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

[AK4]

No the Law of Universal Gravitation is a mathematical description of gravities affect on mass.

,

where:

• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

Equating civil laws with scientific laws shows your ignorance of the entire scientific process.


Incorrect on all accounts. your ignorance is showing.

No matter. You are the one contradicting yourself because You are basically stating that whatever it is causes the effects on mass and then in the same breath saying that this "thing" doesnt cause these things to happen. So which is it? It cant be both. What did Mestemia say to me hypocrisy and how did it apply to himself when he stated this?

 

[cottage]

See the thing you are not taking into account or not questioning with the world or universe being a sustaining power is whatbrought it into being since we know that it has a beginning. Being cyclical answers the sustaining part but not what brought the things to make it sustainable. A self sustaining God doesnt require an explanation because the concept implies no beginning. A world or universe does because we know it has a beginning, although it may be self sustaining after its beginnings. And so we agree here "but if a thing is created there must be a reason or a purpose for its creation." But remember in a God concept, He is not created and has no beginning

The first thing I must address is the specious assertion that the universe has a beginning. There is nothing to show that physical existence either sprung into being from nothing or that it was caused to exist by something else. Theories such as the Big Bang only describe physical changes and do not account for the changes themselves. If a thing is demonstrably self-sustaining through cyclical regeneration, as indeed the world is, then its dependence upon a further sustaining power must be proved beyond question, otherwise it is no more than just speculative reasoning. The second point, which I think you might have missed, is that when I spoke of the argument to sufficient reason I wasn’t meaning a reason for God’s existence. The Supreme Being as an eternally and necessarily existing entity can be God or the universe, and therefore doesn’t need a reason for its existence. What I was referring to was a reason for the universe being created. If the universe, or a necessary component of it, is self-existent then just like God it requires no cause, but if it was created by a personal being there must be a reason for its creation. Again, what is it?

 

[Charity]

Genesis 6:6-7 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain
So the Lord said "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the earth"

Looks like He intended to destroy all His creations to me, except for Noah, family and the animals that He wished to save......

 

[tumbleweed41]

No the Law of Universal Gravitation is a mathematical description of gravities affect on mass.

,
where:

• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

Equating civil laws with scientific laws shows your ignorance of the entire scientific process.


Incorrect on all accounts. your ignorance is showing.

No matter. You are the one contradicting yourself because You are basically stating that whatever it is causes the effects on mass and then in the same breath saying that this "thing" doesnt cause these things to happen. So which is it? It cant be both. What did Mestemia say to me hypocrisy and how did it apply to himself when he stated this?

Really? When did I say that?
You stated that a Law was a cause, when in truth, a Law is a description of an action caused.

 

[AK4]

Unless there was no "beginning", beginning being simply the end of some other event or process, a transformation from one state to another, such as birth and death are. In reality, there is no such thing as birth and death, just as there is no such thing as creation and destruction, beginning and end. They are all just linear concepts, created by and for the rational mind as a means of making it feel comfortable in a universe it does not understand. Because it does not understand the universe, it attempts to gain some control over it via of analysis, dissection, and knowledge, while all the while remaining a separate ego apart from it...or so it thinks.

i can agree with everything except for whats in red because this implies the universe is eternal or self producing. I can agree with the "end of some other event" but that other event has to be something outside of our universe

 

[AK4]

Could be.

This indicates uncertainty, revealing the unsubstantial nature of the rest of the statement.

Uncertainty doesnt make anything unsubstantial. People who deny that we havent landed on the moon are uncertain about the moon landings. And yes the y provide their "evidence" to substantiate their claims. Does that deny the fact of us landing on the moon? No.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Uncertainty doesnt make anything unsubstantial.

Anything of doubtful validity is considered unsubstantial.

unsubstantial, adj
1. lacking weight, strength, or firmness
2. of doubtful validity
3. of no material existence or substance; unreal

People who deny that we havent landed on the moon are uncertain about the moon landings. And yes the y provide their "evidence" to substantiate their claims. Does that deny the fact of us landing on the moon? No.

However, in contrast, we have empirical evidence of the moon landing. It is the claims of the deniers that are in truth unsubstantial.

 

[AK4]

2nd Century Church leaders based the idea of creation ex nihilo on these verses...

John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Romans 4:17 "... even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

1 Corinthians 1:28 "And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are"

Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

And from the Jerusalem Bible...

2 Maccabees 7:27-29 "My son, have pity on me; I carried you nine months in the womb and suckled you three years.... I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being in the same way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers, and make death welcome, so that in the day of mercy I may receive you back in your brothers' company."

What you seem to advocate is creatio ex deo, whereby creation is from the very substance of God. And is sustained by the very existence of God.
This is process theism, a metaphysical approach to creation usually referred to as panentheism.

Thanks. See this is where it shows how church leaders can twist scripture and make up false doctrines because they dont take in full account the whole Word when it comes to creation ex nilhilo. With all those above scriptures and then you throw in just this one

Romans 11:36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all


Where and why would they come up with creation ex nihilo?

 

[AK4]

Post 1568 doesn't address my point at all.

For a moment, forget about any distinctions between "world" and "land" while we go back to step one: the text does say that God would destroy every living thing he had created, doesn't it?

Yup yup.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yup yup.

Okay. And you do believe that God did what he said he'd do, right?

 

[johnhanks]

"It is this force that does the things you describe; but the law does not explain the force, it merely describes it."

Whatever and however you want to break it down.

No, it's nothing to do with how I want to break it down. The law of gravity is not, as you had claimed, a cause of anything.

 

[johnhanks]

Oh theres many. Power, prestige, the need to feel important or superior, control, etc etc or some maybe just be ignorant to all the facts...

But this is pure speculation. You originally claimed

Originally Posted by AK4
But i also think that maybe it could have actually happened, its just that scholars and theologians have brainwashed the masses to think a certain way and blinded people to think that their views are correct.

You are in effect charging a highly professional body of scholars with conspiracy to dishonestly distort the truth - with brainwashing, indeed - for motives of prestige and self-importance, with no evidence other than your own need that their conclusions must be wrong. Sorry, AK, but unless you can come up with more substantial evidence than that most of us will stick with the scholarship.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay. And you do believe that God did what he said he'd do, right?

And if we take into account Genesis 9:11-17

• And I will establish my covenant with you neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth
• And God said This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations
• I do set my bow in the cloud and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth
• And it shall come to pass when I bring a cloud over the earth that the bow shall be seen in the cloud
• And I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh
• And the bow shall be in the cloud and I will look upon it that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth
• And God said unto Noah This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth

The understanding that the writer considered the flood to be worldwide are blatantly obvious.

 

[AK4]

On the contrary - the idea that some object can be "self-sustaining" and needs no cause is an extraordinary claim and therefore demands an extraordinary explanation.

Yet for some reason you say this doesnt apply to a created universe.

Now you say this extraordinary claim demands an extraordinary explanation. Its simple. You cant have something before the something that started all things. You cant have something that always existed with that something that started all things because then you wouldnt be able to distinguish which one started all things. You cant say two somethings come together or work together to produce everything else and they both be the the ultimate something that started all things [unless one recognises that it is not completely equal with the other and the other is truly the something that started even the other something].

Did i lose ya?

Your concept of "god" is too narrow. Historically, many people's gods were created and had beginnings. Even Zeus was born.

Jesus too. He is called God but even Jesus recognised that He has a God. So that too should tell ya how un-narrow the definition of God is.

 

[AK4]

No, he's not. He's reading the plain meaning of the text: that God intended to kill every living thing he had created.

In that area only. You are adding to His words by saying anything else

 

[AK4]

Nice cherrypicking...

1The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth under his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem and against all the cities thereof, saying,...

Old Nebie didn't have a world spanning empire.

And "earth" is only used "locally" when it takes of dirt.

Cherrying picking. And do you know what the Word says about "cherrypicking"?

Oh really? So the very verse above is talking of dirt because obviously all the kingdoms of the earth did not fight against Jerusalem?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yet for some reason you say this doesnt apply to a created universe.

Now you say this extraordinary claim demands an extraordinary explanation. Its simple. You cant have something before the something that started all things. You cant have something that always existed with that something that started all things because then you wouldnt be able to distinguish which one started all things. You cant say two somethings come together or work together to produce everything else and they both be the the ultimate something that started all things [unless one recognises that it is not completely equal with the other and the other is truly the something that started even the other something].

Did i lose ya?

This is the most egregious use of circular reasoning I have ever seen.

 

[AK4]

Yes, cause/effect is a part of the equation of the Law of Universal Gravitation. This is not in question.
However, when broken down to Quantum Mechanics, cause/effect does not always apply.
To insist otherwise is to show a gross ignorance of quantum physics.

Is QP a "force" or a "law" or whatever you wanna call it? Does it explain how something is "working"? Then this too is a cause for those somethings to act the way they do. You can not get away from cause and effect in a created universe. You cant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In that area only. You are adding to His words by saying anything else

"every living substance that I have made"


Seems the only one adding to His words is the one claiming "In that area only"

 

[McBell]

Which is more unsubstantiated? A self existing, self producing, eternal universe or the fact that if something has a beginning, it demands that something was before it.

Seems to me that you do not know what unsubstantiated means....

Who, other than you, has said anything about "A self existing, self producing, eternal universe"?

I agree that if something has a beginning that there was likely something before it.
However, You have not establish any reason to believe that the universe had a beginning other than your beliefs.