Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Tiberius]

That explains WHAT? The existence of everything is explained by "Everything equals zero"?

That sounds like atheist/materialist philosophy all right. Christianity says everything has profound meaning.

I'm interested in science, not metaphysical new age philosobabel.

The total amount of energy started out as zero. The total amount of energy is not able to change. The total amount of energy remains at zero. Hence no violation of laws.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That makes no sense. You don't have to have a proof to ask a question. In particular, you don't have to prove the opposite of what you are asking about.

I don't know where you got this viewpoint, but it is exceedingly unusual.

If you were to ask a person have you any proof that God exist....
Then you are called into question by your own question..
You first must have the proof of God existence or not existence.
To back up what your asking first.
Whether you like it or not that's how it is and works..
That's like a person comes up and ask me..have you any proof that your God exist.
My answer to them is..have you any proof of your own that God doesn't exist to back up what your asking first..

Otherwise it's foolishness to continue any further..
All because I do not have to answer your question..unless you have the proof to back up what your asking first..
So to ask anyone have they any proof that God exist..it's foolishness on your part to ask such a question...when don't yourself have proof to back up what your asking first..
End of story..

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, they are not.



No, that is *never* a requirement.



If you are asking a question or asking for proof, you aren't saying anything. You are requiring the other person to back up what they claim.

Maybe not for you..
But for me it is....if you were to ask me, have you any proof that your God exist
I will definitely ask you..have you any proof that God doesn't exist..
If not then unless to continue any further.
How can you ask anyone for proof when you, yourself do not have the proof of what your asking..
end of story..

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think @Faithofchristian might be having some fun at the expense of "non-believers". See how long they will keep responding despite giving the same answer. I fold.

Nope not at all...
I use to get cornered when someone would ask me...have you any proof that your God exist..

Then I realized one day...wait a minute..
Why I'm I trying to answer their question.
When in fact..their the ones should have the proof of what their asking first.

So what it is..their called into question by their own question..
They first are called to have proof whether God exist or not exist first..before I have to give them any answers..

Now the question that their asking..is now back at them....it's that simple..

 

[MikeF]

Nope not at all...
I use to get cornered when someone would ask me...have you any proof that your God exist..

Then I realized one day...wait a minute..
Why I'm I trying to answer their question.
When in fact..their the ones should have the proof of what their asking first.

So what it is..their called into question by their own question..
They first are called to have proof whether God exist or not exist first..before I have to give them any answers..

Now the question that their asking..is now back at them....it's that simple..

Ok, perhaps you are saying the principle in informal logic know as an "argument from ignorance" applies. To say the statement "God exists" is false because it has not been proven true, is a fallicious argument, just as it is fallicious to say "God does not exist" is true because it has yet to be proven false.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe not for you..
But for me it is....if you were to ask me, have you any proof that your God exist
I will definitely ask you..have you any proof that God doesn't exist..
If not then unless to continue any further.
How can you ask anyone for proof when you, yourself do not have the proof of what your asking..
end of story..

Because the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. That means that if you claim something exists, it is *your* job to show it does, NOT someone else's job to show it doesn't.

In the case of God, the problem starts even before that, though. Even defining what it is that the existence is claimed for is a problem. What are the detectable properties of God? How would we even determine whether such a creature exists or not?

 

[Polymath257]

If you were to ask a person have you any proof that God exist....
Then you are called into question by your own question..
You first must have the proof of God existence or not existence.

That makes absolutely no sense. If you claim something exists, you have the job of providing evidence for that existence. If I am simply asking whether you have a proof, I am not making a statement at all. I am simply asking if you actually have proof of your claim.

Now, if I was actually claiming that no God exists, you would have a point: you could legitimately ask me to prove my position. But that is not the case. YOU make the existence claim. It is YOUR job to prove it.

To back up what your asking first.
Whether you like it or not that's how it is and works..

Asking for proof is not a claim you are wrong: it is an investigation as to your reasons for thinking what you do.

That's like a person comes up and ask me..have you any proof that your God exist.
My answer to them is..have you any proof of your own that God doesn't exist to back up what your asking first..

There are too many different ideas about what the word 'God' means to deal with all of them.

For example, if you define God to be 'the universe', then I believe God exists. But I also think that this would be an abuse of language.

Part of asking for a proof is also seeing what you mean by the term 'God' and what it takes to show existence of non-existence. if the concept is too vague, then there is no real discussion possible.

Otherwise it's foolishness to continue any further..
All because I do not have to answer your question..unless you have the proof to back up what your asking first..
So to ask anyone have they any proof that God exist..it's foolishness on your part to ask such a question...when don't yourself have proof to back up what your asking first..
End of story..

I disagree. When the HIgg's particle was proposed, it was NOT the job of those who thought it didn't exist to *prove* it didn't exist. It was the job of those claiming it does to prove it. That burden of proof is universal, but you seem to want to dodge it because you know there is no proof of the existence of your deity.

I'll tell you what. YOU give me an observation that could be made and that, if it doesn't go the way you expect, would convince you that your God does not exist. Then we can go and do the observation.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see any evidence presented that proves God does not exist.

Not required. I don't have to prove unicorns don't exist. Those who claim they do are the ones that have to prove that they do.

But, to play along, give me a few properties of God and we will see if they are consistent or not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then no creator is needed.

And the UN-create-able matter and energy was created how? You're begging the question.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have no idea what you mean by this.



But that is precisely what happens in quantum fluctuations.

And, in regard to the universe, the 'universe from nothing' scenarios point out that the total energy of the universe is *zero*

You and I and all = zero. Got it. Zero = atheist hope and meaning.

Christianity imbues all with meaning!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, now *explained*, *allowed*. And it isn't 'everything equals zero', but that the total energy is zero.

In other words, it shows that your bringing up the conservation of energy is an invalid argument.

But we can go further. Technically, the conservation of energy says that the total energy of a system at one time is equal to the total energy at a different time: the total energy does not change.

And, even if the universe had a beginning, that would still be the case. It is possible (even predicted by general relativity) that time simply cannot be extended prior to the Big Bang. In other words, there would be no violation of the conservation of energy because there was no previous time to do the comparison with.

But, there are other possibilities. For example, in most versions of quantum gravity, the Big Bang is a type of phase transition between the universe now and the universe that existed prior to the Big Bang. And that prior universe existed infinitely far back in time. Hence, there again would be no violation of the conservation of energy: the total energy would have been the same for all times.



OK, but that is irrelevant to your argument.

How did ALL get here? ALL was always here or always in a multiverse somewhere?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm interested in science, not metaphysical new age philosobabel.

The total amount of energy started out as zero. The total amount of energy is not able to change. The total amount of energy remains at zero. Hence no violation of laws.

It violates logic to say ALL was always here. We both beg the question of infinite regression but you are powerless to explain the numinous or the metaphysical.

 

[ppp]

And the UN-create-able matter and energy was created how? You're begging the question.

If matter/energy cannot be created, then asking how it was created is a silly question. Quit making kneejerk responses and think about what the words actually mean.

 

[Polymath257]

How did ALL get here? ALL was always here or always in a multiverse somewhere?

We don't know. The relevant evidence is either not in or is likely to have been destroyed.

But, you are asking for a cause in a situation where causality might very well make no sense.

IF the Big Bang was the start, then there was no time before the Big Bang and hence no causality.

IF the Big Bang was not the start, then the universe/multiverse has always existed and time goes infinitely far into the past.

 

[Polymath257]

It violates logic to say ALL was always here. We both beg the question of infinite regression but you are powerless to explain the numinous or the metaphysical.

What aspect of logic does it violate?

I don't think that the metaphysical needs explaining because it is mostly philosophical nonsense. As for the numinous, that is mostly a matter of human psychology, not something inherent in the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

You and I and all = zero. Got it. Zero = atheist hope and meaning.

No, once again, the total energy is zero. Which means there is no violation of the conservation of energy.

Hope and meaning are completely different matters.

Christianity imbues all with meaning!

So?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe not for you..
But for me it is....if you were to ask me, have you any proof that your God exist
I will definitely ask you..have you any proof that God doesn't exist..
If not then unless to continue any further.
How can you ask anyone for proof when you, yourself do not have the proof of what your asking..
end of story..

OK, I claim that I have a proof that God does not exist.

But, if you ask me to give it to you, I will ask you to prove I am wrong first.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If matter/energy cannot be created, then asking how it was created is a silly question. Quit making kneejerk responses and think about what the words actually mean.

You are again begging the question. Try it this way: "How does something that cannot be there per a natural law, be there?"

The answer of course is supernatural. Your bias colors your logical perceptions.

 

[Polymath257]

You are again begging the question. Try it this way: "How does something that cannot be there per a natural law, be there?"

The answer of course is supernatural. Your bias colors your logical perceptions.

What are you claiming 'cannot be there per natural law'?

 

[ppp]

You are again begging the question. Try it this way: "How does something that cannot be there per a natural law, be there?"

Who said anything about "cannot be there"? You just stuck that in based on one of your unvoiced and unjustified assumptions. If you want to claim that your "something" cannot be there per natural law, cite the law and its practical demonstration.