I am a good person and I don't need a god for that

Nope, what I said was I am okay waiting on the answer, but some can not wait and therefore it takes the form of a guess, which in this case is the cause's cause is caused by an uncausable cause.

 

Some guesses are superior to others. Mine is based on what can be obtained from observation. It's the scientific way. Yours seems to be more religious than that of a theist.

 

My own position is based on physics -- the B theory of time. The universe requires to cause because the entire concept of a cause of the universe (the totality of space and time and all of its contents) is a nonsensical concept. It is like asking what's north of the north pole.

 

I watched Lucy the other day . . .

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

. . . that presented an interesting theory of time. It's the only true measurement of existence. Time is just a human concept we need to fit into the universe. It gives meaning to life. Outside of human consciousness does time really exist? Time can't be observed as a physical thing. It's only a concept of measurement.

Time, as it relates to the Universe, only has meaning to our minds. We use it as a tool of observation.

 

What? Now you're speaking in gibberish. Waiting for an actual answer instead relying on a guess "seems more religious"? And your reliance on a supernatural source as first cause is based on observation? It's the scientific way? Wow.

 

I'll keep going with reading. you keep going with refusing to read and going with emojis instead. I'm sorry you are unwilling to read the texts that you are supposedly defending.

 

The Hebrew Scriptures had nothing to do with Jesus. The Christian scriptures were written over centuries to fit the narrative of the pre-existing Hebrew Scriptures but you can still see the differences between the two religions if you look for them. I know that’s a controversial statement to you. I’m not trying to disrespect you but that’s how I have come to see it.

 

I have no control over your understanding of what are really simple explanations for existence. We can make inferences from what we observe. My inferences are based on the simple truth that all that exists in our field of observation has a beginning that was caused by an event. Water is a simple enough example. We know that it doesn't just spontaneously come into existence. Two parts of hydrogen and one oxygen get together and water happens. Without those chemical elements we don't have water. We can observe this happening even in a laboratory, by manipulation.

 

Even the Hebrews looked for a Messiah. Some think in Genesis 4:1 Eve believed she gave birth to that Messiah. The OT is just a record of man's journey from the fall from the Garden of Eden where mankind lost their spiritual connection to the Holy Spirit to the resurrection of the promised Messiah restoring that connection. The journey is over, which was documented in the Church Epistles. (As an aside -- the four gospels actually should have been included in the OT, not the New because they conclude the OT).

 

If you truly think that then you are not ready for what I have to say. Peace.

 

You are refuting your own point. If all things require a beginning then your unmoved mover or whatever is moot.

 

Physics says that you are wrong. Time dilation exists and has been directly observed. We know, for a fact, based on observation, that the rate of passage of time varies based on velocity and to proximity to massive objects. It isn't just an abstract tool based on human subjective feelings alone. E=MC^2.

 

You don't seem to understand that a cause existing outside our universe is not subject to the laws of our universe. How can it be if those laws didn't exist until the first cause brought them into existence?

 

There you go. You're not observing time, you're observing events.

 

Math says you are wrong. I'll go with math. Your phone works based on this ****. You won't find a single physicist who disagrees with relativity and time dilation. These are direct observations and math.

 

What brought your first cause's laws into existence?

 

If time is something you can observe then tell me how you observe the past or the future?

 

If I knew that I would be equal to the first cause.

 

The passage of time. Time runs differently on a fast-moving aircraft or even at the top of a water tower than it does here on the ground, as predicted by Einstein and accepted by literally all of physics over the course of hundreds of experiments. This is not something your side can explain, whereas physicists have math, observation, and experimentation on their side that you are not able to address.

 

Then the first cause is the universe itself. Problem solved.

 

Math is a human construct used to make sense of our world. Just like time is. You observe changes in the universe and mark those changes by giving them a time when they happened. Unlike matter you can't manipulate time.

 

False. Scientists have been able to discover that our universe had a beginning. What they can't know is what caused it to exist.

 

A quantum clock on an aircraft runs differently from a quantum clock on the ground. You have no explanation for this and "human construct" does not explain it. Math does. All you need to understand is the formula for the velocity of a wave, which also explains the velocity of the speed of light (I can show you how to calculate this with a bar of chocolate and a microwave). Once you acknowledge this, time dilation is inevitable.

 

The same scientists who agree with the B-theory of time and eternalism. Fail.