Is God's existence necessary?

[leibowde84]

a stance from ignorance?......again?

When we don't have any way of knowing what existed before the Big Bang or what it consisted of, an honest stance expressing our ignorance is warranted, don't you think?

I am not asking the cause of the singularity....
I attribute that to God

What evidence, beyond erroneously applying "cause and effect" to the time before the Big Bang, do you have for this?

and time does not exist.....at all.

Time had a beginning point and, thus, exists (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html). It doesn't exist in the linear way we all assume, but I never claimed this anyways. According to the best scientific theory we've got, time began at the big bang.

 

[leibowde84]

and some people ignore cause and effect....at the point of singularity
God is the Cause .....the universe is the effect.

Cause and effect, as a law, didn't necessary exist before the beginning of time prior to the big bang. Thus, to demand a cause for the big bang shows an immense ignorance for what the big bang was (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html).

 

[leibowde84]

and you will deny science and the all important....cause and effect....

Spirit first.

Cause and effect, as a concept, is not applicable before the big bang (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html). I know it's a difficult thing to understand, but read the article linked, as it does a pretty good job of explaining. And, no one is denying science. Actually, by claiming that cause and effect are applicable prior to the big bang, you are denying science.

 

[Thief]

When we don't have any way of knowing what existed before the Big Bang or what it consisted of, an honest stance expressing our ignorance is warranted, don't you think?

What evidence, beyond erroneously applying "cause and effect" to the time before the Big Bang, do you have for this?

Time had a beginning point and, thus, exists (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html). It doesn't exist in the linear way we all assume, but I never claimed this anyways. According to the best scientific theory we've got, time began at the big bang.

if you throw out cause and effect......and in the same breath refuse to choose....
you have nothing but wishful nay saying.....

I like Hawkins.....
but time does not exist and his viewpoint has changed.
especially about lost information....as physicists talk.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect, as a law, didn't necessary exist before the beginning of time prior to the big bang. Thus, to demand a cause for the big bang shows an immense ignorance for what the big bang was (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html).

in the instant the point went bang.....motion became the item.....
and time is only a measurement.
time as you know it did not exist until Man realized he is mortal....and started counting his years.

 

[leibowde84]

in the instant the point went bang.....motion became the item.....
and time is only a measurement.

Exactly. Before this point, cause and effect is not applicable. The big bang was the beginning and, for all we currently know, there could have been nothing before it.

 

[leibowde84]

I like Hawkins.....
but time does not exist and his viewpoint has changed.
especially about lost information....as physicists talk.

Source?

 

[Shad]

obviously.....you are evading the 'point'

No. I think your point is irrelevent and fallacious. I provided reasons why. I dodged nothing.

go back to the beginning.....and choose

Repeating a loaded question does not change the flaws within the question.

your discussion should follow that choice

Only if I play your game based on loaded questions, which I am not about to do.

 

[leibowde84]

obviously.....you are evading the 'point'
go back to the beginning.....and choose
your discussion should follow that choice

Why do you assume that substance and spirit are the only options? Why do you assume that there must have been one or the other rather than neither? Can you support these assumptions?

 

[Thief]

No. I think your point is irrelevent and fallacious. I provided reasons why. I dodged nothing.



Repeating a loaded question does not change the flaws within the question.



Only if I play your game based on loaded questions, which I am not about to do.

it's not loaded.....
you just don't like it

 

[Thief]

Why do you assume that substance and spirit are the only options? Why do you assume that there must have been one or the other rather than neither? Can you support these assumptions?

it's substance or not.....and I see 7billion+ wandering about ....becoming unique spirit.

I don't think of Man fellowman as some complex accident.
you may do so for yourself is you like.

I see far too much detail to say there is not intent.

 

[prometheus11]

Are you suggesting that if I take a crap and it curls up in the shape of a puppy that there are little invisible sculpting fairies creating that complex shape in the bowl? The detail implies intent, right?

 

[Shad]

it's not loaded.....
you just don't like it

It is loaded by definition since spirit is an assumption while matter and energy are scientific fact. Any question which contain a unjustified assumption, spirit, makes it loaded. Not my problem you have no idea what a loaded question is. It is also limiting possible answers while those you have picked rather than all possible answers. As per my example in which I mentioned energy rather than substance or spirit.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No?

 

[Thief]

It is loaded by definition since spirit is an assumption while matter and energy are scientific fact. Any question which contain a unjustified assumption, spirit, makes it loaded. Not my problem you have no idea what a loaded question is. It is also limiting possible answers while those you have picked rather than all possible answers. As per my example in which I mentioned energy rather than substance or spirit.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No?

dark matter and dark energy MUST exist.....
but there seems no proof.....

Someone had to be First.
I place that Person before substance.
substance does not beget the living.
the living just abide in substance.....for now....
that will end.

you might end ....altogether....
or maybe you will change your mind?

 

[Thief]

oh...btw....snipey remarks can get you reported.

 

[Thief]

Are you suggesting that if I take a crap and it curls up in the shape of a puppy that there are little invisible sculpting fairies creating that complex shape in the bowl? The detail implies intent, right?

more like your dna implies intent.....

or maybe you think your dna is crappy....

how's THAT for snipey?

 

[prometheus11]

I don't see the snipe. Where was it?

If God designed everything, why isn't everything complex and look like it needed a designer?

 

[prometheus11]

There is proof of dark matter and dark energy.

Silly assumptions about invisible and undetectable beings and forces don't make a reasonable argument.

You're in a mode of constant retreat from logic. Always. In every post.

Hardly problematic for your opponents.

 

[Gambit]

There is no supernatural explanation for existence. Indeed, we have no explanation for what the supernatural even is in the first place. At least we have evidence that nature exists.

We can infer that a supernatural explanation is necessary - a uncaused cause. Thtat there is something rather than nothing qualifies as more than enough evidence to make such an inference.

 

[Gambit]

Change is an observable constant in nature. Everything is in flux.

Agreed. That is why we must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.