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

[AK4]

AK you are an IDist. In many ways I see ID as even less honest than a bible based creationism. At least creationists just say God done it, it's what the bible says and if anything in the bible doesn't match science, then the bible's right. They are wrong, but at least they are sticking to their beliefs.

ID attempts to wed science with the bible by not taking the genesis story as literal. They try to make days into eons and all sorts of manipulative gymnastics to get the bible to be somewhat more scientific. But it's not true. The bible is not scientific.

Okay heres a bible lesson for you. Jesus said His words are spirit. Not many really knows what that means. Heres the easiest way to answer that. His words are not all the way literal or that there is a bigger meaning behind them. Jesus said gouge out your right eye if it offends you. Do you really think He meant that? I dont think so. So now the whole scriptures are supposed to be His words, and with the case of the six "days" it proven throughout the scriptures that "day" does not mean a 24 hr period. Jesus didnt say "is there not 24 hrs in a day" no He said "is there not 12 hrs in a day".

Im not saying the bible is scientific. Im saying it has verses in it that have scientific backing behind them. And to further that, those things were written thousands of years ago when they didnt have the tools we have today. That in itself should be enough proof. Or do you think these things were said out of coincidence?

The universe has every possibility of existing as an ever cycling phenomenom.

How so? There not one physical evidence to show this. How can something stay in state that it couldnt contain? how can something with a beginning exist always? There is no concievable, logical answer to this.

With that understanding their doesn't need to be a "first cause". We don't need to say God did it. Call the universe god if you like, I don't care, but don't tell me it's personal because it quite obviously is not.

See that is an assumption made by you guys that "disproves" a first cause. Is this not what your saying "it has every possibility of existing as an ever cycling phenomenom a.k.a eternal being". If you can prove this then yes that wipes out a first cause.

Personal---well just imagine for a sec that if all came from one thing, lets say an atom and that atom had everything in it and thus as time has passed by and you finally come from what was that original--meaning some of that original atom is in you, would that make that atom personal?

Let me try it another way. Your great great great great great great grandfather has left in you something from his genes. Now is he absolutely not personal to you? Could some of the things he did in his life still be affecting you today, good or bad or indifference? Lets say he was sick and out in the woods and he just ate a concoction of stuff that somehow affected his dna that made him immune to cancer and that gene keeps getting passed down through your family tree. Would knowing something like that make him personal to you? Be honest now

 

[cottage]

I have. Is there anything we know of in creation/the universe that fits the definition of eternal---no beginning and no end? If there is, please show me because i have never heard of this yet.

Showing that the first cause is God---well the word God is just a title. So as a title, believers in a god title the ultimate starting point as God. Non believers either think that there really isnt a ultimate starting point [therefore this universe has to be eternal] or they title this starting point as something else [but still dont acknowledge it with the title of God].

I’m sorry but you haven’t shown anything.

You’re inferring the existence of a non-worldly, eternally existing entity (God) from the material world, and then saying there can’t be anything that exists eternally! Well, if God can be self-existent, then so can the universe.

You ask, ‘is there anything in the universe that fits the definition of eternal, with no beginning or end? We don’t know. We weren’t there at the beginning, if there was a beginning, and we can’t speculate about an end, if there is to be an end. But what we do know is that ‘The universe exists’ is self-evidently true, whereas we can’t say the same of ‘God exists’ or ‘X is self-existent.’

You are making an assertion that there is a God or uncaused cause, by inferring such from the phenomenon we know as cause and effect, which you see and experience. But since there is no law of cause and effect in this world it’s an assertion too far to say this non-law must apply to all possible worlds (God). And if there is no causality, then there can be no first cause and no God.

And even if we allow cause as necessary, it is still attempting to argue backwards from the material world, a supposed effect, to a supposed supernatural cause. What you need to do is demonstrate the cause, if there is one, from which the effect must follow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically you are saying what most who believe in a god would also think, "is there something even before God". If that is possible, as you agree, that would then make God not God.

I disagree. I don't think that "ultimate creator" is a necessary role for a god. Historically, many gods have been believed in that weren't the "first cause".

Same thing applies to an ultimate starting point. Honestly, whether referring to a god or a starting point, can we really concieve what can come before these things. By our physical observance we can try to ponder but we cant grasp ahold of anything until we discover it. Same thing applies we trying to look past the ultimate end point. We can try to ponder that there is more, but if it is truly the end then there is no more

Quick question: what is the "ultimate starting point" of the surface of the Earth? Where is the point where, if you try to go further, you can't?

Sometimes, the concept of an "ultimate starting point" is meaningless. So far, you haven't demonstrated that it's meaningful in the sense that your argument depends on.

 

[AK4]

You keep bringing up the word "eternal".

I really dont like using it but for the sake of those who dont realise that eternal cannot be a real word [going by what the definition means [unchanging, never changing]] i use because they think of it in relation to time forever. For thats all they know so i speak on their terms

"Eternal" life is something that is repeated over and over again in your bible

The proper rendering should be eonian life, meaning from age to age, hence we will actually be doing something. What makes it "eternal" as for what most people believe the word to mean is that we are give immortality a.k.a deathlessness.

Upon being rewarded with this eternal life wouldn't that moment become the starting point of an eternal life? Thus making us the same as god?

Sorta, we will be "like" God or similar to God in His ways and everything else. Whether you believe it or not, God is making more gods.

Also, there are words of suffering in an eternal fire in your bible.

Should be eonian fire.

Is this a fire that also has no begining and no end? Something your god didn't create and therefore has no control over?

exactly, you just pointed one of the contradictions of alot of religions who teach of a hell. Like ive stated before, you guys who say there is no god do more justice to God by saying He dont exist rather than saying he will barbeque and roast and torture anyone for ever.

 

[cottage]

Basically you are saying what most who believe in a god would also think, "is there something even before God". If that is possible, as you agree, that would then make God not God. Same thing applies to an ultimate starting point. Honestly, whether referring to a god or a starting point, can we really concieve what can come before these things. By our physical observance we can try to ponder but we cant grasp ahold of anything until we discover it. Same thing applies we trying to look past the ultimate end point. We can try to ponder that there is more, but if it is truly the end then there is no more

As far as it being a diety,if all things came from one thing, that one thing by default is greater than what it brought forth and since it is greater than what it brought and what was brought forth gets everything from the one thing then that one thing is like a deity to what it brought forth.




Is there a way to answer the question of "is there something beyond the ultimate starting point?" In logical sense, if we werent talking about God, all would answer "no you cant have something before an USP". Even the words "ultimate" "starting" and "point" have a finite defintion

Ultimate--can you go further than what is to be the ultimate
Starting---this points to a beginning. Add ultimate to it and it has to be by default the very first start
Point---a definite spot. place, beginning or ending. Add the two preceeding adjectives and its locked.

But for some reason when trying to put this to a god, those definitions dont fit. Why?

I’ve condensed this as much as possible, in order to simplify it. We can conceive of something greater than a first cause because a first cause isn’t the greatest something, or the absolute reality, for as I’ve explained elsewhere cause isn’t necessary. (And even if we were to allow causality as necessary, a cause of all causes must answer to something that cannot fail to exist in order for it to be what it is.) While we can conceive of there being no first cause, we cannot, without contradiction, conceive of an Absolutely Necessarily Existent Being not existing. Now as the world exists and there is no logically necessity to the phenomenon of cause and effect, it cannot be said that the world is causally dependent upon that principle, which allows it to have its beginning from an external source. A contradiction is implied if we say cause is logically necessary, which means there can be no demonstrable, external, causal agent (God), but no contradiction is implied in saying the world is the Necessary Being (self-existent).

 

[Willamena]

I’ve condensed this as much as possible, in order to simplify it. We can conceive of something greater than a first cause because a first cause isn’t the greatest something, or the absolute reality, for as I’ve explained elsewhere cause isn’t necessary. (And even if we were to allow causality as necessary, a cause of all causes must answer to something that cannot fail to exist in order for it to be what it is.) While we can conceive of there being no first cause, we cannot, without contradiction, conceive of an Absolutely Necessarily Existent Being not existing. Now as the world exists and there is no logically necessity to the phenomenon of cause and effect, it cannot be said that the world is causally dependent upon that principle, which allows it to have its beginning from an external source. A contradiction is implied if we say cause is logically necessary, which means there can be no demonstrable, external, causal agent (God), but no contradiction is implied in saying the world is the Necessary Being (self-existent).

Is necessity necessary?

 

[AK4]

Two reasons:

- until you demonstrate that the Bible is an authoritative source, any Bible verse you cite is just an unsupported assertion, and we have no particular reason to accept it as necessarily true.

So what qualifies what to make it authoritve? Lets just for argument sake say all religious books are counted as a way to God or a way to the ultimate starting point. Now is that different to all the papers wrote about something scientific? No. Therefore in this case the bible counts as an authority

- even that aside, AFAICT, that verse is irrelevant to the discussion.

Things unseen bring about the things that are seen. If you don’t see anything scientific in that I don’t know what to tell you.

You keep on saying this, but when we ask you for any support for your statement, you ignore our request. Why is that?
No, it doesn't. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong.

I don't know. But until you can show that such a thing is impossible, you haven't proven your argument.

Fine if you believe that, and I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong. What I'm saying is that you haven't demonstrated to us that you're necessarily right.

Also follow the links and research this all over the net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day.

A book can only be used in an argument to the extent that it's reliable, and if you want to cite a book as support for your argument, you need to be prepared to demonstrate that it is reliable.

When you think bible, which is a translation from the original scriptures, you think that the translations are my reliable source. There is no perfect translation. So now, for example, when you read of the six “days” of creation and think that the word day is the perfect translation of the word yome then you have mistaken.

Before we can accept the Bible as an authoritative source, you need to demonstrate that it's accurate.

And so when I do this you discredit it or I am called an IDists now. Things that are seen are made by things unseen---yet this is not scientific? Can we see the molecules in an atom that brings forth lets say bread? Even back in those days the most they could do to something was to grind something into the finest finest finest powder and yet they make a statement like “things that seen are made by things unseen”. Did they have microscopes back then?

And even then, the mere fact that something came from a book is no guarantee that it's correct.

So you don’t think its amazing that they knew back then that things are made by things unseen? Wow that’s just being stubborn.

And even then, the mere fact that something came from a book is no guarantee that it's correct.

I had to comment on this one again. Let me reword your words. "And even then, the mere imaginings that something came from nothing is no guarantee that it's correct" or even close to the truth

you still have to be prepared to defend those statements on their own merits.

Am I not doing that here? Scientifically, are not things made by things that cant be seen by the human eye? Have i answered "i dont know" and "i dont have to"?

So... you're saying that God is not part of "everything"?

I don’t know where you are getting this. Im saying everything is part of God, from God. God is in everything and everything is in God.

Maybe. I don't see why not, and you haven't given any rational argument for why I should think otherwise.

Maybe? You don’t see why not? Since you say I haven’t given a rational argument why it cant, please show me how it can.

Or that it's cyclical.

Oh so like a figure 8 or like an explosion collapsing in on itself and then re-exploding? Please explain how it can be either one of these can fit an expanding universe. And as for the “big crunch”, this doesn’t explain how the first explosion came to be so that rules that one out.

Or that it was the product of something else.

Ahh now ya getting somewhere. Since we don’t know concretely of other universes or of anything before ours, but the possibility of there being something that brought ours into existence remains the only logical answer.

Anyhow, I don't see how you can make the leap from "the visible universe was once very small" to "everything needs a cause", as you seem to be doing. Not without a whole bunch of intermediate steps that you're not sharing with us.

I shouldn’t need to fill in all the blanks specifically. It went from a small universe to what it is now. Every process [cause] that followed from that small beginning led to the effects we now see today

I don't see how that follows. Can you step us through your logic there?

Okay take you for example. You have a beginning, we call it your birthday. Can you possibly have a birthday before your first birthday—lets make it your conception day. Same results. Can you have a beginning before the beginning? How can you possibly say "i dont know" or "maybe"?

Hey! A new fallacy! The straw man. Kudos - I can tell you're really putting an effort in now

.

Of course, more dodging and ducking here.

No, I'm not saying that.

Lol. Oh so its “there was time when there was no time”. Sounds silly doesn’t it?

- until we can figure out whether a statement is true, we can't declare it true or false; effectively, its truthfulness is undefined. It might be true or it might be false; we can't tell yet.

Now is it not a truth until otherwise proven false? If you cant tell if its true or false then it’s a theory and until the theory is proven false, then it is assumed true till otherwise.

 

[AK4]

- if I make an argument where my conclusion depends on that statement being absolutely true, then if I want to demonstrate that my conclusion is necessarily correct, I have to first prove that the statement is true.

Okay I say the ultimate starting point is God. Proof---the scriptures, science, philosophy. Common sense—the fact that something preceeding, producing something is greater than what it produced. Can this be unproven? Only if something in creation is eternal—no beginning or end. Do we have anything like this? No. So until something is produced that shows this, this “theory” stands as true.

- if I can't demonstrate that the statement is true, then my conclusion based on that statement also can't be demonstrated as true: if the statement is true, then so is the conclusion; if the statement is false, so is the conclusion. And since the statement can be either true or false, my conclusion can also be true or false.

Can it be either true or false? No it has to be one or the other. When you place THE OPINION [not based on facts], an opinion to a theory and say it can be true or false then you cant demonstrate a statement as true or false. Because its your opinion. Your OPINION says that there may be more beyond the ultimate starting point yet this is your opinion and no facts backs this. So “UNLESS you demonstrate that all the statements on which your argument depends are true, then your conclusion has not been demonstrated true either.”

So... for what I think is the fourth time: UNLESS you demonstrate that all the statements on which your argument depends are true, then your conclusion has not been demonstrated true either. For this argument, this means that if we're left with "all effects need causes... but they might not", then your conclusion of "therefore God exists" hasn't been demonstrated.

Who says “they might not”? Actually that’s been pondered for thousands of years whether all effects need causes and still NOTHING has disproven this. Therefore, as it stands, it is still a fact until disproven and also that means it has been demonstrated over and over again that God does exist. See the more you keep at it the more you will prove God [or USP] existence to yourself.

No, that's not what I'm doing. If you think I am, then you haven't read my posts carefully enough.

My bad, it’s the “I don’t know” religion. But the facts is all around you that an USP is demanded in creation.

Can you re-phrase this so it makes sense? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Since you say its possible for an effect to have no cause or that you can have a beginning without something causing that beginning, then you also say a cow can roar like a lion at anytime. Basically, saying something can come into being without anything bringing it forth.

And I don't need to.

You don’t need to? Oh and I thought I was the one not demonstrating my argument.

No, you didn't.

Still waiting on some proof of something eternal.

I don't need to.

Lol. Special pleading anyone? The straw man anyone? Can you say double standard?

 

[AK4]

I’m sorry but you haven’t shown anything.

You’re inferring the existence of a non-worldly, eternally existing entity (God) from the material world, and then saying there can’t be anything that exists eternally! Well, if God can be self-existent, then so can the universe.

Where have yall gotten it from where i said that God is outside of His creation? We are IN Him and He is IN us.

You ask, ‘is there anything in the universe that fits the definition of eternal, with no beginning or end? We don’t know. We weren’t there at the beginning, if there was a beginning, and we can’t speculate about an end, if there is to be an end. But what we do know is that ‘The universe exists’ is self-evidently true, whereas we can’t say the same of ‘God exists’ or ‘X is self-existent.’

Again starting from the false premise that God is "outside of us or the universe" then maybe your argument can stand. But that is not what the scriptures teach so this argument is not valid. I know the world teaches differently and thats pretty much all they know, but that is not the truth from scriptures.

You are making an assertion that there is a God or uncaused cause, by inferring such from the phenomenon we know as cause and effect, which you see and experience. But since there is no law of cause and effect in this world it’s an assertion too far to say this non-law must apply to all possible worlds (God). And if there is no causality, then there can be no first cause and no God.

Where is there no casuality? Quantum mechanics still hasnt proved this. They dont even say that for sure they know that fluctuations "just happen"

And even if we allow cause as necessary, it is still attempting to argue backwards from the material world, a supposed effect, to a supposed supernatural cause. What you need to do is demonstrate the cause, if there is one, from which the effect must follow.

Okay coming from the scripture stand point---God the Father wanted children in His image. He made a Son or another God that would represent Him, be Him in His stead because He knew that they would never be able to see or hear Him. The Son begins creating everything else all the way to the physical universe we now see. There you go, from first cause and everthing else is an effect.

Now not from a religious stand point---The USP caused something else to cause the universe to come into being which everything else is an effect from the USP.

Now for both scenarios remember all of this is happening inside of the Father and USP.

 

[AK4]

I disagree. I don't think that "ultimate creator" is a necessary role for a god. Historically, many gods have been believed in that weren't the "first cause".


Yeah historically not many truly believe in the monotheistic view. I can see what you mean looking at some of the gods they believed in really didnt have a role in creating things, but ultimate creator has to be a necessary role for God.

Quick question: what is the "ultimate starting point" of the surface of the Earth? Where is the point where, if you try to go further, you can't?

I dont think that fits here. The surface of the earth isnt a starting point of the earth. The first starting point FOR the surface would be when the first lava began to cool and harden.

Sometimes, the concept of an "ultimate starting point" is meaningless. So far, you haven't demonstrated that it's meaningful in the sense that your argument depends on.

The USP is only meaningless if the universe is eternal, always existed and was not created .

 

[Humanistheart]

AK4, your religion title says "buried with christ". This world has not had a christ yet, so who are you reffering to?

 

[cottage]

Where have yall gotten it from where i said that God is outside of His creation? We are IN Him and He is IN us.

God by definition is transcendental, and said by some to also be immanent. As far as the latter is concerned he may be within the world, (omnipresent), but he cannot be of the world if he transcends it at as a non-material, non-corporeal entity.

Again starting from the false premise that God is "outside of us or the universe" then maybe your argument can stand. But that is not what the scriptures teach so this argument is not valid. I know the world teaches differently and thats pretty much all they know, but that is not the truth from scriptures.

I’m afraid the argument is valid because the Biblical understanding doesn’t have a monopoly on God. In fact none of classic arguments for the existence of God even mention the Bible.

Where is there no casuality? Quantum mechanics still hasnt proved this. They dont even say that for sure they know that fluctuations "just happen"

they know that fluctuations "just happen"

I see an anomaly here. Your argument is that the material world is not dependent upon itself for its being, and yet you call upon the material world to justify that stance!

Anyway, here’s my argument to explain the phenomenon of cause and effect. If we kick a football there is no reason to suppose, other than by reasoning from past experience, that it will not remain stationary rather than being given to motion. Any scientific explanations that appear to account for the ball’s motion hold true only so long as the action can be demonstrated in experience. No matter how many times I kick the ball to find to find it carries forward in motion I am not justified in stating, as a logical law, that striking the ball with my foot will always have the same result. Similarly without the
benefit of experience and experimentation there is no way of telling whether a leaden object placed in water might be buoyant while an object made of cork might sink.

Experimental reasoning (science) can never be certain, which is to say it can never be demonstrably true. When speaking of ‘the truth’ in experience all we are really speaking of is a high degree of probability. The ‘truth’ of the hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future. So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past. Therefore statements that insist one thing is the cause of another are only contingently true. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.
We rely absolutely upon cause and effect. We observe that B is followed by A and the relationship between two events remains in our memories and allows us to make decisions without having to consider every single situation as if it were a new problem. Consider the very first of any species on observing a flame. On that first sighting there is nothing self-evident in the flame from which the new species could deduce the ability to combust objects. Only by observation and experimentation, by which we mean experience, can the benefits and dangers of fire and flames be understood. And so it may be reasoned that instinct has its ground in the first instance of a particular experience.

Okay coming from the scripture stand point---God the Father wanted children in His image. He made a Son or another God that would represent Him, be Him in His stead because He knew that they would never be able to see or hear Him. The Son begins creating everything else all the way to the physical universe we now see. There you go, from first cause and everthing else is an effect.

To argue from the Bible is just a circular demonstration. Example:
Scripture says such-and-such. How do we know this is true? Why, because it says so in the Bible!

Now not from a religious stand point---The USP caused something else to cause the universe to come into being which everything else is an effect from the USP.

You are simply restating your previous argument, which is to assume a first cause and then say everything follows from that (unproven) assumption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what qualifies what to make it authoritve?

Good question.

I don't think you could ever establish to everyone's satisfaction that any particular book is completely authoritative. This doesn't mean you can't use the Bible as a source, but it does mean that you'd be better off just supporting your Bible verses on their own merits.

Lets just for argument sake say all religious books are counted as a way to God or a way to the ultimate starting point.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The point of your argument was to prove that God exists. When you say "all religious books are counted as a way to God," you presume the existence of God... i.e. the thing you're trying to prove. This is called begging the question.

Now is that different to all the papers wrote about something scientific? No. Therefore in this case the bible counts as an authority

Here's the difference: you don't have to take my word for what some scientific paper says. If you don't believe me, you're free to prove whatever it is for yourself or to find someone else who's replicated the experiment. The whole point of science is to remove the scientist from the equation. The point is not to rely on the scientist's authority.

Things unseen bring about the things that are seen. If you don’t see anything scientific in that I don’t know what to tell you.

I don't see anything relevant in that. What was your point?

Also follow the links and research this all over the net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Banghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Banghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That's nice. How is it relevant?

When you think bible, which is a translation from the original scriptures, you think that the translations are my reliable source. There is no perfect translation.

I'm not even that far yet. I don't really care that much how accurate the translation is when you haven't even established that the original writers were trustworthy.

And so when I do this you discredit it or I am called an IDists now.

I didn't call you an IDist. I have no idea what you believe in that department.

Things that are seen are made by things unseen---yet this is not scientific?

I suppose that's reconcilable enough with science. That doesn't mean the claim "my favourite unseen thing made everything that's seen" has any sort of scientific support.

Can we see the molecules in an atom that brings forth lets say bread? Even back in those days the most they could do to something was to grind something into the finest finest finest powder and yet they make a statement like “things that seen are made by things unseen”. Did they have microscopes back then?

So you don’t think its amazing that they knew back then that things are made by things unseen? Wow that’s just being stubborn.

They didn't know that atoms existed if that's what you're implying. It seems to me that you're committing the sin of eisegesis.

I had to comment on this one again. Let me reword your words. "And even then, the mere imaginings that something came from nothing is no guarantee that it's correct" or even close to the truth

Exactly what's your issue with my statement?

You mentioned the Holocaust. If I was arguing that some Holocaust writer's description was accurate but you rejected that author's authority, then I've got plenty of recourse: I can show you the author's original source material. I can show you physical evidence for my claims. You can't do the same with the Bible. If we don't accept your claims of the Bible's authority, you have nothing to fall back on.

Am I not doing that here?

No, you're not.

Scientifically, are not things made by things that cant be seen by the human eye?

Sure. That doesn't mean that the specific hypothetical unseen thing that you suggest made them, though.

Have i answered "i dont know" and "i dont have to"?

Nope. Or rather, you've responded to them by trying to push your burden of proof onto me. You still haven't answered them with a sound argument.

I don’t know where you are getting this. Im saying everything is part of God, from God. God is in everything and everything is in God.

So... everything needs a creator, and God is made up of everything. Wouldn't this imply that every part of God (and therefore God as a whole, IMO) would need a creator?

It's hard for me to figure out what you're arguing when you won't be consistent in your claims and your terms. You've argued before that "everything" needs a cause. You also argued that God doesn't need a cause, which implies that God isn't part of "everything".

It seems to me that you're using the word "everything" to describe at least two different things and that you flip back and forth when it suits you.

Maybe? You don’t see why not? Since you say I haven’t given a rational argument why it cant, please show me how it can.

Nope. I don't feel like taking on your burden of proof.

Oh so like a figure 8 or like an explosion collapsing in on itself and then re-exploding? Please explain how it can be either one of these can fit an expanding universe. And as for the “big crunch”, this doesn’t explain how the first explosion came to be so that rules that one out.

Quick question: what makes you think that the Big Bang marks the beginning of "everything"?

Ahh now ya getting somewhere. Since we don’t know concretely of other universes or of anything before ours, but the possibility of there being something that brought ours into existence remains the only logical answer.

Maybe. I certainly don't have any reason to exclude the possibility.

I shouldn’t need to fill in all the blanks specifically.

And you don't have to. You only need to do it if you want to present an argument in a way that will be actually understood. Whether you do this is completely up to you.

Okay take you for example. You have a beginning, we call it your birthday. Can you possibly have a birthday before your first birthday—lets make it your conception day. Same results. Can you have a beginning before the beginning? How can you possibly say "i dont know" or "maybe"?

I am not a universe. The space-time continuum isn't a constituent part of me.

It would be more analogous to ask what my hair colour was before I was conceived: it's blond now and it's been blond all my life; was it blond then? How can you possibly say "I don't know"?

Lol. Oh so its “there was time when there was no time”. Sounds silly doesn’t it?

Are you having trouble reading?

No, I'm not saying that.

Now is it not a truth until otherwise proven false? If you cant tell if its true or false then it’s a theory and until the theory is proven false, then it is assumed true till otherwise.

No, it's not. And you apparently don't understand what a theory is.

Take this claim: at this moment, there are eighteen lobsters in the lobster tank at the Red Lobster in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Is this false? I don't know. Is it true? I have no idea. I've never even been to the Ann Arbor Red Lobster. Does the fact we can't tell whether it's true or false make it true? I'd say not... otherwise, we might be in the absurd case that it's "true" now, but on later investigation we find out that it was actually false when it was "true".

Claims are either true or false, even if we can't tell whether they're true or false right now. If we can't tell, we say "I don't know". It's never valid to just make up an answer.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well prove it.

By the look of a few responses on the first page...I'd say you stepped right into that. You had to have known these responses were coming.......:foot:


:spit:

 

[cottage]

Okay I say the ultimate starting point is God. Proof---the scriptures, science, philosophy. Common sense—the fact that something preceeding, producing something is greater than what it produced. Can this be unproven? Only if something in creation is eternal—no beginning or end. Do we have anything like this? No. So until something is produced that shows this, this “theory” stands as true.

The poster is absolutely correct: a statement is demonstrably true or it is not.
‘God exists’ can be denied without contradiction, as can ‘everything that is caused to exist is in want of a cause’, as can ‘There is an ultimate starting point’. Compare those statements with ‘The world exists’, which cannot be denied with involving a contradiction.
And a thing that produces doesn’t have to be greater than the thing produced. It needs only what is sufficient for that purpose, no more and no less.

Can it be either true or false? No it has to be one or the other. When you place THE OPINION [not based on facts], an opinion to a theory and say it can be true or false then you cant demonstrate a statement as true or false. Because its your opinion. Your OPINION says that there may be more beyond the ultimate starting point yet this is your opinion and no facts backs this. So “UNLESS you demonstrate that all the statements on which your argument depends are true, then your conclusion has not been demonstrated true either.”

Neither of those claims is demonstrably true, not ‘an ultimate starting point’ nor ‘the world is self-existent’. They are hypotheses. Your own argument, that there is an eternal God is a hypothesis, not based on facts. And facts from the world of experience cannot be used to argue for the existence of an entity beyond the world of experience.

Who says “they might not”? Actually that’s been pondered for thousands of years whether all effects need causes and still NOTHING has disproven this. Therefore, as it stands, it is still a fact until disproven and also that means it has been demonstrated over and over again that God does exist. See the more you keep at it the more you will prove God [or USP] existence to yourself.

One of the greatest theologians of all time, St Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged that the universe needs no beginning.

“It would seem that the universe of creatures, called the world, had no beginning, but existed from eternity.”

He goes on to explain why:

“For everything which begins to exist, is a possible being before it exists: otherwise it would be impossible for it to exist. If therefore the world began to exist, it was a possible being before it began to exist. But possible being is matter, which is in potentiality to existence, which results from a form, and to non-existence, which results from privation of form. If therefore the world began to exist, matter must have existed before the world. But matter cannot exist without form: while the matter of the world with its form is the world. Therefore the world existed before it began to exist: which is impossible.” Summa Theologica 1a, 46

Still waiting on some proof of something eternal.

So are we!

 

[AK4]

AK4, your religion title says "buried with christ". This world has not had a christ yet, so who are you reffering to?

Again, you claim there was no Christ. Obviously if a Christ was to come through the jews line and some of the jews believed that the one called Jesus from Nazareth was the Christ and this did not died out shortly after Jesus' death then you might wanna reconsider if He was the Christ or not. Take heed to the words of the pharisee Gamilael

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, R257 a teacher R258 of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the R259 Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming R260 to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But F127 he was killed, and all who followed F128 him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the R261 census and drew away {some} people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed F129 him were scattered. 38 "So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action F130 is R262 of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting R263 against God." 40 They took F131 his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged R264 them and ordered them not to speak F132 in the name of Jesus, and {then} released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, F133 R265 rejoicing R266 that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for R267 {His} name. 42 And R268 every day, in the temple and from F134 house to house, they kept F135 right on teaching and preaching F136 R269 Jesus {as} the Christ. F137

So the proof is in the pudding here.

 

[Demonic Kitten]

So the proof is in the pudding here.

Your proof...your pudding is just another book filled with stories for some of the people here. Using biblical reference of any kind does not prove a thing to those who do no believe the bible is the word of God. How many more pages is it going to take for you to realize that?

 

[AK4]

God by definition is transcendental, and said by some to also be immanent. As far as the latter is concerned he may be within the world, (omnipresent), but he cannot be of the world if he transcends it at as a non-material, non-corporeal entity.

This is what they teach in theological cemetaries [seminaries], but this is not what the bible teaches. There is mans “wisdom” and there is Gods wisdom and God calls ours foolishness. Anyway, in Romans it says in the greek that He is the Eonian God or the God of the ages. And I also disagree with saying God is transcendental because that is also not what the scriptures teach. It says [paraphrased] that those who is of the Spirit will know the things of the Spirit. So transcendental does not define God.

I’m afraid the argument is valid because the Biblical understanding doesn’t have a monopoly on God. In fact none of classic arguments for the existence of God even mention the Bible.

What are some of the classic arguments?

I see an anomaly here. Your argument is that the material world is not dependent upon itself for its being, and yet you call upon the material world to justify that stance!

Not quite sure what you mean here.

Only by observation and experimentation, by which we mean experience, can the benefits and dangers of fire and flames be understood.

First off I agree with your analogy but this statement above is not entirely true and if I am reading it right its hinting at quantum mechanics. You say only by observation---this is where this fails because if something isn’t observed, does that make that thing not exist? No the thing still exists even if we don’t observe it or experience it. Its like saying if a tree fell in the woods and no one was around, did it make a sound? Of course it did because we know emphatically that the tree fell. You may argue then that no one heard the sound so there was no sound. My answer to that is we know a supernova explodes, we are no where near to hear the sound, yet it would be ridiculous to say that it didn’t make a sound. We may need instruments to hear them but it still is sound.

To argue from the Bible is just a circular demonstration. Example:
Scripture says such-and-such. How do we know this is true? Why, because it says so in the Bible!

Well I for one can see all the parables of this life that is even more proof for me but I wont go there. So how do we know its true? The bible says [no pun intended] we need Two or three witnesses. So if I mention a scripture and if I can find something in science that is true to back it up and something in like philosophy that is true to back them up, well that’s one way. I don’t think Ive ever said in this thread yet “because the bible says so” and just left it at that.

You are simply restating your previous argument, which is to assume a first cause and then say everything follows from that (unproven) assumption.

How is it not proven? One proof that has stood the test of time and so far even quantum mechanics, the first edict of the universe, cause and effect. Until that is disproven that’s one proof. And the other proof is in philosophy. For everything created it must have a USP and that USP cannot have something before it. Until that is disproven its another proof. You guys have claimed that me just stating “until you prove one these to be false” is not valid, I counter that with isn’t that exactly how science works to prove a theory true or not. Am I not going through the same scientific process with you guys.

I propose a theory.
I test it to science.
I test it to philosophy.
{then Ive personally tested it to other things also}
Testing them demonstrated that so far my theory is true.
So I give my theory up for peer review.
No one from the peer review has disproven the theory.
Therefore, by the scientific process, my theory is true until otherwise proven false.

 

[AK4]

but it does mean that you'd be better off just supporting your Bible verses on their own merits.

No, it all depends who I am debating. When debating a Christian, I used what best on them, a jew, same thing and atheists and agnostics same thing. That’s the best way to do it.

The point of your argument was to prove that God exists. When you say "all religious books are counted as a way to God," you presume the existence of God... i.e. the thing you're trying to prove.

So using one of these books to prove Gods existence doesn’t count right? Now if I used it to show how a specific prophecy told by it was fulfilled thousands of years after it was penned, this doesn’t count as proving God?

Here's the difference: you don't have to take my word for what some scientific paper says. If you don't believe me, you're free to prove whatever it is for yourself or to find someone else who's replicated the experiment. The whole point of science is to remove the scientist from the equation. The point is not to rely on the scientist's authority.

Ah, you know that is exactly the same process of learning what are the real truths in the scriptures---remove the teachings of the world to know the real truth. The point is not to rely on the teachings/teachers of the world authority. But anyway, isn’t that exactly what you are supposed to do, prove whatever it is for ourself or to find someone else who's replicated your truth you found? See the stereotype is that ALL those who believe in God are just doing it out of blind faith. Not the case here. We are told to test His word. I test the Word to the doctrines and teachings of the world and so far it hasn’t failed me.

That's nice. How is it relevant?

Are you purposely not getting it?

I'm not even that far yet. I don't really care that much how accurate the translation is when you haven't even established that the original writers were trustworthy.

The same argument could be said of any historian. You either trust at some point or not

I didn't call you an IDist. I have no idea what you believe in that department.

I mustve mixed you up with someone else sorry

I suppose that's reconcilable enough with science. That doesn't mean the claim "my favourite unseen thing made everything that's seen" has any sort of scientific support.

So if the universe was created and its VISIBLE [that includes the things we can see with instruments], that would also include that the universe was also made up of things unseen.

They didn't know that atoms existed if that's what you're implying. It seems to me that you're committing the sin of eisegesis.

Please show the sin I am committing with this verse and how it doesn’t fit the context of the book and also the whole Word of God.

I can show you physical evidence for my claims. You can't do the same with the Bible. If we don't accept your claims of the Bible's authority, you have nothing to fall back on.

But in some cases we can. For example like the things seen made by things unseen stated above and how about the six “days”. I say it should be six “times” and what do I fall back on besides just the scriptures---science and how old the earth and universe is. Now do you see I don’t just make the “bible says so” claim?

Sure. That doesn't mean that the specific hypothetical unseen thing that you suggest made them, though.

Okay, What does it suggest then? This should be interesting

Nope. Or rather, you've responded to them by trying to push your burden of proof onto me. You still haven't answered them with a sound argument.

I believe with you it was the “prove that something created is eternal”. I see the contradiction in that whole statement and that right there is just one proof for me and yes a big burden for you to prove. Again prove that something created is eternal. Heres my proof—we have not one shread of evidence to support that something created is eternal. Now the burden is on you because you argue that it can. Now you should back your claim.

So... everything needs a creator, and God is made up of everything. Wouldn't this imply that every part of God (and therefore God as a whole, IMO) would need a creator?

Think on this, if as a whole God created everything else. Since as a whole He created everything, why and how could it be that things He created creates Him? This should destroy your “implying”.

You've argued before that "everything" needs a cause. You also argued that God doesn't need a cause, which implies that God isn't part of "everything".

It seems to me that you're using the word "everything" to describe at least two different things and that you flip back and forth when it suits you.

Contemplate on that word “everything”. That means EVERYthing. So if God was already a whole before creating anything else, which was out of Him, then how couldn’t He be a part of everything. Its like God gave everything a bit of His dna---would that make Him apart of everything?

Quick question: what makes you think that the Big Bang marks the beginning of "everything"?

Actually it doesn’t. According to the bible, there was a spiritual realm created first. Ive just been debating from you guys point of view.

The space-time continuum isn't a constituent part of me.

Since you are part of the space-time continuum then it is a part of you

Are you having trouble reading?

lol. idnot konw. it bomeces hrad for me semomties wehn smeo one deonst be cmpetloey hsnoet wtih tmshleves

Claims are either true or false, even if we can't tell whether they're true or false right now. If we can't tell, we say "I don't know". It's never valid to just make up an answer.

Yes its “I don’t know” until tested or investigated. The God question has gone through this for who knows how long. Really its either He exists or He doesn’t. To say He doesn’t or I don’t know is ignoring plethora of evidences. Take for example consciousness. Science has yet to explain how chemicals and molecules bring about consciousness and emotions. We know for sure they exist, but have no way to explain them

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This stuff is hilarious.....