatural Cause. Claiming that the universe has no cause clearly begs the question. But when we answer, “A limitless Being from outside of time and space,” we’re not only answering the question more directly than atheists, but we’re giving the necessary answer–because nothing that’s already a part of the universe could have created it!!!!
RT: “Why is there something rather nothing?” (Lucretious). Ex nihilo nihil fit—From nothing, nothing comes.
GW: We have consistently agreed on this point. If God did exist, not even he would bring forth something from nothing. Instead, he would bring forth something from something else. But from what? A piece of his own self!
RT: “How extraordinary that anything should exist” (Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosopher).
GW: False. It would be extraordinary if nothing had existed in the past.
RT: “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these?” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV).
GW: Nobody created them. The heavens are just a product of the universe which has always existed.
RT: When the Bible says that we should look into the heavens, we discover a self-evident truth, as obvious as if we could hear it in words, available to people of every language, in every part of the earth, and we’re in denial if we don’t believe it. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1 NIV).
GW: Self-evident? Obvious? Not even close. When the author claims “The heavens declare the glory of God,” this is an inference he has made, an inference which happens to be false. There is no proof that it is true. There is no good evidence that it is true. In fact, we now have several valid proofs that God does not exist. When a person claims that a conclusion is “self-evident,” they are usually grasping at straws and have no good evidence, reasons, or arguments to support their claim, which is the case here.
The fact that naturalists are so inclined to resort to the multiple universe idea shows how impossible it is for them to explain the design of the universe by any natural means! If the number of universe is infinite, then everything happens, including this wonderful universe that so perfectly mimics divine purpose.”One may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes rather than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” Scientists from Einstein to Hoyle have acknowledged that the evidence of design points to intelligence. Each individual must decide whether it is more reasonable to credit this intelligence to God, to the universe, or to ourselves.
RT: The fact that naturalists are so inclined to resort to the multiple universe idea shows how impossible it is for them to explain the design of the universe by any natural means!
GW: Are they so inclined? “Multiple universes” is just one hypothesis among many. But, it is more likely to be true than the God hypothesis. You are begging the question by using the words “the design of the universe.” You don’t know that the universe was designed! That’s just speculation. Furthermore, if it were designed, it wouldn’t be by God since we now know that God does not exist. The universe exists naturally and probably eternally. You have no good evidence, reasons, or arguments to support the idea that there is anything at all which is supernatural. You are at a dead end with your speculations.
GW: The Christian worldview is probably the dumbest idea that ever became popular. Why has it become so popular? Because it appeals to the deepest wish of all people – to defeat death
“The origin of life on suitable planets seems written into the chemistry of the universe” (Carl Sagan). What Sagan never explained, of course, is how life got written into the chemistry of the universe. Sagan also admitted that natural laws can’t be randomly shuffled: “It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence”. One explanation of how all these “lucky accidents” and “coincidences” that resulted in a habitable world is found at Isaiah 45:18: “This is what the LORD [Yahweh] says–he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth; he founded it; he did not create to be empty, but formed it to bee inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18 NIV).
I agree with Sagan that there is probably life on other planets in the universe, but this has nothing to do with the idea of multiple universes.
In 2011, a White House press release stated, “The U S government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet.” Nor does anyone else. Yes, speculation about life on other planets runs rampant, but extant evidence of such imagined life is lacking. The fact that galaxies are distributed more densely–and quasars more abundant–the farther we look into space indicates that the universe has changed over time. These observations argue in favor of a creation event! “The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply; at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (Robert Jastrow, astronomer).
RT: In 2011, a White House press release stated, “The U S government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet.” Nor does anyone else.
GW: Molecules which are “building blocks” of life have been found in meteors. These molecules are not living organisms, however.
RT: Yes, speculation about life on other planets runs rampant, but extant evidence of such imagined life is lacking.
GW: We agree on that point.
RT: The fact that galaxies are distributed more densely–and quasars more abundant–the farther we look into space indicates that the universe has changed over time.
GW: Oh, there is no doubt that the universe has changed over time, but I don’t think it has changed in the way you mention here. Before I’d believe you on this point, I’d need to see some evidence.
RT: These observations argue in favor of a creation event!
GW: Even if the point you made is true, it doesn’t argue in favor of a creation event. If you are going to continue to use that term “creation event,” then please provide a precise and clear definition of it.
RT: “The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply; at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (Robert Jastrow, astronomer).
GW: That is a false statement. The Big Bang had no “flash of light.” A flash of light did occur about 300,000 years later. In the Genesis account, God started the chain. In the scientific account, the Big Bang started the chain. Jastrow was misleading people, but he made those kinds of statements decades ago. We know much more now.
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” (Albert Einstein). The cosmic background radiation is the afterglow from the heat and light produced from the initial Big Bang explosion! How scientists know this for sure is that this radiation has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in such a great explosion. Further confirmation was discovered by COBE which found slight variations or ripples in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which shows that the Big Bang explosion expansion of the universe was tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. If there were any slight variation one way or another we would not be here. In fact, the ripples are so precise that cosmologist George Smoot called them the “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.” “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead put the Bear with its cubs?” (Job 38:31,32 NIV).
RT: The cosmic background radiation is the afterglow from the heat and light produced from the initial Big Bang explosion!
GW: Perhaps heat and other radiation, but not light. The light was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang
RT: How scientists know this for sure is that this radiation has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in such a great explosion. Further confirmation was discovered by COBE which found slight variations or ripples in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation,
GW: I agree so far.
RT: which shows that the Big Bang explosion expansion of the universe was tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself.
GW: “Tweaked”? No, there you are just speculating. This is just a variation on the old design argument for the existence of God. Neither you nor anybody else knows or even has good evidence that the universe was designed, fine tuned, or tweaked.
RT: If there were any slight variation one way or another we would not be here.
GW: That could be true, but you can’t assume that there could have been variation or tweaking either.
RT: In fact, the ripples are so precise that cosmologist George Smoot called them the “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.”
GW: Smoot was just speculating. “Brute facts” is a better explanation.
GW: Because we now know that God does not exist, it is futile to try to speculate on evidence or arguments FOR the existence of God. Until you can refute the valid arguments AGAINST the existence of God, you are wasting your time. And so far, you have provided no refutations.
“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive” (Blaise Pascal). There are only two possibilities for anything that exists. Either (1) It has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or (2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (it can’t be self-caused, because it would have to exist already in order to cause anything). According to the overwhelming scientific evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else–by something outside itself. “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV). “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal” (Psalm 119:160 NIV).
“What is truth?” (Pontius Pilate, John 18:38). “Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened” (Winston Churchill). “The total number and diversity of possible chemical structures that may be constructed out of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen is virtually unlimited. Almost any imaginable chemical shape and chemical property can be derived. Together these elements form what is in effect a universal chemical constructor kit . . . It is as if from the very moment of creation the biochemistry of life was already preordained in the atom-building process, as if Nature were biased to this end from the beginning” (Microbiologist Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, 1998). If the strength of gravity were weaker by only one part in a trillion trillion trillion, the universe would have expanded so quickly after the Big Bang that no galaxies or planets would have formed. On the other hand, if gravity were stronger by only one part in a trillion trillion trillion, the universe would have collapsed back on itself. Either way, we would not exist. Other finely tuned fundamental constants include the strength of the electromagnetic force, the ration of the masses of protons and electrons, and the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together. In there there are over a dozen constants that must have precisely the the values they do in order to make the universe habitable. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated the odds of against all these constants having just the right values are one followed by trillions and trillions more zeros than there are elementary particle in the universe. It would be impossible even to write out such a huge number! “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jesus Christ, John 8:32).
For some reason I wasn’t taken to your comment to which I wished to reply, so I’ll just reply here at the end of the thread.
MD: “The total number and diversity of possible chemical structures that may be constructed out of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen is virtually unlimited.
GW: “Virtually unlimited”? It would be a very large set, but not an infinite set. Some elements will not naturally combine with other elements. There is a thing called “bonding properties.”
MD: Almost any imaginable chemical shape and chemical property can be derived.
GW: But again, the set is not infinite because some molecules don’t bond with others.
MD: Together these elements form what is in effect a universal chemical constructor kit . . . It is as if from the very moment of creation the biochemistry of life was already preordained in the atom-building process, as if Nature were biased to this end from the beginning” (Microbiologist Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, 1998).
GW: Here Denton is engaged in question begging because he assumes that there was a “moment of creation,”a “preordination,” and a “beginning.” These are just speculations. He has not rationally demonstrated or proven that they are true.
RT: There are only two possibilities for anything that exists.
GW: Really? What do you think they are?
The two possibilities for anything that exists are: (1) It has always existed, and therefore uncaused; or (2) It had a beginning, and is therefore uncaused. Question for you: If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? There are only two possibilities here, based on scientific facts: (1) Either no one created something out of nothing, or else someone created something out of nothing. Which is more reasonable? Nothing created something? No! As the song says, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could!”.
RT: The two possibilities for anything that exists are: (1) It has always existed, and therefore uncaused; or (2) It had a beginning, and is therefore uncaused.
GW: It’s not that simple. If something had a beginning, it might not have been caused. It might have sprung forth without cause. Although this is unlikely, you may not exclude the possibility. Also, you need to distinguish coming from something and coming from nothing. We agree that the latter is not plausible. My position is that the basic “building blocks” of the universe have always existed, but particular objects are combinations of those building blocks.
RT: Question for you: If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?
GW: I don’t know why you continue to ask this question when I have answered it many times. There can’t be Nothing! If something exists now, then something has always existed because Nothing cannot generate something. Nothing has no potentials, forces, causes, or objects.
RT: There are only two possibilities here, based on scientific facts: (1) Either no one created something out of nothing, or else someone created something out of nothing. Which is more reasonable?
GW: Neither is reasonable. Orderly-dynamic energy-matter in space-time has always existed. There never was Nothing. There was always something,.
RT: Nothing created something? No! As the song says, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could!”.
GW: We’ve agreed on this point many times. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
GW: As I and others have proven, God doesn’t exist!
The proven space-time theorem of general relativity is undergirded by proven assumptions: (1) Time always moves in one direction, forward into the future, never backward into the past. (2) Gravity is always attractive. (3) The universe contains enough mass to generate at least one black hole. (4) General relativity reliably describes the dynamics of the universe (the movement of massive bodies in the universe). The conclusion of the space-time theorem guarantees a past singular boundary for the universe. The singular boundary means that not only are matter and energy traceable back to a beginning but space and time are as well. In Stephen Hawking’s words, “time itself must have a beginning.” A beginning of space and time implies a causal Agent beyond space and time who brought matter, energy, space, and time into existence. As Hawking said in his book, A brief History of Time: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2 NIV). God had to have preexisted the universe and space-time.”The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11), including space-time.
RT: The proven space-time theorem of general relativity is undergirded by proven assumptions: (1) Time always moves in one direction, forward into the future, never backward into the past.
GW: Agreed.
RT: (2) Gravity is always attractive.
GW: Agreed.
RT: (3) The universe contains enough mass to generate at least one black hole.
GW: Agreed. It has billions of black holes.
RT: (4) General relativity reliably describes the dynamics of the universe (the movement of massive bodies in the universe).
GW: Agreed.
RT: The conclusion of the space-time theorem guarantees a past singular boundary for the universe. The singular boundary means that not only are matter and energy traceable back to a beginning but space and time are as well.
GW: False. There are several plausible explanations or theories of those four facts which you presented. I agree that there was a boundary – it was the rapid expansion of the primordial particle, which we now call “the Big Bang.” However, it is wrong to conclude at this state of our knowledge that this marked the beginning of the EXISTENCE of energy-matter, space, and time. It probably marked the beginning of a new phase of the universe. The universe is probably eternal, as we have previously discussed. The model you are promoting was very popular in the 1940s-1970s, but is being considered less credible every year.
RT: In Stephen Hawking’s words, “time itself must have a beginning.”
GW: Don’t you know that Hawking changed his mind over the course of his life?
RT: A beginning of space and time implies a causal Agent beyond space and time who brought matter, energy, space, and time into existence.
GW: False. By now you should be fully informed of all the alternatives:
1) The universe is eternal.
2) The universe began to exist with no cause.
3) The universe began to exist by a cause unknown.
4) The universe began to exist by a natural force or cause.
5) The universe began to exist, caused by God.
6) The universe began to exist, caused by another god or some alien agent.
I think the first is the most likely to be true, and we now know that the fifth alternative is false.
RT: As Hawking said in his book, A brief History of Time: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
GW: Here I believe that you have misquoted Hawking. Check your reference. Also, you are referring to one of his earliest books, not his latest one.
GW: Late in his life Hawking said: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by `we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/03/memoriam-stephen-hawking-scientist-atheist-intellectual-giant/#2i0AFAx8JcQwzbiP.99
RT: “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2 NIV). God had to have preexisted the universe and space-time.”The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11), including space-time.
GW: It has been proven that God does not exit, and so every statement in the Bible which mentions God is false. Ancient peoples just had many superstitions.
Imagine you find a beautiful diamond-studded genuine Rolex watch on the ground while you’re walking through the woods. What would you think is the cause of the watch? Wind and rain? Erosion? Some combination of natural forces? The universe is much complex than the Rolex, because it is even more precisely designed than any watch. The universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth, a planet with numerous improbable and interdependent life-supporting systems that make it a tiny oasis in an immensely vast and hostile universe.
We’ve been over this. You are engaged in “begging the question” — assuming what you are trying to prove, when you use words like “designed” and “tweaked.” You have no good evidence that any god did this work. Some complex things, e.g. watches, are designed, others are not, e.g. rocks and bacteria.
If God did exist, the universe would not be so vast and hostile.
“The LORD [Yahweh], who stretches out the heavens” (Zechariah 12:1 NIV).Your belief that the universe is eternal is not only unsupported by any facts, it is contradicted by the facts! Photos taken of the universe are just one of numerous proofs that support the Big Bang creation event, proving that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. These photos are made possible by light travel time, so that astronomers now have an extensive photo album of the universe that covers the past 13 billion years, beginning about half a billion years after the Big Bang when clumps of stars and gas were merging to form galaxies, and it follows to the universe’s “middle age,” where are now. In fact, there is even a microwave map of the whole sky made from one year of data taken by COBE’s differential microwave radiometers, which captures the that moment is cosmic history when atomic nuclei first capture electrons to make atoms, before any stars or galaxies existed. This shows us the universe at only 380,000 years of age, only 0.003% of its current age. All these images show us that the universe is anything but static. It expanded from from an extremely tiny volume according to a predictable pattern as it grew—a Big Bang pattern. “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding” (Jeremiah 10:12 NIV).
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh], who stretches out the heavens” (Zechariah 12:1 NIV).
GW: We now know that God does not exist.
RT: Your belief that the universe is eternal is not only unsupported by any facts, it is contradicted by the facts!
GW: False. The fact of the First Law of Thermodynamics supports my belief that the universe is eternal and contradicts your belief that it was created by God. To state it simply: “Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form.” In addition, Okham’s Razor supports my belief and not yours.
RT: Photos taken of the universe are just one of numerous proofs that support the Big Bang creation event, proving that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning.
GW: You are just jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Photos of the universe support the Big Bang, but not as a creation event. All that we know, so far, is that from a primordial energy particle there was a rapid expansion, which continues even now.
RT: These photos are made possible by light travel time, so that astronomers now have an extensive photo album of the universe that covers the past 13 billion years, beginning about half a billion years after the Big Bang when clumps of stars and gas were merging to form galaxies, and it follows to the universe’s “middle age,” where we are now.
GW: I think we agree on the raw data, but we disagree on the interpretation. You are overplaying your hand.
RT: In fact, there is even a microwave map of the whole sky made from one year of data taken by COBE’s differential microwave radiometers, which captures the that moment is cosmic history when atomic nuclei first capture electrons to make atoms, before any stars or galaxies existed. This shows us the universe at only 380,000 years of age, only 0.003% of its current age.
GW: That’s what I already said to you.
RT: All these images show us that the universe is anything but static. It expanded from from an extremely tiny volume according to a predictable pattern as it grew—a Big Bang pattern.
GW: Again, we agree on the raw data. However, there are at least SIX plausible explanations of the raw data, which I presented to you before. And the least likely to be true is that God caused the Big Bang. We now know that God doesn’t even exist.
RT: “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding” (Jeremiah 10:12 NIV).
GW: This is merely the speculation of an ancient man who wrote the book of Jeremiah. He knew very little about physics and cosmology. He was just parroting the creation myths of the time.
GW: Not only do you not have any proof for the existence of God, but there are several proofs of the nonexistence of God.
The highly ordered state of the initial universe, and the highly ordered state of the present universe, both point to an organizer, AKA the Creator, “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19,22 NIV).
By Ockham’s Razor the better explanation is that the orderliness is an inherent eternal feature of the eternal universe. Just a brute fact. No gods required.
Surely you must know that Occam’s razor does not always apply! There are some very notable scientific exceptions to it. The application of the Occam’s razor principle has even resulted in the hindrance of scientific knowledge, research and development. In the specific case we’re discussing, scientists and astronomers were forced by their own discoveries to admit that the evidence points to a beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1). You are in denial of these scientific and astronomical facts (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1 NIV).
RT: Surely you must know that Occam’s razor does not always apply!
GW: Surely you must know that it applies in the consideration of order in the universe.
RT: There are some very notable scientific exceptions to it.
GW: Evidence?
RT: The application of the Occam’s razor principle has even resulted in the hindrance of scientific knowledge, research and development.
GW: Evidence?
RT: In the specific case we’re discussing, scientists and astronomers were forced by their own discoveries to admit that the evidence points to a beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1).
GW: False. There was no force involved. Some interpreted the data in one way and some interpreted it in another way. There is no consensus at this time. However, we do know that God does not exist.
RT: You are in denial of these scientific and astronomical facts (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1 NIV).
GW: Those are merely religious speculations, not scientific or astronomical facts. It is a fact, however, that the Big Bang occurred, but it is likely that this was a transition event in an eternal universe. We know that God does not exist.
GW: If God did exist and wrote, dictated, or inspired Genesis, then this book would describe the Big Bang and evolution in ways we would recognize today. But it doesn’t. Thus, either God does not exist or he was not responsible for the writing of Genesis. For other reasons we know that God does not exist.
Occam’s razor has, at times, obstructed scientific progress, and has been used to accept simplistic (and initially incorrect) explanations for meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, atomic theory, and DNA as carrier of genetic information. “Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” ( 1 Corinthians 1:20 NIV)
RT: Occam’s razor has, at times, obstructed scientific progress, and has been used to accept simplistic (and initially incorrect) explanations for meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, atomic theory, and DNA as carrier of genetic information.
GW: I am skeptical of your claim here. So far, you haven’t explained even one item your list of five.
GW: Besides, you can’t built a successful case for the probable existence of God by referring to exceptions to general rules. You don’t like it that Occam’s Razor works against your claim, so you appeal to exceptions. You don’t like it that the Principle of Evidence works against your claim, so you appeal to exceptions. I’m not impressed.
GW: Let’s see how Occam’s Razor works with respect to one fact on which we both agree – the universe is orderly. If we need an explanation for this fact, what are some? Well, here are two: 1) The orderliness of the universe was installed or caused by God. Vs. 2) The orderliness of the universe is simply intrinsic and eternal. Both explanations equally explain what we see, but the latter is much simpler than the former, and so by Occam’s Razor, we ought to prefer the latter. What are the additional assumptions which make the former unnecessarily complex? 1) There was a time when order wasn’t in the universe. 2) The order came to be by a cause. 3) The cause was a person or intelligent agent. And 4) The person or intelligent agent had to be God. These are four unnecessary and complicating assumptions. There is no need for them.
RT: “Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” ( 1 Corinthians 1:20 NIV)
GW: I, the philosopher, am here! God does not exist and so he doesn’t do anything. We have more knowledge and wisdom now than people had two thousand years ago!
All you have to do is a little research and you’ll see the truth of what I said about the Occam’s razor principle hindering scientific knowledge progress at times. “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33 NIV). From gravity and electromagnetism, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules, stars, planets, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, the universe has always has an extremely high degree of order. Your answer that the universe’s order is there for no reason is nonsense. “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrew 3:4 NIV). The universe always has an order of a much higher degree than anything ever built by humans. It came into existence in an extremely orderly way, caused by “the Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV). There are no other viable options!
RT: All you have to do is a little research and you’ll see the truth of what I said about the Occam’s razor principle hindering scientific knowledge progress at times.
GW: I don’t believe a word you said. If you make a claim like that, you have the moral duty to present your evidence. I asked you to present your evidence and an explanation for just one of those examples, and you did nothing.
RT: “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33 NIV).
GW: God does not exist. There are many good proofs of this, and you have found no errors in them. But we do agree that there is orderliness in the universe. Start with that fact and favor the explanation favored by Occam’s Razor – the orderliness in the universe is an INTRINSIC and ETERNAL property!
RT: From gravity and electromagnetism, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules, stars, planets, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, the universe has always has an extremely high degree of order.
GW: I think we have always agreed on that fact.
RT: Your answer that the universe’s order is there for no reason is nonsense.
GW: There is a correct explanation – the orderliness is INTRINSIC and ETERNAL.
RT: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrew 3:4 NIV).
GW: Evidence? We now know that God does not exist!
RT: The universe always has an order of a much higher degree than anything ever built by humans.
GW: False. A stone does not have a higher degree of order or complexity than the Hubble Telescope. You have no good evidence that the order in the universe was installed or created by God or any god at all. You are just speculating. You have fooled yourself into accepting a speculation as a truth.
RT: It came into existence in an extremely orderly way,…
GW: You don’t know that the universe came into existence. You are just speculating again. Belief in your speculations is not warranted by the evidence. You have misinterpreted the Big Bang.
RT: caused by “the Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
GW: God does not exist. That option has been ruled out already.
RT: There are no other viable options!
GW: Of course, there are! I gave you five or six. But you have blinders on, perhaps caused by early indoctrination into an extreme and bizarre religious sect.
Put “Occam’s razor not working not applicable” in your search bar and you’ll get plenty of information about this. One example is the blog site “nesslabs”. One example is Ernest Mach who was using the principles of Occam’s razor to claim that that molecules did not exist. Occam’s razor is often applied with confirmation bias to “prove” what one wants to believe. The Bible even refers to some who have done this, “who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. 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” (Romans 1:18-20 NIV).
I asked you to explain one example where you think Occam’s Razor did not work or was misleading, and you didn’t do that. You shouldn’t make claims which you are unable or unwilling to explain and defend. Also, there is no good reason to think that Occam’s Razor should not be applied to the fact of orderliness in the universe. The simplest explanation for this fact is that orderliness is simply an INTRINSIC and ETERNAL feature of the universe. No other assumptions are required.
GW: Sorry, I overlooked the rest of your comment. I will reply to it here.
RT: One example is Ernest Mach who was using the principles of Occam’s razor to claim that that molecules did not exist.
GW: Provide quote in which he claimed this.
RT: Occam’s razor is often applied with confirmation bias to “prove” what one wants to believe.
GW: Some people might do that in error. Occam’s Razor is often NOT applied by people with confirmation bias to “prove” what they want to believe, like you. They are in error also. With regard to orderliness in the universe, it is clear why you don’t wish to apply Occam’s Razor.
RT: The Bible even refers to some who have done this, “who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them.
GW: This is nonsense. People who apply Occam’s Razor are not wicked; they are reasonable and virtuous. It is now plain for all to see that God does not exist!
RT: 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” (Romans 1:18-20 NIV).
GW: What creation of the world? You have not proven that the universe was created. It has been proven that God does not exist, and you are ignoring the proofs. Your willful ignorance is without excuse.
After a lecture by Ludwig Boltzman in 1897 at the Imperial Academy of Science in Vienna, Ernst Mach, applying the Occam’s razor principle, famously declared, “I don’t believe that atoms exist. Have you seen one?” “Have you seen a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them” (Proverbs 26:12 NIV). Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit that the universe came into existence with the “Big Bang”. More recently, the discovery of the fine-tuning in dark energy and the cosmic mass density, put the final nails in the coffin of creation denial. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
RT: After a lecture by Ludwig Boltzman in 1897 at the Imperial Academy of Science in Vienna, Ernst Mach, applying the Occam’s razor principle, famously declared, “I don’t believe that atoms exist. Have you seen one?”
GW: That is not an application of Occam’s Razor! Apparently, you don’t understand it. You don’t have to actually see atoms to know they exist. You can rationally infer their existence from seeing or observing experimental results.
GW: One version of Occam’s Razor is this: Given two different hypotheses which explain a set of facts equally well, favor the simpler one – the one making the fewer number of assumptions. For example, given the two hypotheses, a god caused the orderliness in the universe vs the orderliness in the universe is simply intrinsic and eternal to the universe, which explain the orderliness itself, favor the simpler one – the latter one. How many extra assumptions are made by the former?
RT: “Have you seen a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them” (Proverbs 26:12 NIV).
GW: Whether a person is wise or foolish cannot necessarily be judged by the person themself. For example, people who believe in God think they are being wise when they are not.
RT: Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit that the universe came into existence with the “Big Bang”.
GW: Simply a false claim. You know better. It is more likely that the universe is eternal, but we don’t KNOW yet what was the nature of the universe prior to the Big Bang.
RT: More recently, the discovery of the fine-tuning in dark energy and the cosmic mass density, put the final nails in the coffin of creation denial.
GW: The idea of fine tuning is just “begging the question,” but of course you know this. It assumes there was tuning done by a tuner. That fact is that if constants would have been different than what they were at the time of the Big Bang, the world would look differently than it does now. So what? We don’t even know that they could have been different than what they were.
RT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
GW: False. God does not exist, and there are many good proofs of this. I have presented you with some of them, and you refused to debate me about them. I challenge you to this debate of this issue right on your own forum.
The debate you requested on this forum has been published.