Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[tumbleweed41]

Again, unless you can come up with a logical, myabe scientific or even philosophical way to tell me how an ultimate starting point can have something before it "my truth" stands. The ball has been yalls court for how many pages now in this thread to try to prove this? In actuality you guys special plea argument is a special plea argument until you show a way that an ultimate starting point can have something before it. In the words of Alanis Morisette

"Isnt it ironic"

Yes, the difference is special pleading.

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. The cause of the universe is God
3. God is not caused.

You have yet to explain how needing a cause, then removing that need from the first cause is not special pleading and a double standard.

Biblical translations have nothing to do with time/space.
Your cause/effect argument is erroneous for many reasons.

• Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause)
• Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
• The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .
• Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe.
• Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time.

Correct, nor does it necessitate cause. And as I also pointed out. Discussion of what happened before time is meaningless.

Your cause-effect argument is null.

Since the Big Bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.
Not to mention that, if we break down the Big Bang to quantum physics, on the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause/effect are suspended.
The rule of cause/effect is replaced by spontaneity, and things happen with no apparent cause.. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. These are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
Quantum physics goes beyond the Theory of Relativity, without breaking it.

Dont'cha think?

 

[AK4]

That's funny, because your "Search Gods Word" website actually added to the translation from Strongs.

Strongs(767) ar-neh'-beth
Word Origin-from an unused word
Definition-a hare
NASB Word Usage-rabbit (2).
Of uncertain derivation; the hare -- hare.
The definition on the site you used does not appear in Strongs.

Leviticus 11:3
And the hare(ha·'ar·ne·vet) because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof he is unclean unto you
Deuteronomy 14:7
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof as the camel and the hare(ha·'ar·ne·ve) and the coney(ha·sha·fan) for they chew the cud but divide not the hoof therefore they are unclean unto you



BTW
ha·sha·fan (shaphan)-coney; a species of rock-rabbit From saphan; a species of rock-rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. Probably the hyrax -- coney.





The Hyrax, or 'rock badger' is not a 'cud chewer'.
(But it moves it's mouth side to side when agitated, perhaps the writer of Deuteronomy was mistaken.)

What was the point you was trying to make?

ha·sha·fan (shaphan)-coney; a species of rock-rabbit From saphan; a species of rock-rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. Probably the hyrax -- coney.

What does probably mean? Hmmmm. Uncertainty right? Now tell me can you find anywhere that says for certain exactly what this shapan was? I think not

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What was the point you was trying to make?

ha·sha·fan (shaphan)-coney; a species of rock-rabbit From saphan; a species of rock-rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. Probably the hyrax -- coney.

What does probably mean? Hmmmm. Uncertainty right? Now tell me can you find anywhere that says for certain exactly what this shapan was? I think not

It means that when you attributed things to Strong that he did not write, you were lying.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What was the point you was trying to make?

ha·sha·fan (shaphan)-coney; a species of rock-rabbit From saphan; a species of rock-rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. Probably the hyrax -- coney.

What does probably mean? Hmmmm. Uncertainty right? Now tell me can you find anywhere that says for certain exactly what this shapan was? I think not

"Question everything. Question everything till you come to the Truth. Once you come to the Truth, question that Truth. This in return will only confirm that Truth."

 

[AK4]

It means that when you attributed things to Strong that he did not write, you were lying.

When you click on the link it says NAS with strongs #s or KJV with strongs #s.

 

[AK4]

Dont'cha think?

Now didnt i already rebuttal those?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
You have yet to explain how needing a cause, then removing that need from the first cause is not special pleading and a double standard.

Again I did. To summarize, it is illogical to say that an ultimate starting point can have a starting point. Until you can prove otherwise My argument stands. You guys have yet to also. Claiming special pleading does nothing

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Biblical translations have nothing to do with time/space.

Your cause/effect argument is erroneous for many reasons.

• Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause)
• Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
• The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .
• Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe.
• Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time.

Did i not show that they admit that they dont know YET what makes these things move but they know it is something. For now they just call it randomness

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Correct, nor does it necessitate cause. And as I also pointed out. Discussion of what happened before time is meaningless.

Your cause-effect argument is null.

Again this was disproven

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Since the Big Bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.
Not to mention that, if we break down the Big Bang to quantum physics, on the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause/effect are suspended.
The rule of cause/effect is replaced by spontaneity, and things happen with no apparent cause.. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. These are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
Quantum physics goes beyond the Theory of Relativity, without breaking it

.

I believe they have said that in quantum physics it violates the laws we know of right now BUT they MUST be following some other "law" or something
Nice try.

 

[AK4]

"Question everything. Question everything till you come to the Truth. Once you come to the Truth, question that Truth. This in return will only confirm that Truth."

Aww man, you attacked my motto. Oh a slight err. It still doesnt nullify what i was rebutting

 

[tumbleweed41]

AK4 your rebuttals have been, and are, nonsense, circular reasoning and ad hominum.
Perhaps that is why they are being ignored.

 

[AK4]

I noticed that this was completely ignored by all you out there. What? Is it too rock solid to pick apart? The quote was from 9/10ths but the challenge is to all you guys. Good luck

Quote:
Fine if you think that, but your argument isn't just about your personal belief, it's about being able to actually demonstrate to others that this must be the case.

Okay you said “even if the bible is rock solid” right? Heres just one of many that says God is behind everything. Try to pick this apart

“FOR IT IS GOD who works in you BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO OF HIS GOOD PLEASURE” [Php 2:13]

Your only way out of this is to say there is no God. That’s it. That’s all you have. Can you show this to be false? Only way is to say there is no God. The only to say that mankind will know everything there is to know and not give credit to God is to say there is no God. So have a crack at it. I challenge all your like minded people to try to.

 

[McBell]

I noticed that this was completely ignored by all you out there. What? Is it too rock solid to pick apart? The quote was from 9/10ths but the challenge is to all you guys. Good luck



Okay you said “even if the bible is rock solid” right? Heres just one of many that says God is behind everything. Try to pick this apart

“FOR IT IS GOD who works in you BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO OF HIS GOOD PLEASURE” [Php 2:13]

Your only way out of this is to say there is no God. That’s it. That’s all you have. Can you show this to be false? Only way is to say there is no God. The only to say that mankind will know everything there is to know and not give credit to God is to say there is no God. So have a crack at it. I challenge all your like minded people to try to.

It is utterly amazing how people think that their claims stand as fact unless they are proven wrong.

 

[AK4]

You may want to re-read what you've been writing. I don't think your scripture quotes support your argument the way you apparently think they do.

Heb 11:3 - By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Now tell me this doesn’t fit.

Or... and consider this as a real possibility: the universe works differently from the way you think it does.

You can only make that claim by saying the universe is eternal or always been otherwise your argument fails.

So what? The fallacy you're engaging in now is appeal to authority. Like the other fallacies you've employed so far, it's not a valid argument.

First it was special pleading and now this. Yes the Word of God is the higher authority but no fallacy. That is your opinion because you don’t hold the Word of God as anything.

And when you actually demonstrate that your religion is synonymous with "the truth", then we can revisit the matter. Until then, what your religion says is not valid support for an argument.

What is my religion? You denounce my religion as false therefore its invalid to all my rebuttals? LOL wow I don’t even do that to you. Even if I was coming from an Hinduist point of view you say its invalid because I believe in a god. [I think hindu’s believe this]

It contradicts itself. I'd call that a pretty big hole.

It doesn’t. I keep saying this challenge and yall avoid it like the plague. Prove that an ultimate starting point can have something before it. That’s it. I will bow out and say you are correct if you can do this. I can swallow my pride and concede. Can you or your fellow like minded thinkers?

As I took your analogy:

- God is the robot.
- the universe is what the robot built.
- (from before) God is everything
- therefore, the universe is part of God.
- therefore, when the robot builds his creation, he's building part (or maybe all) of himself.

You did twist that up. God is not the robot. God created the universe [within Himself]. God continues to create things inside of the universe that is in Him. The things inside this universe that is in Him, He is making to be like Him. That’s what I was saying

No. If X2 is our reference point, then between X1 and X2 is an earlier time, not "time before time".

Exactly, an earlier time, the time between X1 and X2 is a time before the time that begins at X2

No, science doesn't prove it. Science does not say anything conclusive about what happened before the big bang. To argue otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst dishonest.

As far as our science goes it does prove that something cannot come nothing. This is a fact until proven otherwise.

No. What you're doing now is engaging in argument from ignorance, which is another logical fallacy.

Until a statement is either demonstrated to be definitely true or definitely false, the truth of the statement is undefined.

So has it ever been demonstrated that something can come from nothing? I don’t think. Has it not proven billions upon billions of times that something can only from something? Yup so again you lose this argument.

Heh... you haven't even established that there was a "First Cause" at all, and you want to name it already?

Im sorry, I forgot. You think that a ultimate starting point can have something before it so it hasn’t been established. Come now

Rhetorical hand-waving isn't really a rebuttal, and the fact that it's impossible to disprove incoherent statements doesn't imply that they're true.

How incoherent is this---prove that an ultimate starting point can have something before it.
Why haven’t you guys done this yet?

You're half right: you are running in circles.

I know I can practically type in “prove that an ultimate starting point can have something before it” without even touching the keyboard.

 

[AK4]

It is utterly amazing how people think that their claims stand as fact unless they are proven wrong.

Wow isnt that the pot calling the kettle black

 

[AK4]

It is utterly amazing how people think that their claims stand as fact unless they are proven wrong.

Besides i asked a simple request for yall to prove yet NONE of yall have tried

 

[Charity]

It is utterly amazing how people think that their claims stand as fact unless they are proven wrong.

Mestemia I can show you one of those people, just look in the mirror.......

Seriously....I can relate to that myself, Anything I heard from people while I was growing up I believed it was true, and you were taught to respect others, especially Older people, so if they stated something, you just naturally took it as fact. Until you begin to question something by your own experience or whether the knowledge arrives through another source you are going to continue with the familiar life you've always known. This goes for other parts of your life as well as religion. I also agree that culture does play a part in what one tends to believe.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I noticed that this was completely ignored by all you out there. What? Is it too rock solid to pick apart? The quote was from 9/10ths but the challenge is to all you guys. Good luck

As I do not believe that the so called reveled revelations that you adhere to are the inspired word of any god, your challenge is meaningless to me.

I may as well challenge you to dispute the fact that the small white unicorn on my back porch requires Cadbury Cream Eggs for breakfast.

 

[Charity]

As I do not believe that the so called reveled revelations that you adhere to are the inspired word of any god, your challenge is meaningless to me.

I may as well challenge you to dispute the fact that the small white unicorn on my back porch requires Cadbury Cream Eggs for breakfast.

Your trying to fool us all....a secret source has revealed to me that your unicorn really prefers "peanut butter eggs".....

 

[AK4]

As I do not believe that the so called reveled revelations that you adhere to are the inspired word of any god, your challenge is meaningless to me.

I may as well challenge you to dispute the fact that the small white unicorn on my back porch requires Cadbury Cream Eggs for breakfast.

This doesnt have to pertain to believing in God. Replace God with some molecule or something and it still stands. Its rock solid. A truth that has been written down for all. No atheist or diest can dispute this. Now that verse still meshed perfectly with what i have been saying. You can call it God or some molecule, whatever you claim it to be it is still working in you.

 

[McBell]

Wow isnt that the pot calling the kettle black

If you say so.

Besides i asked a simple request for yall to prove yet NONE of yall have tried

Tried to what?
Prove that the Bible does not say that god exists?
Why would I try to prove the exact opposite of what the Bible flat out states?

Mestemia I can show you one of those people, just look in the mirror.......

Seriously....I can relate to that myself, Anything I heard from people while I was growing up I believed it was true, and you were taught to respect others, especially Older people, so if they stated something, you just naturally took it as fact. Until you begin to question something by your own experience or whether the knowledge arrives through another source you are going to continue with the familiar life you've always known. This goes for other parts of your life as well as religion. I also agree that culture does play a part in what one tends to believe.

I question everything.

My beliefs are based upon not only the information I have available, but also my understanding of said information.
If the information and or understanding of said information changes, I might change my beliefs/position accordingly.


Thus far all Ak4 has done is made some claims, showed how the Bible supports said claims, then challenges us to prove that the Bible does not support his claim.

So what the Bible supports his claims?
How in the hell does that make the original claims true?
It doesn't.
And everyone knows it doesn't.
Yet here is Ak4 going on and on with his smoke and mirror show.

Excuse me for not being fooled.

 

[McBell]

As I do not believe that the so called reveled revelations that you adhere to are the inspired word of any god, your challenge is meaningless to me.

His challenge is as asinine and worthless as the so called "Koran challenge".

I may as well challenge you to dispute the fact that the small white unicorn on my back porch requires Cadbury Cream Eggs for breakfast.

Exactly.

Sadly, I seriously doubt that Ak4 can even begin to comprehend the asininity of it.

 

[McBell]

Your trying to fool us all....a secret source has revealed to me that your unicorn really prefers "peanut butter eggs".....

And this is exactly along the same lines that AK4 is trying to pull.

If it works for him, so be it.
But it does not work for me.