Increasingly Frequent Mass Murders – Is the End Near?
Every day there are shocking reports of mass violence and murders in the news. Just when it seems like things can’t get any worse, they do! This same worsening scenario seems to be repeating day after day. Such horrible events are part of the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy:
“Because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold”—Matthew 24:12 NRSV
Does this mean the end is near?
Jesus predicted that: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man,” in that people in general would be going about completely absorbed their daily lives, and totally unaware of “the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37-39 NIV), until it “will come on them suddenly” (1 Thessalonians 5:3 NIV).
In the years leading up to the global flood of Noah’s time, God noted that: “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence” (Genesis 6:11 NIV). These conditions are similar to the world today. God has explained, “I, Yahweh, do not change” (Malachi 3:6 NJB). Based on that, and the fact that “by God’s word . . . the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” (2 Peter 3:5,6 NIV), and “they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:39 NIV), and other prophecies, such as the above, we can safely conclude that God will suddenly intervene in this present world at some future point.
However, this does not necessarily mean the end is near. Why not?
We need to keep a balanced perspective on what Jesus said about his return. On the one hand, we know that “the devil has gone down to you in a rage, knowing that he has little time left” (Revelation 12:12 NJB), and the devil’s influence on people may very well be a reason for the greatly increasing violence and mass murders. On the other hand, while the increasing frequency of mass murders is very shocking, we should keep in mind, that, in the future, “It is when people are saying, ‘How quiet and peaceful it is’ that sudden destruction falls on them” (1 Thessalonians 5:3 NJB). Based on this, things in the world may appear to be calm, and it may seem that the major problems in the world have been solved, just before the sudden end of this world. In any case, may we always keep in mind that “speculations” (1 Timothy 1:4 NLT) that “go beyond what is written in Scripture” (1 Corinthians 4:6 GWT) are warned against in the Bible.
The two articles on this website, “The Last Days – The Sign of Jesus’ Return?”, and “The Last Days – When?”, deal with more Biblical specifics of Jesus’ sudden, unexpected, return in the future. Since no one will know, or can know, in advance, of the timing of Jesus’ return (Matthew 24:36,42,44; 25:13), it is wise to heed his advice to always: “Be on guard! Be alert!” (Mark 13:33 NIV), and “keep watch,” “Be ready” (Matthew 24:42,44 NIV). We are advised, by Jesus himself, to be ready for his return at all times.
33 thoughts on “Increasingly Frequent Mass Murders – Is the End Near?”
After any tragedy or disaster in today’s world, it is so easy to cherry pick some verse in the Bible and suggest that the verse predicted the current event. What is not easy to explain is why God would allow the modern tragedy or disaster, if he did exist. For example, would God have allowed the Holocaust? If so, why? Would God have allowed the Uvaldi mass shooting? If so, why?
Also, Jesus predicted his second coming during the lifetime of his listeners. This never happened. Jesus was mistaken. Therefore, he could not be God, the son of God, or even have supernatural powers. Isn’t this obvious? Yes.
That gospel writer John was an eyewitness of Jesus who lived into is 90’s is confirmed by the discovery of the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7) in Jerusalem in 2004. Prior to this, there was no archaeological proof of its existence. Please see the article about this on this website. The article about it in Biblical Archaeology Review is quoted extensively.
BA: That gospel writer John was an eyewitness of Jesus who lived into is 90’s is confirmed by the discovery of the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7) in Jerusalem in 2004.
GW: False. It only shows that the author wrote historical fiction. It has been confirmed that Pilate actually existed, but this hardly means that Jesus came back to life. Isn’t this obvious? Yes, of course.
BA: Prior to this, there was no archaeological proof of its existence. Please see the article about this on this website. The article about it in Biblical Archaeology Review is quoted extensively.
GW: Even if the archaeological discovery is valid, it doesn’t matter to our discussion. It is not evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jesus came back to life. The author of John probably got other facts correct about history.
GW: We’ve already discussed many reasons why John was probably not an eyewitness of Jesus.
The point of the article is that until its discovery in 2004, critics claimed John’s mention of the Pool of Siloam at John 9:7 was fiction. This discovery is just one of many that have proven the critics wrong and “certified that God is truthful” (John 3:33 NIV; also see Romans 3:4).
Such a minor point. As I have said many times, some of the details on places, times, people, and events described in the Bible will be correct and some will be incorrect. Not a big deal. God cannot be truthful or untruthful since God does not exist. This has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument, in which you have found no errors.
“He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much”—Luke 16:10 NKJV
It may be a minor point, but it’s true. Likewise, the Bible always, 100% of the time proves true and accurate where external, independent evidence is available. Bible critics, who thought they had proven the Bible wrong, in the cases of, for example, the Assyrians, the Hittites, King Belshazzar, Governor Pontius Pilate, the Thessalonian politarchs, etc., have all been proven wrong themselves.
The fact that 100% of extant manuscripts of the beginnings of the gospels attribute writership to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gives evidence that the early church viewed these four as the writers.
It doesn’t matter. The early church should not be trusted. The evidence to support their opinions is weak, as we have previously discussed.
Any way you look at it, the evidence in support of Jesus coming back to life is pathetic and insufficient to establish truth. The Gospel writers, whoever they were, were not eyewitnesses to Jesus.
You cannot prove that the four Biblical Gospels are pseudonymous. Neither can anyone else! There is far too much evidence in support of their authenticity. You can see some of this evidence on this website.
BA: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much”—Luke 16:10 NKJV
GW: This is not the NIV. If you are loyal to what is false, then this is an error.
BA: It may be a minor point, but it’s true.
GW: It may be a minor true point. So what?
BA: Likewise, the Bible always, 100% of the time proves true and accurate where external, independent evidence is available.
GW: False. Even the first verse of the Bible is contradicted by external independent evidence. Your claim is refuted.
BA: Bible critics, who thought they had proven the Bible wrong, in the cases of, for example, the Assyrians, the Hittites, King Belshazzar, Governor Pontius Pilate, the Thessalonian politarchs, etc., have all been proven wrong themselves.
GW: Bible critics have been later proven sometimes wrong and sometimes right. I am a Bible critic and I have been proven right most of the time. For example, it has been proven by me and others that God does not exist. You have found no error in my Holocaust argument, and now you even avoid discussing it. Perhaps you are afraid that you might actually change your position if you actually discussed it with me.
BA: You cannot prove that the four Biblical Gospels are pseudonymous. Neither can anyone else!
GW: I don’t know if I would say “prove,” but the evidence that the authors are anonymous is far greater than the evidence that the authors are known.
BA: There is far too much evidence in support of their authenticity. You can see some of this evidence on this website.
GW: It depends what you mean by “authentic.” Probably the oldest manuscript we have for any Gospel is NOT an original. It is probably a copy, and may be a copy of a copy in a long chain of copies. Also, the authors do not identify themselves in the texts.
Luke16:10 reads almost identically in the NIV: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be trusted with much”.
Genesis 1:1 is proven true by the fact that cosmologists were forced by their own discoveries to admit that the universe had a beginning. Einstein’s E=MC2, Hubble’s discovery of the redshifting of galaxies, and the discovery of the cosmic background radiation from the “Big Bang”, etc., are just a few notable examples.
The existence of evil not only does not disprove the existence of God, we would not even have any concept of what evil is were it not for God (Romans 2:14,15).
The oldest manuscript of the Gospels, the John Rylands Papyrus (P52) has been radiocarbon and paleographically dated to about 125 CE, only 30 years or less from the date of John’s writing his Gospel. No other ancient document comes anywhere close to such a high degree of authenticity (1 Peter 1:24,25).
Jesus admitted that he did not know when his second coming would be.
“About that day or hour no knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”—Matthew 24:36 NIV
Jesus never claimed to be God. He refuted the false claim, “you, a mere man, claim to be God,” with, “I said, ‘I am God’s Son” (John 10:33,36 NIV).
Even early non-Christian writers admitted he had supernatural powers.
BA: Jesus admitted that he did not know when his second coming would be.
“About that day or hour no knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”—Matthew 24:36 NIV
GW: Yes, he supposedly said he didn’t know the day or hour, but he supposedly said he knew the general time period which was to be in the lifetimes of some of his audience, as indicated in these NINE verses.
“34 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.’” Matthew 24:34-35 NIV
“30 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.’” Mark 13:30-31 NIV
“32 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.’” Luke 21:32-33 NIV
“28 ‘Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’” Matthew 16:28 NIV
“9 And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’” Mark 9:1 NIV
“30 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.’” Mark 13:30 NIV
“34 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.’” Matt 24:34 NIV
“27 ‘Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.’” Luke 9:27 NIV
“32 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.’” Luke 21:32 NIV
BA: Jesus never claimed to be God. He refuted the false claim, “you, a mere man, claim to be God,” with, “I said, ‘I am God’s Son” (John 10:33,36 NIV).
GW: Ehrman and I agree with you on that point. Jesus was not God and Jesus never claimed to be God.
BA: Even early non-Christian writers admitted he had supernatural powers.
GW: No. Present your evidence.
Jesus’ reference to “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) refers to the generation of ungodly people that will be living when he returns. Jesus had previously used the expression, “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39 NIV) referring to ungodly Jews then living. The nearest use by Jesus of “this generation” prior to Matthew 24:34 is in Matthew 23:34-36, where judgment is brought upon “this generation” for things which they were not directly responsible.
BA: Jesus’ reference to “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) refers to the generation of ungodly people that will be living when he returns.
GW: No, it refers to the generation of the people to whom he is speaking. He would consider that generation and every generation “ungodly.” Your interpretation makes no sense.
BA: Jesus had previously used the expression, “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39 NIV) referring to ungodly Jews then living.
GW: But he does not use that expression in the verses I cited. In fact, he uses the two words “this generation,” referring to the current one, rather than the two words “a…generation.” “This” is different from “a.”
BA: The nearest use by Jesus of “this generation” prior to Matthew 24:34 is in Matthew 23:34-36, where judgment is brought upon “this generation” for things which they were not directly responsible.
GW: So what? This does not contradict my point.
Jesus’ prediction about some standing there who wouldn’t die until they saw the kingdom of God at Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, were fulfilled in the verses that follow, when James, Peter, and John saw Jesus in a vision of his kingdom glory. This was no false prophecy, as you allege, but true prophecy.
BA: Jesus’ prediction about some standing there who wouldn’t die until they saw the kingdom of God at Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, were fulfilled in the verses that follow, when James, Peter, and John saw Jesus in a vision of his kingdom glory. This was no false prophecy, as you allege, but true prophecy.
GW: False. Jesus did not predict a vision of a kingdom. He predicted a real event – his kingdom coming to Earth. Jesus prediction was falsified, and so he could not be supernatural.
Some early non-Christian writers, or writings, which acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers were Josephus, Roman writer Celsus, and the Jewish Talmud. You can check their statements yourself, if you’re really interested.
BA: Some early non-Christian writers, or writings, which acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers were Josephus, Roman writer Celsus, and the Jewish Talmud. You can check their statements yourself, if you’re really interested.
GW: I doubt it. Prove your claim by presenting quotes, citations, and links. If you believe what you say and if you are ethical, then because I have challenged you, you will present the evidence.
GW: However, none of those writers ever met or observed Jesus, so we can’t give them much credibility.
BA: Luke16:10 reads almost identically in the NIV: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be trusted with much”.
GW: All the versions have similarities and differences. I don’t think you should cherry pick versions just to support the points you happen to be making. I think you should select the one version which you think is best overall and stick with that. I think that it should be the version which most academic (not evangelical) biblical scholars use. We’ve talked much about this before.
GW: I watched a very powerful 3-4 hour program by Bart Ehrman yesterday. It was mainly on how and why he went from fundamentalist Christian to atheist. Simply outstanding! I was surprised to learn that he does not now think the NIV is best, but thinks the NRSV is the best. I may be changing my choice, based on his choice.
BA: Genesis 1:1 is proven true by the fact that cosmologists were forced by their own discoveries to admit that the universe had a beginning.
GW: False. We have been over this irrational claim of yours many times. You continue to misrepresent the position of scientists. Their position is that we don’t know if our universe had a beginning or not. The issue is undecided. Stop spreading misinformation about what cosmologists think. It’s like Trump spreading misinformation that he won the 2020 election. Don’t do it!
GW: Although not yet known for certain, there are at least four good reasons why our universe is likely to be eternal:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: “Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” Since energy is the most basic component of our universe and it cannot be created, then it must be eternal.
2. Ockham’s Razor: “The simplest explanation is usually the best.” Or “The explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions is the most likely to be true.” Our universe exists, and assuming it to be eternal is the simplest explanation which entails the fewest assumptions. Assumptions not required are “The universe had a beginning.” “The beginning of the universe had a cause.” “The cause of the beginning of the universe was a person or intelligent agent.” “God was the person or intelligent agent which caused the beginning of the universe.”
3. Rational Inference: Because each moment in time or each event, among trillions of them, since the Big Bang has been preceded by another, it is highly likely that the Big Bang itself was preceded by another moment in time or event, and that one preceded by another, and by another, infinitum.
4. The Hume-Sagan Dictum: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It is an extraordinary claim that the universe began to exist from nothing. No extraordinary evidence has yet been presented in support or confirmation of this extraordinary claim.
BA: Einstein’s E=MC2, Hubble’s discovery of the redshifting of galaxies, and the discovery of the cosmic background radiation from the “Big Bang”, etc., are just a few notable examples.
GW: Examples of what? Einstein’s equation supports my point #1 presented above. Redshifting galaxies support the hypothesis (I think it is a fact) of an expanding universe. Neither supports the hypothesis of a beginning to the universe. If there was no beginning, then there was no God to start it.
BA: The existence of evil not only does not disprove the existence of God,…
GW: You are putting up a straw man. I don’t even mention “evil” in my argument. The occurrence of the Holocaust disproves the existence of God. If he did exist, he would have prevented it. Isn’t this obvious? Yes, it is.
BA: we would not even have any concept of what evil is were it not for God (Romans 2:14,15).
GW: I don’t use the obsolete concept of “evil.” We have moral codes without the existence of God and without any belief in God. I have devised Correct Universal Ethics (CUE) which has nothing to do with God. Moral codes were invented before the concept of gods. Many experts now believe that the first moral rule related to how the food (animal and plant) should be shared among the members of a family, clan, or tribe.
BA: The oldest manuscript of the Gospels, the John Rylands Papyrus (P52) has been radiocarbon and paleographically dated to about 125 CE, only 30 years or less from the date of John’s writing his Gospel.
GW: If those three facts are true (and I will not challenge them), then it is very unlikely that this manuscript was the original. (It may be that the fourth Gospel was written by a guy named “John” but he wasn’t any eyewitness of Jesus, as we previously discussed.) Even if we had original manuscripts for all four Gospels (and we don’t) this would not mean that what they say is true. We don’t have the three Rs of high quality – reports, recordings, and remnants – to support any claim of fact from the Gospels.
BA: No other ancient document comes anywhere close to such a high degree of authenticity (1 Peter 1:24,25).
GW: That’s irrelevant. The standards for authenticity and validity are different for claims of the natural vs. claims of the supernatural. The standards are higher for the latter, as you well know. If someone claims that Ceaser crossed the Rubicon, the standard of evidence is pretty low. But if someone claims he crossed the Rubicon on a flying horse, then the standard of evidence is very high. You know this.
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine’ Greek. While there are no extant originals, the pedigree for the extant manuscript copies far exceeds all other ancient works combined (1 Peter 1:24,25). Since we need translations in our current languages to be able to read any ancient work, there is no officially sanctioned Bible translation from which we must read.
Ehrman admitted in the film you saw yesterday that he is still learning. The NRSV, while not having quite as good an overall readability as the NIV, is more accurate in its renderings, not only in its main text, but also in its alternate readings.
E=MC2 proves something can’t come from nothing, and that energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe. Cosmology tells us that, postulating back in time, from the redshifting galaxies in the universe and the cosmic background radiation, brings us to the beginning of the universe.
BA: The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine’ Greek.
GW: Yes, the OT in Hebrew and Aramaic, but the NT in Greek. Oddly enough, the Gospels were written in Greek, even though Jesus spoke mainly Aramaic. This is more evidence that the Gospel writers WERE NOT eyewitnesses.
BA: While there are no extant originals, the pedigree for the extant manuscript copies far exceeds all other ancient works combined (1 Peter 1:24,25).
GW: “Pedigree” is a pretty vague concept in this context. And it’s irrelevant, as I mentioned before.
BA: Since we need translations in our current languages to be able to read any ancient work, there is no officially sanctioned Bible translation from which we must read.
GW: I believe different denominations or sects sometimes have their own officially sanctioned translations. I know the Catholics do.
BA: Ehrman admitted in the film you saw yesterday that he is still learning.
GW: Learning is good for everyone, including Ehrman, you, and me. Did you watch the program? If not, I’m sure you can get it online.
BA: The NRSV, while not having quite as good an overall readability as the NIV, is more accurate in its renderings, not only in its main text, but also in its alternate readings.
GW: I wouldn’t dispute that.
BA: E=MC2 proves something can’t come from nothing,
GW: False. Energy is something. Matter is something else. Energy can come from matter, and matter can come from energy. But neither can come from nothing.
BA: and that energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.
GW: False again. We do not know that our universe had a beginning. How many times do I need to repeat that to you? “Don’t know” is the scientific consensus. Thousands of years after the Big Bang, energy was transformed into matter, during a cooling off period, as described by Einstein’s famous equation.
BA: Cosmology tells us that, postulating back in time, from the redshifting galaxies in the universe and the cosmic background radiation, brings us to the beginning of the universe.
GW: You are making a serious category error. The beginning of the expansion is not the same as the beginning of the universe. We know that the beginning of the expansion was roughly 13.8 billion years ago.
Since the NT was written for an international audience (Matthew 28:19,20; Colossians 1:6,23), and Greek was the international language of communication, it makes sense that the NT was written in Greek.
There is no one translation of the Bible that is officially sanctioned by God, denominational dictates notwithstanding.
Scientists have discovered that before the Big Bang, there was nothing Energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe. This energy had to have come from God (Isaiah 40:26-28).
BA: Since the NT was written for an international audience (Matthew 28:19,20; Colossians 1:6,23), and Greek was the international language of communication, it makes sense that the NT was written in Greek.
GW: That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The writers had no idea of “international” in our modern sense. It was written for whomever would read it but particularly those people who were literate and living around the Mediterranean. There is no evidence that the authors knew Aramaic in which Jesus spoke or ever observed or met Jesus.
BA: There is no one translation of the Bible that is officially sanctioned by God, denominational dictates notwithstanding.
GW: How could there be? God does not exist, and this has been proven. Different denominations and even different congregations within denominations often have their own preferences regarding Bible versions they use. However, you and I should use a version most often preferred by academic scholars.
BA: Scientists have discovered that before the Big Bang, there was nothing
GW: Why do you keep declaring these falsehoods? Scientists don’t know what happened before the Big Bang! In addition, you are contradicting yourself here since previously you declared that something cannot come from nothing. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
BA: Energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.
GW: False. You don’t know that the universe had a beginning. Nobody knows that. The universe is mostly likely eternal. Energy transformed into matter thousands of years after the Big Bang. Matter consists of atoms. Here is a quote for you:
“It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe.” And here is the link for the quote:
https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe
BA: This energy had to have come from God (Isaiah 40:26-28).
GW: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven by my Holocaust argument which you continue to evade. In addition, energy didn’t come from anywhere, anything, or anybody. Energy-matter is eternal!
GW: The First Law of Thermodynamics: “Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” Since energy is the most basic component of our universe and it cannot be created, then it must be eternal.
God guided the writing of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16,17) and Jesus said it was for an international audience of “all nations” (Matthew 28:18-20).
His disciples, brothers, and Dr Luke certainly knew Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic words are even defined in the gospels.for the readers.
We’re not bound to use any specific translation which may or may not be favored by certain elites.
You’re still in denial of the scientific fact of the Big Bang, red shifting of the galaxies, expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, and E=MC2, all of which prove the universe’s beginning.
The transformation of energy into matter at the beginning of the universe had to have a cause. The only possible explanation is God’s acting to cause such a thing.
The extreme orderliness of the universe could not be without a cause. That cause has to be God (Hebrews 3:4).
BA: God guided the writing of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16,17)…
GW: There is no good evidence for this claim by any author or commentator. Anybody can just say “God guided my writing” and this is not sufficient to justify the claim. Also, we now know that God does not exist, so the claim is frivolous.
BA: and Jesus said it was for an international audience of “all nations” (Matthew 28:18-20).
GW: That’s just his opinion, and he had the same delusion as you – that God exists.
BA: His disciples, brothers, and Dr Luke certainly knew Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic words are even defined in the gospels.for the readers.
GW: There is no good evidence that any of the Gospels was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The OLDEST Gospel manuscripts we have are in Greek, so I don’t know why you think they would have originally been written in a different language.
BA: We’re not bound to use any specific translation which may or may not be favored by certain elites.
GW: If we want to reach rational conclusions, then we should use those translations endorsed by the best experts in the field. Some elites are more trustworthy or credible than others, and in this case it is the academic NT scholars. If you need a nuclear reactor to be built, you hire nuclear scientists and engineers, not a plumber.
BA: You’re still in denial of the scientific fact of the Big Bang,
GW: False. We both agree that the Big Bang occurred, just as most relevant scientists do.
BA: red shifting of the galaxies, expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, and E=MC2,…
GW: False. We both agree that these conclusions are correct, just as most relevant scientists do.
BA: all of which prove the universe’s beginning.
GW: False. They support the conclusion of the beginning of the expansion of the universe, not the beginning of the existence of the universe. Although not yet known for certain, there are at least four good reasons why our universe is likely to be eternal:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: “Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” Since energy is the most basic component of our universe and it cannot be created, then it must be eternal.
2. Ockham’s Razor: “The simplest explanation is usually the best.” Or “The explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions is the most likely to be true.” Our universe exists, and assuming it to be eternal is the simplest explanation which entails the fewest assumptions. Assumptions not required are “The universe had a beginning.” “The beginning of the universe had a cause.” “The cause of the beginning of the universe was a person or intelligent agent.” “God was the person or intelligent agent which caused the beginning of the universe.”
3. Rational Inference: Because each moment in time or each event, among trillions of them, since the Big Bang has been preceded by another, it is highly likely that the Big Bang itself was preceded by another moment in time or event, and that one preceded by another, and by another, infinitum.
4. The Hume-Sagan Dictum: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It is an extraordinary claim that the universe began to exist from nothing. No extraordinary evidence has yet been presented in support or confirmation of this extraordinary claim.
BA: The transformation of energy into matter at the beginning of the universe had to have a cause.
GW: Here you are engaged in question begging. You don’t know that the universe had a beginning; nobody knows this. But even if it did, it might not have had a cause. But even if it had a cause, it couldn’t be God. Why? Because God does not exist, and we know this from other reasoning.
BA: The only possible explanation is God’s acting to cause such a thing.
GW: False. As we have discussed before, there are five or six possible explanations which do not entail the existence of God. Your referral to “only” is very naive.
BA: The extreme orderliness of the universe could not be without a cause.
GW: False. It could be and probably is INTRINSIC AND ETERNAL orderliness, and so it wouldn’t need a cause.
BA: That cause has to be God (Hebrews 3:4).
GW: False. The cause is not and cannot be God since he doesn’t exist. You continue to evade my Holocaust argument. You have no rational answer to it.
GW: Your knowledge of physics, cosmology, rational thinking, and even the philosophy of religion is very deficient. I recommend that you go back to college, or read some relevant reputable books, or watch some relevant reputable lectures on the internet. There is so much new you could learn. If you did that, then you could actually have a useful conversation with me rather than just preaching and quoting from the Bible. Set aside the Bible and start thinking for yourself. I know that is hard, but it can be done. Many persons your age have done it.
Educate yourself about science. Stop denying science! You could start with the Wikipedia article about the Big Bang, and run the references. The universe is estimated to be 13:8 billion years old, which points to a beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1).
BA1: Stop denying science!
GW1: I deny your claim that the current consensus of relevant scientists is that the universe BEGAN 13.8 billion years ago.
BA1: The universe is estimated to be 13:8 billion years old, which points to a beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1).
GW1: The author of Genesis 1:1 does not estimate the universe to be 13.8 billion years old! That author is also not a current relevant scientist. Why do you bring up a 3000 year old book to defend your claim about science? Define “universe.” What do you mean by that? Then define “beginning.” Finally, define “beginning of the universe.” You throw around a lot of terms, and I don’t think you know what they mean.
GW1: Also, God does not exist, and this has been proven. You continue to evade my Holocaust argument.
“Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began”—American Museum of Natural History
“The best supported theory of our universe’s origin centers on an event known as the big bang”—National Geographic
Type “beginning of the universe” in your search bar, and you’ll get lot’s of scientific facts about the beginning of the universe.
BA: “Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began”—American Museum of Natural History
GW: But what do they mean by “began”? What do you mean by it? That’s why I asked you about definitions. One definition of “begin” is “to come into existence out of nothing.” But you’ve already agreed with me that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: Also whoever wrote that quote is begging the question – assuming that the universe began. They don’t know that, nobody does.
BA: “The best supported theory of our universe’s origin centers on an event known as the big bang”—National Geographic
GW: The word “origin” has the same problem as the word “beginning.” It has different meanings. The person offering the quote is also begging the question – assuming that the universe had an origin.
BA: Type “beginning of the universe” in your search bar, and you’ll get lot’s of scientific facts about the beginning of the universe.
GW: I did that, and I will share some of what I found.
GW: Here is a quote apparently from your first source: https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin#:~:text=The%20Big%20Bang%20was%20the,place%20is%20still%20a%20mystery.
“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.”
Since the “tiny, dense, fireball” preceded the Big Bang, the Big Bang could not have been the beginning of the universe. If something caused the Big Bang, then something existed before the Big Bang, and therefore no origin is demonstrated.
GW: “Misconceptions: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
GW: “Despite the research, there is currently no theoretical model that explains the earliest moments of the universe’s existence (during the Planck epoch) due to a lack of a testable theory of quantum gravity…The proposed theoretical scenarios include string theory, M-theory, the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, cosmic inflation, the Big Bang, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these proposed scenarios, like the string theory, are compatible, whereas others are not.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
GW: “Here’s how we know the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore…The idea that ‘the universe began from a singularity, and that’s what the Big Bang was,’ needed to be jettisoned the moment we recognized that an inflationary phase preceded the hot, dense, and matter-and-radiation-filled one we inhabit today…Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity.”
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/
GW: “It reopens the question of whether the Universe had a beginning at all, and the answer so far is that we aren’t sure. Here’s why…There’s a big difference, however, between identifying a possible beginning to our Universe and discovering the necessary evidence to discern between this possibility and all of the others…The Big Bang wasn’t the beginning of time and space, and cosmic inflation, which preceded it, cannot be the beginning either, unless it went on for an eternity. After a century of cosmic revolutions, we’re right back where we started: unable to answer the most fundamental question we can ask, “how did it all begin?”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=2b3609294100
GW: From my little research on the web, as recommended by you, I have come to these conclusions:
1. There are as many references supporting my view as yours. You are cherry picking articles, just like you cherry pick Bible versions.
2. Not only you, but even some scientists do not define the terms “beginning” or “origin.” And thus their conclusions are ambiguous.
3. Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed, and the universe consists of energy-matter. So the universe must be eternal.
Nonsense! Reputable sources, such as The American Museum of Natural History and National Geographic, state the fact that most scientists know the universe had a beginning. There is no “question begging”, as you like to claim. Yes, there was something that existed prior to the universe–God!
I already rebutted your claims about science and scientists, so I won’t repeat myself here on that.
But I will repeat myself on the philosophical issue: God does not exist, and this has been proven, even by my own Holocaust argument, which you continue to evade. There are reasons why you evade it.