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

[tumbleweed41]

And I have showed you where is it quantum mechanics is not free from cause and effect. Heres another
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/causation_with_qm.pdf
Super Relativity - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

Your understanding of physics is flawed. Super Relativity is an attempt to tie all physics together into a "Theory of Everything".
The link you provided is an unverified philosophy. Not evidence of your assumption.

No its just that you assume that I believe in the same God as what the world teaches. Like I said before, that word eternal is not scriptural and by strict definition shouldn’t be applied to God. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say God has always been what He is.
Besides your statement above is incorrect about what ive been saying. Ive been saying nothing IN CREATION is eternal. God is not created, the universe is. God doesn’t have a beginning, the universe does.

As I said, you posit nothing is eternal, while presenting your God as eternal.

Okay here is your smoke and mirror thing again, you present your claim as the there was nothing before the BB which right here you are saying that the universe isn’t eternal. Then you argue for quantum mechanics saying NOTHING brought or caused this law or other laws into effect. Hence through your smoke and mirrors you are saying that the universe somehow always existed because the things that happen on the subatomic level in quantum mechanics either
A) Pop into existence out of nothing [wow another Christian doctrine infiltrates science… creation ex nihilo] or
B) They always existed in some state and somehow then according to your interpretation of quantum mechanics brought about/caused the BB.
Regardless you are contradicting yourself in your own argument.

I have presented two of the many scientifically valid scenarios. Again, where have I ever posited an "eternal universe"?

 

[Charity]

I have a magic nickel and it knows all the secrets of everything. And the nickel, which never lies, told me that there are no such things as gods.

There I have proven it, case closed, the nickel has spoken, there are no gods.

My magic rabbit foot said your nickel is wrong......Seems like we could make as good as argument out of this as anything that has been accomplished so far...

 

[tumbleweed41]

I presented it? What other option is there? Eternal universe or God? If there is more options, please fill free to share.

There are many options, two of which I have already presented.

 

[AK4]

- if the universe did not exist at any point in time, then the eternal gopher could not exist at that point in time.

Sounds logical. thats the same as saying God needs us to exist so He can exist. Ive already demonstrated the flaw in this thinking.

- if the eternal gopher did not exist at a point in time, he would not be eternal.

But if the gopher is the one who created time, then he still existed before time. Anyway eternal and time are oxymorons. They dont belong together at all.

- the eternal gopher is, by definition, eternal, therefore the universe exists at all points in time.

If the gopher had the thought or dream to make a universe, does the thought or dream count as it [the universe] always existed? Do your dreams and goals actually exist before you accomplish them?

- therefore, the universe is also eternal.

Another christian doctrine intermingled with science.....immortal soul. God always existed so if He was planning to create man, as a goal or dream we existed before we truly existed. Hogwash

- since no reference was made to God to establish the eternal nature of the universe, the eternal nature of the universe is not dependent on God.
- therefore the universe does not need God to be eternal.
- QED.

You know the amazing thing is those who dont believe in religion actually dont know they are actually defending religion. Just as i showed you above, you are arguing man made doctrines that theologians has skillfully snuck in to science.

 

[Jeremiah]

My magic rabbit foot said your nickel is wrong......Seems like we could make as good as argument out of this as anything that has been accomplished so far...

My nickel is infallible, as it told me it was and the nickel never lies.

My nickel says your magic rabbit is evil and that it spreads lies. You should cast down your magic rabbit foot and pick up a nickel!!

 

[AK4]

Because your assumption is your whole "creation" premise.
Until you can provide evidence of this creation premise, everything that stems from it is nothing more than more assumption.

More smoke and mirrors. This is what you really said----there was no creation, the universe is eternal. Thats it.

So when are you guys gonna stop hiding behind the real meaning of what you say?

 

[tumbleweed41]

More smoke and mirrors. This is what you really said----there was no creation, the universe is eternal. Thats it.

So when are you guys gonna stop hiding behind the real meaning of what you say?

When are you going to stop putting words in peoples mouths in your weak attempt to shore up your convictions?

 

[tumbleweed41]

And I have showed you where is it quantum mechanics is not free from cause and effect. Heres another
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/causation_with_qm.pdf
Super Relativity - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

Why does a given nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other?
What "cause" is given for this action, according to Super Relativity?

 

[AK4]

Um, do you live anywhere near reality? Other than the different sects and relgiions based on the god of Abraham, there are only a scant few monotheastic religions, not "many cultures".

In the realms of relgiion, monotheism is a small minority.

Heres a good example. Amen was part of the egyptian gods. He was the supposed most high one yet the [most] egyptians had all those other gods too. The worship of Amen is considered monotheistic yet when you look at it and the religion of the egyptians you should be able to see many gods things. You can say the same thing of Zues also.

Christianitty teaches that unless you except your Christ, you're going to hell.

Christianity has gone into apostasy because of doctrines like this. In just that one sentence, two false, man made doctrines....oops i take that back, 3 doctrines goes against what the scriptures really teach.

1. [The biggest one of all] the doctrine of freewill
2. Coming to Christ---[by your freewill]
3. The egyptian pagan doctrine of hell

Wait a minute there a fouth one in there also

4. Immortal soul---you die but somehow stay alive and go to hell and continue living

Actually i could add a 5th 6th and 7th and probably just keep going on this list. So your argument was based off of more man made christian doctrine and not the truth.

Please, feel free to list a portion of this plethora of religions that preach salvation through worshipping a deity.

Lets do some critical thinking....What would be the ultimate reason for any of them to worship a diety? Salvation of some form of a kind. Now what religion DIDNT have this?

 

[AK4]

Christianity is not a universal teaching: only Christians will go to heaven; all others be dammed.

Another man made doctrine taking from the egyptians that made it into christianity---dying and going to heaven. Oh dont forget some more doctrines---

this life is the only life or day of salvation,
Jesus really isnt the Saviour of the the whole world,
God is a respector of people.
etc etc etc

 

[AK4]

[


Science cannot and does not presume to inform us of what is outside the world of experience.

No but it does make us wonder if there is something more to the story than meets the eye and so we speculate and theorize and experiment until we get an answer

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lets do some critical thinking....What would be the ultimate reason for any of them to worship a diety? Salvation of some form of a kind. Now what religion DIDNT have this?

Asatru
Bön
Buddhism
Confucianism
Deism
Gnosticism
Jainism
Stoicism

Just to name a few......

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The things i have demonstrated from the bible have been correct, you just refuse to believe them because you are biased against it.

No, I refuse to accept them because what you present as fact is generally nothing but unsupported assertion.

Asatru
Bön
Buddhism
Confucianism
Deism
Gnosticism
Jainism
Stoicism

Just to name a few......

And if you want a Christian denomination that doesn't use salvation as the reason for worship:

- Calvinism
- Quakerism
- Catholicism (they acknowledge salvation, but frown on people motivating themselves by fear of Hell or desire for Heaven, calling this "imperfect contritition)

 

[AK4]

[
The Causal (Cosmological) Argument refuted.

The argument wants to infer the existence of a supernatural being from the existence of the natural world. It says:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe was caused

But then it was realised that premise 2 isn’t justified. Science cannot provide an explanation for its own inception anymore than Genesis can be used to prove the truth of Genesis. Something must be at the beginning to observe what has begun, and it cannot be God without begging the question, and it cannot be the universe because the world cannot observe its own beginning. For in order for X to begin to exist there must be nothing of X preceding it. If an X type thing precedes X then X’s beginning hasn’t been established. A physical presence (Big Bang?) preceding another physical presence isn’t the beginning of physical things.

This is great! This is correct! Now this is what Christianity doesn’t teach about Jesus and why the trinity doctrine can not be true. In that paragraph above shows why Jesus is a must and that Jesus and God the Father cannot be a trinity or the same “entity”. And what it does is show how Jesus created the universe and can observe its beginning. This is the same thing---God the Father wasn’t the Father until He had Jesus. When Jesus came out from the God its as if they both observed a beginning, the beginning of God being a Father and the beginning of Jesus being a Son.


So physical matter (the universe) can be self-existent.

This is where things go bad


Faced with the possibility that the universe is self-existent, defenders of the argument explain that unlike the universe, which is in a constant state of flux, God is simple and immutable. But this approach fails, because if the essence of God is said to be necessarily existent and immutable, then the essence of the universe can also be those things, by which the contained effects are caused.

Yes the argument comes from scriptures that say “I am God, I change not”. Yes God doesn’t change but He does change things. It is assume that if God changes something, that means He changes which is far from the real truth.

But in order to address this objection, modern defenders of the causal argument have added an amendment, which is that only a free and intelligent agent can bring about the beginning of things, and this can only be a personal being who is able to act freely and intelligently:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe was caused
4. Only a free and intelligent being can be the uncaused cause
5. This must be God, a personal, conscious, intelligent being.

So they claim the cause is intelligent and personal and makes free choices.

Jesus, being the vessel in which God the Father is doing everything, has no freewill either. He is subject to the Father, but they are so one in tune its as if Jesus really does do what He wants freely. Even the Father made Himself not free or able to make completely free choices because He chose and told His creation that He is good. So now He is bound by that and not free to change from that. So even He no longer has freewill.


And in terms of an anthropomorphic God it would be illogical to say he wasn’t intelligent, but that is where we run into problems. All references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said, ‘to respond like a human being’. So to say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of a Supreme Being there is no learning from experience, no problem solving, no gaining of knowledge and no coping with adverse situations.


Ah this is a common misconception about God. There are scriptures that show God learning before He started creating. It does say anywhere that God always was what He is now. It only basically says that by the time He does start He is perfect.

And nor can it mean the planning and forming of ideas, as there is no cognition involved, for by its very definition the Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason.

Not saying this of you, but I can see where the man made doctrines has made people think this way of God and how it blasphemes Him. This thinking could be linked to the doctrine of eternity.

then, if we say God is ‘intelligent’, we are saying he is like humans in respect of those things.
Now an anthropomorphic God cannot be other than intelligent, since that is implied by the term in the same way that Pegasus cannot be a horse without wings, but if we want to accept that concept we must also accept that this God has human frailties and predilections, which contradicts the very notion of an omnipotent, all sufficient, necessary being.

What if I open up your understanding to the true God for a sec. Now we are to get the fruits of God and Jesus said to the Pharisees that they put heavy burdens on people and wont lift a finger to do the same thing. Is Jesus berating the Pharisees for something His Father is guilty of? One of the fruits of God is long suffering or patience. Does these only apply to man? Did God put us through something that He never experienced or is experiencing? See Christianity doesn’t really ask these questions of God.

God making ‘free choices’
It is said that God freely chose to create the universe and that the universe exists to do his will. And it cannot be said that we have free will for otherwise we would be challenging and disobeying God’s will, which is a contradiction. But if God chose to create the universe he must have a reason or a cause for his doing so. And the uncaused cause argument cannot be used to explain this need, since it makes no sense to say God had no reason to create the world. So if there is cause for his choosing to create the world there must be a cause of that cause and so on and so forth! This series of causes is supposed to stop at God but he still needs to give a first, uncaused reason – which is absurd if he is an intelligent, conscious being!

He does give a cause why He created anything. Actually He gives a couple. Yet if you try to break down the couple He gives you will keep finding a possible cause for the effect that He tells you. For instance lets use these two effects. Why did God create? Out of love and for His good pleasure. This is what the scriptures say. Now we could possibly go on forever breaking down what causes or brings about love and we could breakdown what his pleasures are and breakdown those pleasures and breakdown each and every thing that makes a pleasure a pleasure. See what I am saying here? It doesn’t necessarily stop at God because you can never stop at what may have been the very reason or cause for the effect you are looking at. But see all of that is God. So it stops at Him but its pretty much neverending.

 

[AK4]

Oooooweeee! Now that is one Tricky Dick question! AK4, that is one diabolical mind you got there! (Notice, folks, he says it is but a "quick interjection".) Oh, yeah! So quick, you almost don't notice the slick, smooth sleight of hand at work here.

Silken, AK4...absolutely silken.. :clap

Lol. Now that i think about it, yeah it is pretty slick. Although this wasnt my intention when i asked the question.

Nice catch though and truthfully i wouldnt had asked it if i didnt know the answer already. And we all really deep down know what the true answer is.....:run:

 

[AK4]

The only "base' in atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

Yeah and without a diety you have freewill, you are masters of your own destiny, etc etc.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yeah and without a diety you have freewill, you are masters of your own destiny, etc etc.

Many who lack belief in a deity may still adhere to predestination.
Conversely, a belief in a deity does not necessitate lack of freewill.

 

[AK4]

We have a lack of belief. The "concept" of free will is religious based. The concept of free will stems from the idea that a god (specifically the God of the OT/NT/Qur'an) has "given" his/her/its "creation" the "ability or right" to do as one wants (WITH EXCEPTIONS...namely the 600+/or 10 commandments one must to follow). It, by description, is is similar to an oxymoron.

Since we are not bound by the concept of a god or "holy books" or its (man made laws) then we do not adhere to the man made concept of "free will". We are simply....Human.

You dont have to believe in a God or be religious to believe in freewill though. Its a philosophy not necessarily a religious one at that. I agree though that it is a oxymoron.

At the same time you may not feel bound by the concept of a god or "holy books" it still is a belief, not a lack of belief that one is free to do whatever one whims and is not bound even by the laws of physics. Although i dont think a scientist who believes in freewill would admit it like that but that is exactly what they are saying.

 

[tumbleweed41]

At the same time you may not feel bound by the concept of a god or "holy books" it still is a belief, not a lack of belief that one is free to do whatever one whims and is not bound even by the laws of physics. Although i dont think a scientist who believes in freewill would admit it like that but that is exactly what they are saying.

First, lack of belief is not belief.
Second, the only thing claimed so far in this thread to be immune from the laws of physics is a supernatural god.

 

[AK4]

Admitting that we don't know, is the other option.

So lets see we have 3 categories

1. eternal universe
2. God created universe
or
3. i dont know "religion"

So in i dont know religion you need proof of either 1 or 2 to believe one of them. Okay, we have no proof of anything in the universe, in creation that is eternal. We have only evidence of the universe/creation having a beginning.

So judging by the evidence, theres only one you should believe.