There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shad]

Y


Quantum physics does no such thing of the sort. Naturalistic laws do not apply to quantum sub-automic levels. That excludes cause and effect.

So when given an example is which causality fails you move the goal post by placing your argument well outside of such an example. Yet such an example is within the universe so is very relevant to the argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

Part 4 as promised to Serenity

This is supposed to be convincing evidence?

The most convincing part is what they all agree on. The tomb was empty and a stranger said Jesus rose from the dead. Huh? The payoff that proves everything and nobody but nobody gets to see it? Instead we get contradictory stories.

All four Gospels tell much the same story. Women go to the tomb on Sunday morning. (The women named vary but that is not really significant). When they get there the tomb is empty and they are told by a stranger that Jesus rose from the dead.

Jesus rising from the dead is got to be the most significant event in history

.

Not in my estimation. Jesus was as dead as a Dodo. His lifeless body was buried in a tomb. Three days latter he appeared alive and well. That is the most significant event in history. His appearance, alive, after being seen dead.

It is the demonstration that the promise of a universal resurrection and judgment is for real. It is the assurance that Jesus really does have divine backing and everything he said can be believed. So obviously it should be unmistakably on the level, witnessed by plenty of people, Jesus believers and non-believers, Jews and gentiles, Roman authorities, so that there can be no mistake, no claims of stolen bodies, no accusations of fraud. Right?

If that were to have happened, proof of life after death to the Unbelievers, then what would be the point of faith. How can we be judged when free will would disintegrate in favour of knowledge that would predetermined our actions in mortality. The entire plan of Salvation would cease to exist. Such an event could never be allowed to happen.

Wrong! Nobody but nobody sees the resurrection. Even in Matthew, who tells the most elaborate versions, when the stone is rolled back in the presence of soldiers the tomb is already empty! And nobody but believers ever gets to see Jesus after the fact. (And those stories have nothing in common but that is already being discussed elsewhere.)

Only God had the power to sanction the reservation. It is crystal clear when reading the Gospels that Christ had to ascend to the father to be resurrected. "touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven" is when he was in the form of a spirit. Touch my hands, feel that I am flesh and bones" is when he returned after being resurrected.

If you did not already believe it, if you had not been raised believing it, would you believe it? If someone made a similar claim about a Tibetan monk who was supposed to be dead was later seen by other monks and no two tell even similar stories, would you come anywhere close to believing it?

I would do exactly what I did with God.

1. I would investigate it and collect a much evidence as I could on it. Do Background Research

2. I would Construct a Hypothesis by looking for a method in which I might get some accurate results. That is when I found the following scriptures.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

3. I would follow the instructions of the above scriptures and evaluate the results. I would do this several times.

4. I would Analyze my Data and Draw a Conclusion

I concluded that, based on the evidence that I received, that God lives.

Notice any similarities to the scientific method?

 

[Serenity7855]

So when given an example is which causality fails you move the goal post by placing your argument well outside of such an example. Yet such an example is within the universe so is very relevant to the argument.

It is not my belief that natural laws are ineffective at the quantum physics level. Oh that I were that clever. No, science has made that announcement.

 

[Shad]

Yes but by ignoring when casualty is distributed on the Qurantium level it renders premise #1 false thus KCA is invalid and unsound.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Jesus was as dead as a Dodo. His lifeless body was buried in a tomb. Three days latter he appeared alive and well. That is the most significant event in history. His appearance, alive, after being seen dead...

Yeah, in Gibson's "Passion", Jesus simply gets up and walks out cool as a cucumber without any fuss..-
The Passion of the Christ - Last Scene - YouTube

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes but by ignoring when casualty is distributed on the Qurantium level it renders premise #1 false thus KCA is invalid and unsound.

Well, no, because the Qurantium level came into being at the same time as the universe did. It was caused to exist by the big bang. That it is not subject to naturalistic laws is a function of its existence which is definitely the accepting to the rule.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yeah, in Gibson's "Passion", Jesus simply gets up and walks out cool as a cucumber without any fuss..-
The Passion of the Christ - Last Scene - YouTube

To be honest, I cannot watch that movie. It is probably as close as you will get to reality, so I cannot handle watching His intense suffering. I become very emotional knowing what He had to endure for the likes of me, a sinner.

 

[Shad]

Well, no, because the Qurantium level came into being at the same time as the universe did. It was caused to exist by the big bang. That it is not subject to naturalistic laws is a function of its existence which is definitely the accepting to the rule.

You do not understand. If QL is not subject to naturalist laws within its function then P1 is invalid. That is all that is required is one proof that P1 is in error. The argument collapses as invalid and unsound.

 

[Bunyip]

Shuttlecraft quoted the words of Dr Flew in this debate. The correct response should have been to challenge his words, however, you, being a disruptive poster, went for Dr Flew jugular and critiqued his person and his integrity. Typical of the type of atheist you are. Win by any means possible whether honest or surreptitiously.

Yet another whining, personal attack full of shamelessly false accusations - as opposed to ever even attempting to debate. I admire Flew, I did not critique his person or his integrity. Why must you rely so heavily on false accusations and personal attacks? Are you so terrified of actual discussion that you are rendered witless?

You are yet to actually support any of your accusations of my dishonesty, because of course you, I and all the other readers here know that they are unfounded.

Why not put your money where your mouth is and back up just one of your dishonest accusations? Unlike you I have not been at all dishonest at any point.

If the case for your god is so strong - why is it that all you seem capable of doing are lies and insults?

 

[Serenity7855]

You do not understand. If QL is not subject to naturalist laws within its function then P1 is invalid. That is all that is required is one proof that P1 is in error. The argument collapses as invalid and unsound.

No, you are right, I do not understand. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" . How is it that because cause and effect does not work at the QL mean that P1 is invalid. It is a non sequitur, it does follow.

 

[Bunyip]

No, you are right, I do not understand. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" . How is it that because cause and effect does not work at a QL mean that P1 is invalid. It is a non sequitur, it does follow.

Because the Big Bang is a quantum event. Cause and effect do not apply to quantum events, and the event P1 is applying cause and effect to is a quantum event.

How can you fail to grasp that?

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Is destroyed because it is false - No, not everything that begins to exist has a cause. Quantum events do not need causes.

 

[Shad]

No, you are right, I do not understand. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" . How is it that because cause and effect does not work at the QL mean that P1 is invalid. It is a non sequitur, it does follow.

You refuted P1 on your own. I just pointed this out. This is a problem of induction based reasoning. Let me put it in another argument. All swans we have observed are white. Thus (inductive logic) all swans are white (universal statement). However 1 observation of a black swan invalids the conclusion. You provided the "black swan" via QL. Thus you have refuted P1 on your own.

 

[Serenity7855]

Because the Big Bang is a quantum event. Cause and effect do not apply to quantum events, and the event P1 is applying cause and effect to is a quantum event.

How can you fail to grasp that?

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Is destroyed because it is false - No, not everything that begins to exist has a cause. Quantum events do not need causes.

Why do you do this to yourself. The big bang was not a quantum event. A cursory look on the internet shows that it has been speculated but by no means confirmed. For it to have been a quantum event the singularity needs to have had mass, energy, time and space. It had none of these. Plus, quantum physics did not exist pre-big bang. It began to exist at the big bang, so it still stands that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Quantum events do not need causes but the had a beginning.

 

[Serenity7855]

You refuted P1 on your own. I just pointed this out. This is a problem of induction based reasoning. Let me put it in another argument. All swans we have observed are white. Thus (inductive logic) all swans are white (universal statement). However 1 observation of a black swan invalids the conclusion. You provided the "black swan" via QL. Thus you have refuted P1 on your own.

Your reasoning is sound, however, QL had a beginning, as did everything else. There is no black swans, they are all white.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I've heard it suggested by some scientists and others that the Big Bang may just be the latest in a whole series of big bangs where the universe first expands after the bang, then slows,and shrinks back to a point to generate the next big bang and so on like a spark plug effect.
Maybe Jesus's use of the term "generation" referred to each big bang being a new "generation"?

"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34)

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity, I'll edit out your usual silliness and just address the point in hand.

The big bang was not a quantum event. A cursory look on the internet shows that it has been speculated but by no means confirmed. For it to have been a quantum event the singularity needs to have had mass, energy, time and space. It had none of these. Plus, quantum physics did not exist pre-big bang. It began to exist at the big bang, so it still stands that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Quantum events do not need causes but the had a beginning.

The Big bang is indeed a quantum event. Not that it matters - because the fact that P1 is not unuversally true is enough to destroy that version of the kalam.

When you find an exception to the premis, the premis is destroyed - whether the BB was a quantum event or not.

And that forgets the real problem with your version of the kalam - that there are exceptions to P1 is not the biggest weakness.
The real disaster for P1 is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE KNOWN OF ANYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAVING A CAUSE.

So P1 is founded upon an empty data set - we do not know of a single example upon which to base P1.

Try it - see if you can be the first person in history to provide a single example of ANYTHING that began to exist and is known to have a cause?

(HINT WL Craig has no such examples either. He explains that P1 is a sort of common sense intuition, and admits that he has no examples. You are arguing for a premis that is drawn from zero examples.)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And this is the point I am making. " Its possible the universe was created by god" that is all that I am saying. That it could have been created by a unicorn is unrealistic and insulting to an inquiring mind, however, the possibility of a multiverse is very interesting and a possibility that I would also consider.

I don't mean for the unicorn comment to be insulting but just to bring the full force of my point that "if we don't know we can't suppose with any certainty or usefulness".

Then why do you suppose that so many scientists make that very claim. That dark energy and matter are phenomena that is currently beyond the explanation of science, but that in the future they will aquire the knowledge to know exactly what they are

They don't intentionally weaken an argument or attempt to weaken the opposition to their arugment by stating that the facts my change as new information is brought forward. Dark energy/matter is talked about with some caution simply because scientists admit we don't know what it is. It is an unknown to us. Scientists don't make fact based claims about it usually.

Quantum physics does no such thing of the sort. Naturalistic laws do not apply to quantum subatomic levels. That excludes cause and effect.

Why is that? And why would the fact that is sub-atomic change things? The singularity would have been infinitely smaller than the smallest subatomic particle we have ever observed or even theorized.

It is unsupported by science because God is undefinable and therefore is not a consideration. I know posters right here who are so aggressive in their non-belief that they are certain that the universe was not brought into existence by a God. You are obviously not one of those atheists. I would, however, disagree with your belief that it runs equal to unicorns.

I would disagree that the likelyhood would be any differenet. Mainly because there is no way to measure the likelyhood of either god or lack of god. Chance isn't 20% or 50% is "U".

 

[outhouse]

Why do you do this to yourself. The big bang was not a quantum event. A cursory look on the internet shows that it has been speculated but by no means confirmed. For it to have been a quantum event the singularity needs to have had mass, energy, time and space. It had none of these. Plus, quantum physics did not exist pre-big bang. It began to exist at the big bang, so it still stands that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Quantum events do not need causes but the had a beginning.

Does that apply if a black hole exploded and created the expansion?

 

[outhouse]

I've heard it suggested by some scientists and others that the Big Bang may just be the latest in a whole series of big bangs where the universe first expands after the bang, then slows,and shrinks back to a point to generate the next big bang and so on like a spark plug effect.

is that not an old outdated abandoned hypothesis for 40-50 year ago?

Maybe Jesus's use of the term "generation" referred to each big bang being a new "generation"?

Maybe my yellow ducky stated that too. We can insert any kind of imagination we want.

"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34)

Jesus did not say this, only the unknown authors in a Hellenistic community that wanted to adhere to Jewish tradition more tightly then other Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora, and attributed it to Jesus.

 

[Shad]

Your reasoning is sound, however, QL had a beginning, as did everything else. There is no black swans, they are all white.

Actually there are black swans, look it up. My example is a factual case in which inductive reasoning failed completely. Also QL is not believed to have began but was always present. Your cosmology and physics is years out of date. Keep in mind I am just refuting the KCA argument, which the conclusion does not mean God at all. It is just a flawed argument given our current knowledge. Follow the link as it will help you understand the view of physics compared to philosophy or philosophy of religion. The fact is atheism and theism are in the same boat using the same inductive based reasoning. However I do not take inductive reasoning as an absolute while many apologists do present it as absolute.

unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations