Dani said "The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all."
So your belief in an eternal god has led you to believe the universe is eternal and god doesn't need to exist which suggests he is irrelevant.
Hey everyone- Dani is an atheist!
Dani said, " Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation..."
She is so excited about her new found atheism that she denies god a 2nd time.
Oh wait, now she has doubts...Dani said "...observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis since the universe supposedly began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago."
No wait, we're back on track for atheism because the evidence Dani is quoting here is theBig Bang theory that says the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
So, let me get this straight, Dani has said
1- Eternal god -> eternal universe = There is no god
2- Big Bang Theory -> There is no god
Wow, I'd say Dani has made big strides in the last few days.
"The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific)."
I'm assuming you mean escape from the idea of a creator of the universe. What I can not fathom is why *you* have invented the idea of a super universe out of whole cloth. No one here has suggested it. You don't define it. And you say it can't be confirmed experimentally.
Now you know we pesky atheists want scientific proof for things, so accusing us of *inventing* a concept that can't be scientifically proven is cosmically ridiculous. Yet here you are forcing the idea of an invented super universe upon me/us and then denying its validity, like that proves your own point.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But do or do NOT the creationists use the idea of a super being to explain the first cause of the universe. A being which *cannot* be confirmed experimentally????
Dani said, The universe popping into existence on it's own or eternally existing violates the natural laws of physics. If we demand an explanation of who created God - that only pushes the problem back a generation, and then begs the question of who created that thing, and then so on until we get to a first cause.
How does a creator NOT violate the laws of physics??? Seriously, tell me which law of physics upholds "let there be light!"
You use the term for debating, "begs the question" yet that is exactly what first cause does. Read the Barker article. All of it. I challenge you to CLEARLY refute it.
Also, if the universe is the first and only cause, how do we determine absolute morality based only on matter and energy? The effect cannot be greater than the cause, so things like good and evil cannot exist in a limited morally relative material universe.
Dani what does morality have to do with the origins of the universe????
Why did you change the subject???
And on the subject of moral relativity- I am really insulted by this assumption. We talked about morality. We talked about how to live morally without the threat of eternal damnation held over you.
And you slip a 3rd argument in there- the "effect greater than the cause". ARGH!!!!!!!
Why are you clouding the issue???
Pick one stick with it, FINISH IT, then bring up something new. And morality isn't new, it's old. If you've got more thoughts go back to the morality post and begin our discussion anew.
Remember the link is READ ME
Refute it or admit to one and all for the THIRD TIME that there is NO GOD!!!!!!