How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[Age]

So, the universe existed at the beginning?

No; "creation" refers to all that exists in the material world.

If no then there is a point that creation didn't exist. At that point only God exist.

A good question to this person, especially considering what they have said and CLAIM is true.

God is spirit, says the Bible. He is not a mere part of the material world. He transcends it. He can act into it, but only because He is greater than it. He is the Creator; it is only the creation.

None of these claims helps you. You neither accept that the universe existed at the beginning nor otherwise.

[Age]

No; "creation" refers to all that exists in the material world.

If no then there is a point that creation didn't exist.

Of course.

At that point only God exist.

You can't call it a "point." It's eternity.

What, EXACTLY,is 'eternity'?

Eternity prior to creation had no materials, so no "points," and no space, so no intervals and no time.

AND, HOW do 'you' KNOW this EXACTLY?

You neither accept that the universe existed at the beginning nor otherwise.

Actually, I think I've been very clear: the universe is not eternal. It has a beginning. Did I not say that?

WHEN and HOW did the Universe have this, alleged, 'beginning'?

[Age]

So, the universe existed at the beginning?

No; "creation" refers to all that exists in the material world.

God is spirit, says the Bible. He is not a mere part of the material world. He transcends it. He can act into it, but only because He is greater than it. He is the Creator; it is only the creation.

"God is spirit, says the Bible" which is from God?? Circular!

Reality is all-there is, and for theists, includes the supposed-God which logically and rationally has to be part and parcel of all-there-is.
If God is part and parcel of all-there-is [reality] which include the physical and humans, God cannot transcend all-there-is.

VERY True.

Theists cannot explain the exact mechanisms and processes of how God [non-material] will the material into existence.

These people can NOT explain this because this is NOT what ACTUALLY happened.

The problem is theists [ incl. Immanuel Can] simply assumes God exists as real, create the Universe and is separate from the Universe, which is in essence based on faith.

If this is the, so called, "problem" with these people, then the "problem" with those people who are called "atheists" is simply they ASSUME God does NOT exist as real.

Fact is, the idea of a God is ASSUMED and reified to be real, and that process emerged and is adapted within humans because the idea of God [illusory] is very effective as a consonance in soothing the cognitive dissonance arising from an existential dilemma.

The FACT also IS some human beings BELIEVE 'God does NOT exist as real because they ASSUME 'God' could NOT be real, to exist.

To maintain consonance and avoid the terrible dissonance, theists will find all sort excuses [as in your case above and elsewhere] to justify their belief in that illusory God they have to cling on to.

The EXACT SAME could be said about ANY of 'you', adult human beings. That is; 'you' will 'try' just about ANY and EVERY thing in an attempt to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true and what is NOT true, (as in the case above and elsewhere).

[Age]

Reality is all-there is, and for theists, includes the supposed-God which logically and rationally has to be part and parcel of all-there-is.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow.

"All that there is" may include things that are eternal. Or, as you insist, it might not.

HOW, EXACTLY, could the term and definition 'All that there is' NOT include some 'thing'?

But that's the vexed question, and you do not have evidence to show it is your way. I think you make an illegitimate amphiboly between your term "all that there is" and the idea of strict Materialism. That's not a legitimate move, if those terms are not coextensive.

So you would have to prove that they are coextensive. But you cannot. So your argument does not work.

Theists cannot explain the exact mechanisms and processes of how God [non-material] will the material into existence.

This is only to say, "Theists cannot exhaustively explain God."

WHY is it IMPOSSIBLE for, so called, "theists", to exhaustively explain God, in the days of when this is being written, but "others" CAN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, I will add?

Did you expect that any contingent, limited, mortal creature would be able to do that?

Is this your attempt at "justifying" WHY 'you', nor the ones you follow, can NOT exhaustively explain what you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY EXISTS and BELIEVE is irrefutably True?

If that objection were reasonable, we could also argue, "Materialists cannot explain things like the size of the universe or the nature of consciousness; therefore, their view cannot be right."

Again, WHY is NOT possible for, so called, "materialists" to exhaustively explain the size of the Universe nor the nature of Consciousness, Itself, in the days of when this is being written, but "others" CAN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, I will add?

Would you accept logic that weak?

Then don't ask anyone else to.

I suggest WAITING for thee ACTUAL ANSWER, BEFORE ASSUMING or BELIEVING that 'you' ALREADY KNOW the answer.

[Age]

If no then there is a point that creation didn't exist.

Of course.

At that point only God exist.

You can't call it a "point." It's eternity. Eternity prior to creation had no materials, so no "points," and no space, so no intervals and no time.

You neither accept that the universe existed at the beginning nor otherwise.

Actually, I think I've been very clear: the universe is not eternal. It has a beginning. Did I not say that?

I care not for what eternity is and whether it is true. The act of creation obviously has two points, nothing then something.

LOL How EXACTLY did you arrive at this allegedly "obvious" conclusion?

Since WHEN has the act of creation NEEDED A "nothing" point or part?

You need time for this to happen. There is no time when there is nothing.

There was also NEVER only absolutely 'nothing', as well.

Therefore, God has to create time to create time. This is regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, there is no God.

The conclusion here is just YOUR BELIEF ONLY. The rest is just YOUR attempt at "justifying", backing up and supporting, YOUR OWN BELIEF.

When 'you' and the other two posters here, START LOOKING AT 'things' properly AND correctly, then you will SEE WHEREABOUTS and WHY 'you', three, are EACH just PLAIN WRONG.

[Age]

The act of creation obviously has two points, nothing then something.

Well, aside from the obvious fact that you're position a "nothing" as a "something" there, i.e. as a "point." You've still got this problem...

You need time for this to happen.

In the material world, yes; but the material world does not exist in the "nothing," as you call it, meaning eternity-past, and neither does time, and there are no "points."

I can see that right now you're just having trouble grasping the implications. I don't blame you. Eternity-past is not like the material world...it cannot be, if, as we observe, the material world is a contingent and created one. Time is a feature of this contingent, created, material world. But we humans are accustomed to think of time as transcendent, because we always experience it as "bigger" and more lasting than we are. However, time does not exist where there is no "materiality." (Indeed, we should not even use the word "where," since it illegitimately imports the idea of a space or place, which eternity is not.) And since time is not transcendent but depends on materiality, it is manifestly a feature of the created world, and did not exist prior to the Creation point.

WHY do 'you' ASSUME that there was a "Creation point"?

When we say Creation was "ex nihilo," one of the things that that implies is that it took no time at all. If Creation had been out of a pre-existing material reserve, it would have taken time. That's why the subsequent creation is described as "days," (meaning really "eras" or "phases" rather than calendar days, since no means for the calculation of lunar or solar days existed at first, and because calendar days are a human invention.) The subsequent stages or phases of the Creation came out of the materials created in the first stage, and thus did take time: however, the initial "ex nihilo" event did not take even a millisecond...

HOW could it even be POSSIBLE that 'materials' were created from 'nothing'?

Creation from nothing takes no time.

HOW do 'you' KNOW this?

There were no milliseconds for it to take.

[Age]

The act of creation obviously has two points, nothing then something.

Well, aside from the obvious fact that you're position a "nothing" as a "something" there, i.e. as a "point." You've still got this problem...

You need time for this to happen.

In the material world, yes; but the material world does not exist in the "nothing," as you call it, meaning eternity-past, and neither does time, and there are no "points."

I can see that right now you're just having trouble grasping the implications. I don't blame you. Eternity-past is not like the material world...it cannot be, if, as we observe, the material world is a contingent and created one. Time is a feature of this contingent, created, material world. But we humans are accustomed to think of time as transcendent, because we always experience it as "bigger" and more lasting than we are. However, time does not exist where there is no "materiality." (Indeed, we should not even use the word "where," since it illegitimately imports the idea of a space or place, which eternity is not.) And since time is not transcendent but depends on materiality, it is manifestly a feature of the created world, and did not exist prior to the Creation point.

When we say Creation was "ex nihilo," one of the things that that implies is that it took no time at all. If Creation had been out of a pre-existing material reserve, it would have taken time. That's why the subsequent creation is described as "days," (meaning really "eras" or "phases" rather than calendar days, since no means for the calculation of lunar or solar days existed at first, and because calendar days are a human invention.) The subsequent stages or phases of the Creation came out of the materials created in the first stage, and thus did take time: however, the initial "ex nihilo" event did not take even a millisecond...

Creation from nothing takes no time. There were no milliseconds for it to take.

Does any act have a before and after? If not what is supposed to happen?

NOT in ACTUALITY. But, in and from human beings' perception, then Yes.

What ACTUALLY happens is there is ONLY One event, which is JUST in constant-change.

Although 'you', human beings, place labels and names on, alleged and supposed, "different events", when LOOKED AT, properly AND correctly, there is NO ACTUAL separation ANY where. So, what is perceived to happen, in this case, is NOT REALLY the case.

[Age]

Does any act have a before and after? If not what is supposed to happen?

"Before" and "after" are terms that refer to either space or to time.

So what do you mean by "any act"? It can only mean, "any action within time and space." But Creation ex nihilo did not come from within time and space; in fact, it created both.

You keep saying this. BUT, can you and will you EXPLAIN just HOW this could even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone an ACTUALITY?

In eternity-past, there was neither time nor space to precede the Creating event.

Once again, this is just YOUR ASSUMPTION. Now, do you have ABSOLUTELY ANY EVIDENCE or PROVE for this CLAIM of YOURS, here?

So there was no "before" in the sense you understand the word "before" -- meaning in the sequence and interval between two material things or events within fixed space.

[Age]

Does any act have a before and after? If not what is supposed to happen?

"Before" and "after" are terms that refer to either space or to time.

So what do you mean by "any act"? It can only mean, "any action within time and space." But Creation ex nihilo did not come from within time and space; in fact, it created both. In eternity-past, there was neither time nor space to precede the Creating event. So there was no "before" in the sense you understand the word "before" -- meaning in the sequence and interval between two material things or events within fixed space.

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change. So no creation. QED.

But ONLY if you are ASSUMING that there are actually two separated different 'points'. And, if this could be a POSSIBILITY, then HOW?

[Age]

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change.

No, that doesn't follow.

"Change " is a transfer between two different points or states. Once you have Creation, you can have all kinds of changes. The important question is only whether it's possible for a "point" or "state" to be created out of nothing.

Yes this IS a VERY IMPORTANT question. So, is it POSSIBLE for ANY 'thing' to be created from, literally, NO 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW?

And for men, this is impossible. It's quite outside of their experience, too, since all that they observe changes. But then, men are contingent beings. All they know is stuff that changes.

But is ex nihilo Creation impossible to God?

Well, if we accept any possibility that God exists, then our answer can only be "No." Because nothing's impossible to God.

BUT, if ex nihilo Creation, then that means that there was NOTHING, which MUST include God, as well.

[Age]

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change.

No, that doesn't follow.

"Change " is a transfer between two different points or states. Once you have Creation, you can have all kinds of changes. The important question is only whether it's possible for a "point" or "state" to be created out of nothing.

And for men, this is impossible. It's quite outside of their experience, too, since all that they observe changes. But then, men are contingent beings. All they know is stuff that changes.

But is ex nihilo Creation impossible to God?

Well, if we accept any possibility that God exists, then our answer can only be "No." Because nothing's impossible to God.

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Do you have a description of a 'point'?

Are you able to explain what this 'point' is and what 'it' is made up of EXACTLY?

See, I can EXPLAIN how One 'thing' can change, but until I KNOW what this 'point' thing IS, EXACTLY, then I can NOT explain how 'it' could change.

[Age]

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

Again, what is with ALL of these ASSUMPTIONS here?

In the gap between nothing and something, there is no space.

LOL How can there be a 'gap' but NO 'space'?

LOOK, Creation from nothing is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. UNLESS, OF COURSE, this can be PROVEN WRONG.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.

But between something and the next something, there is a space.

[Age]

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

Okay. So, HOW there IS 'change' in thee One and ONLY 'state of affair' is THIS 'state' is IN 'constant-change'. Or, in other words, ALWAYS IN Creation, Itself.

In the gap between nothing and something, there is no space. But between something and the next something, there is a space.

So you agree that nothing is before something? [/quote]

ONLY IN the ABSURD and ILLOGICAL 'thinking'.

What is between is not the subject of our discussion.

[Age]

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

So you agree that nothing is before something?

That's what "ex nihilo" means. It means that before the creation, none of the things we call "things" existed. There were no substances, no molecules, no gases, no atoms...nothing at all of what we call a physical nature.

And this is EXACTLY WHY the notion of 'something from nothing' or 'Creation from nothing' is ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and completely AND utterly SIMPLY ILLOGICAL.

In other words, creation ex nihilo begins with God, the only self-existent Being.

LOL. You just through explain that there was NO 'thing', but then contradict this completely by now stating there was this, so called, "self-existent Being". Which, by the way, you also admit can NOT be explained.

That's why the first three words in the first book of the Bible are, "In the beginning, God..."

Besides that being four words. The actual first thing is WHY even in the days of when this is being written are STILL so CONFUSED and STILL searching for a beginning, a start, or an origin of Everything.

When what thee ACTUAL Truth is SEEN, what is REALIZED is just how easily FOOLED human beings REALLY can be, and just how OBVIOUS things REALLY ARE, which were STARING them in the face, ALL of this time.

Here is a HINT; What is or could be the NOW? Is IT or could IT be 'the beginning', 'the start', or 'thee origin' of Everything YET TO COME?

Could 'we' in thee HERE and NOW actually be 'in the beginning' of what is YET about to BECOME True or REAL or thee True Reality, which is; ...?

Or, is this just NOT possible and the words "In the beginning" wholeheartedly and ONLY MEAN what 'it' IS that you have each and individually been ASSUMING and BELIEVING for ALL of this time?

Could 'things' ACTUALLY BE 'that' what you have NOT YET considered and imagined, or 'that' what you just NEVER believed could be true?

[Age]

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

By state of affair I meant space+time included.

So you agree that nothing is before something?

That's what "ex nihilo" means. It means that before the creation, none of the things we call "things" existed. There were no substances, no molecules, no gases, no atoms...nothing at all of what we call a physical nature.

In other words, creation ex nihilo begins with God, the only self-existent Being. That's why the first three words in the first book of the Bible are, "In the beginning, God..."

So if you accept that nothing is before something then this means that we are dealing with two points one comes after another one. For this you need time. This leads to regress since you need time for the creation of time. There is no creation. QED.

Is it POSSIBLE that the 'Creation' word just MEANS or just REFERS to something 'else' other than what you mean and are referring It to here?