There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shad]

Are we back to the KSA again? Argumentum ad nauseam

 

[Serenity7855]

I don’t think you’ve quite understood my point since you agree exactly with what I’ve been saying, which is that since no new matter is introduced it follows that everything that begins to exist in the universe is formed from already existent matter in the universe.

Yes, that is exactly right.

We’ve already agreed that whatever begins to exist begins from pre-existent matter in the universe.

Yes.

But it does not follow that everything that is created in the universe means that the universe itself is created, and so to say the conclusion follows deductively from the opening premise is false since that is to fallaciously argue in a circle.

What is the singularity. What does it contain. How did science conclude that it exists. All questions, that if you know the answer to them, prove that our universe was created from existing element, contained within the singularity. The universe was created ex-materia. The singularity is the result of a finite final regression of the universe with all it contained. A reversal of the big bang complete with the elements.

This premise is not disputed. The "universe" is everything existent, to include the singularity, which itself was a physical event.

Am I to assume that you believe that the singularity has its own creation and that you believe that it was an event within the big bang and not existent prior to the big bang. If that is what you are saying then you will have to provide evidence on that one. Stephen Hawkins said this of the singularity.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

No, no, no! It isn’t “self-explanatory” unless you beg the question, which seems to be the sum total of your every response. I’m beginning to despair of you ever being able to see the logical problem in a blindingly false deduction. Nevertheless I’ll try again:
“Everything created in the universe has a cause” is not the same as “Everything created has a cause.”

OK

I believe I’ve already explained a couple of times that you are guilty of the fallacy of composition by asserting that what is true of a thing’s parts must therefore be true of the whole.

Well, if you have, then the explanation is mis-placed, as I am well aware that one rule for one is not necessarily the same rule for another. So, not guilty your honour.

By the rules of inference the only way that the Kalam argument’s conclusion could be demonstrated is by deduction from a necessary truth to give us, as a general principle, what the argument assumes in its primary premise, which cannot be done. Let me know if it isn’t clear what I’m saying and I’ll put it in different words for you.

I do not think that is necessary, we have sufficient truth in our knowledge of what the singularity contains to be able to say that what it contained expanded into our universe, ex-materia. Where there was once a singularity the universe can be found.

To be honest I’m not really interested in what scripture says or in any particular religious faith.

Then I am guilty of misunderstanding what you have put next to your avatar. "Sceptic" that suggested that you were interested.

My argument concerns the God of classical theism, the Supreme creator of all things existent.

I am not aware of the existence of this God. He is not the one I have faith with.

If yours is a lesser “God” in that respect then that is a matter for you. God, at least according to classical theism, is a being that has always existed and cannot fail to exist; he is then the Absolutely Necessary Being.

As I said, I do not recognise this God. He reminds me of the God of fantasy, a magical and mystical legend that is unrealistic and untenable as genuine father in heaven. My weak God, as you call him, is a realistic God who deviced a perfect plan of Salvation, rather than a magicians circus act.

But all matter is contingent, meaning it doesn’t have to exist at all, and it is ‘finite’ meaning it is not eternal.

And this is where we must agree to disagree. My scriptures tell me that element can neither be created or destroyed. My belief is that the singularity contained sub-automic particles that formed matter at the point of the big bang. Matter is contingent but element is eternal. That belief is as valid as yours as neither of us really know.

And we know this because of the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes;

I fear that it is your turn to be guilty of the fallacy of composition by asserting that what is true of a thing’s parts must therefore be true of the whole

only the concept of God or similar can escape that conclusion, and on that account if God exists and matter exists then God is the cause of matter.

Yes, at last. God is indeed the cause of matter. He organised the intelligence, that are eternal, into atoms, molecules and matter.

And of course if matter were intelligent and eternal then that would remove the need for God altogether!

Well that would be the perspective of an atheist, which I now believe you are, however, Christians believe in the Plan of Redemption so a God is a very necessary part of that plan, as I have already pointed out to you.

Matter is still causally constrained and therefore subject to an infinite regress.

No, the singularity is causally constrained not necessarily its contents.

But the point needs to be made again that the Kalam argument cannot be defended by side-stepping the objection (as given above) to offer a rebuttal on a different point while leaving the objection in place.

I fear that it is far to late for you to listen to reason and rescind your beliefs on KCA. I think you are in to deep for that, and maybe I am as well. I do not comprehend your logic on it and I am quite bewildered as to why my logic frustrates you, when, in my opinion, it is far more logical then yours. The singularity contained the elements of the universe, it whatever form that was. They must have existed endlessly as time did not exist prebang so eternity is a false premise to use as eternity requires time. There was just no time when they did not exist. .

 

[Shad]

Yes, that is exactly right.

What is the singularity. What does it contain. How did science conclude that it exists. All questions, that if you know the answer to them, prove that our universe was created from existing element contained within the singularity. The universe was created ex-materia. The singularity is the result of a finite final regression of the universe with all it contained. A reversal of the big bang complete the element.

The singularity is another word for "our knowledge stops here" It is a road block or wall we can not see beyond or even know what it is made of. It is all speculation. Hence why other concepts such as the multi-verse and the prime mover all can use the singularity as a basis of an argument due to be undefined.

Am I to assume that you believe that the singularity has its own creation and that you believe that it was an event within the big bang and not existent prior to the big bang. If that is what you are saying then you will have to provide evidence on that one. Stephen Hawkins said this of the singularity.

Perhaps you should read what you quote.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

 

[Serenity7855]

The singularity is another word for "our knowledge stops here" It is a road block or wall we can not see beyond or even know what it is made of. It is all speculation. Hence why other concepts such as the multi-verse and the prime mover all can use the singularity as a basis of an argument due to be undefined.

No, that is your logic and we know how much your logic stands up to critique.

Perhaps you should read what you quote.

You think I would have posted it without reading it. Do you judge me by yourself or are you just projecting. I did read it, and then I used the most relevant part of his lecture rather then add the following paragraph that lent no further necessary information to what I was saying. I left the link though for others to explore

 

[Nada]

2 Timothy 2:23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

1 Timothy 1:4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God's work--which is by faith.

2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

 

[Serenity7855]

2 Timothy 2:23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

1 Timothy 1:4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God's work--which is by faith.

2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

I agree with all of these. If I were to listen to the Scriptures, which I should, I would not be here contending with others over the word of God. I am a sinner though and imperfect. I suffer the weaknesses of the flesh so I am constantly trying to live according to scripture. However, in my defence, I actually enjoy the debating and challenges to my faith. Plus, I do not take any of this seriously. I never become agitated or angry at what is being said and I am very happy to hear the opinions of others without it affecting my own. It is just a very interesting way of spending a bit of time each day. But, please do not feel that I am justifying myself, I probably am, but the Scriptures you quote are accurate and very true.

 

[Nada]

I agree with all of these. If I were to listen to the Scriptures, which I should, I would not be here contending with others over the word of God. I am a sinner though and imperfect. I suffer the weaknesses of the flesh so I am constantly trying to live according to scripture. However, in my defence, I actually enjoy the debating and challenges to my faith. Plus, I do not take any of this seriously. I never become agitated or angry at what is being said and I am very happy to hear the opinions of others without it affecting my own. It is just a very interesting way of spending a bit of time each day. But, please do not feel that I am justifying myself, I probably am, but the Scriptures you quote are accurate and very true.

Its cool brother.I am a sinner too.We all are.We just need to know when to cut it.If it goes on and on with no end in sight,then this is a sure indication that we must stop, and carry on.I like to debate too, but if it is of no value, and does nothing for the listener, then it is in vain.If we truly want to help others understand the Word,then we must approach those who really want to know.Not those who argue and have us going in circles.


Faith is not for everyone.1 Corinthians 2:14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.


1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

 

[Serenity7855]

Its cool brother.I am a sinner too.We all are.We just need to know when to cut it.If it goes on and on with no end in sight,then this is a sure indication that we must stop, and carry on.I like to debate too, but if it is of no value, and does nothing for the listener, then it is in vain.If we truly want to help others understand the Word,then we must approach those who really want to know.Not those who argue and have us going in circles.


Faith is not for everyone.1 Corinthians 2:14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.


1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

I can offer no defence. The truth is a constant that does not change to suit our wants and desires. I want to justify it, but I know that the word of God will not allow that. Simple truth is that when you are wrong you are wrong. I need to stop the round Robin with those who do not recognise the masters voice yet ridicule and scorn him with their preconceptions and fallacies.

 

[Nada]

I can offer no defence. The truth is a constant that does not change to suit our wants and desires. I want to justify it, but I know that the word of God will not allow that. Simple truth is that when you are wrong you are wrong. I need to stop the round Robin with those who do not recognise the masters voice yet ridicule and scorn him with their preconceptions and fallacies.

All we can do is try and do our best according to what God commands

 

[Bunyip]

Wow, 307 pages of the same fallacies repeated over and over.

 

[Serenity7855]

Wow, 307 pages of the same fallacies repeated over and over.

Hey, don't be too harsh on yourself. It wasn't just you.

 

[Bunyip]

Hey, don't be too harsh on yourself. It wasn't just you.

Still waiting for the evidence for god's existence to turn up.

 

[adi2d]

Still waiting for the evidence for god's existence to turn up.

That's not how to find the answers. You've been wasting your time trying to learn. You just have to ask your question and the answer will come to you. No fuss no muss. Just don't listen to any other possibilities because they are wrong. You are right




Oh yeah. You gotta BELIEVE

 

[Serenity7855]

That's not how to find the answers. You've been wasting your time trying to learn. You just have to ask your question and the answer will come to you. No fuss no muss. Just don't listen to any other possibilities because they are wrong. You are right




Oh yeah. You gotta BELIEVE

No, you have to be a genuine searcher of the truth first, know what I'm sayen

 

[Bunyip]

No, you have to be a genuine searcher of the truth, no what I'm sayen

Ahhhhh....the good old 'Emperor's New Clothes' story, that old chestnut.

If you believe it you will see it. So this thread is about you posting arguments for the existence of god that you need to beleive in the existence of god in order to understand.

So atheists are close minded bigots because they refuse to accept an argument that you yourself admit only works for belivers? How is it close minded and bigoted to reject a claim that you admit does not work unless you believe anyway?

 

[adi2d]

No, you have to be a genuine searcher of the truth first, know what I'm sayen

I found out early on this thread that many were here to practice their debate skills. I asked a few questions but never got a straight answer. I am still looking for the truth but I have my doubts about finding it here

 

[Serenity7855]

I found out early on this thread that many were here to practice their debate skills. I asked a few questions but never got a straight answer. I am still looking for the truth but I have my doubts about finding it here

Funny how you complain that there has been no truth on this thread when there has been nothing but truth here. I have posted links to confirm almost everything that I have claimed. Links to scientific sites showing how I have come to my conclusions. Sites about Morphic Magnetic Fields, Cosmic Consciousness, the Big bang, Newtonian laws of motion, Thermodynamics, breakthroughs is heart research, quantum physics, probability theories, DNA, elements in dust, consciousness and the mind, philosophy and the standard cosmological model, along with many definitions of words to corroborate my opinions and statements. Yet you say no truth. What does this mean? That you are a genuine seeker after truth or that you are a fabulist, a fibster, a falsifier, or a bearer of false witness. Is it truth you genuinely seek or is it agreement with your own beliefs. From posters like Bunyip one comes to expect such underhanded dishonesty in his post. He is an ardent anti-christ, however, I was initially under the impression that you were seeking the truth, that is, until the one liners began to appear along with the skits, slurs and innuendos. If you want truth, this is it. And as famously said by Jack Nicholson, in the movie, "A Few Good Men". ""YOU want the truth? You can't handle the truth!". Can you handle the truth?

 

[Bunyip]

Funny how you complain that there has been no truth on this thread when there has been nothing but truth here. I have posted links to confirm almost everything that I have claimed. Links to scientific sites showing how I have come to my conclusions. Sites about Morphic Magnetic Fields, Cosmic Consciousness, the big bang, Newtonian laws of motion, Thermodynamics, breakthroughs is heart research, quantum physics, probability theories, DNA, elements in dust, consciousness and the mind, philosophy and the standard cosmological model, along with many definitions of words to corroborate my opinions and statements. Yet you say no truth. What does this mean? That you are a genuine seeker after truth, a fabulist, a fibster, a falsifier, or a bearer of false witness. Is it truth you seek or is it agreement with your own beliefs. From Bunyip one comes to expect such underhanded dishonesty in his post. He is an ardent anti-christ, however, I was initially under the impression that you were seeking the truth, that is, until the one liners began to appear along with the skits and innuendos. If you want truth, this is it.

I would ask that you support your gutless accusation with a quote, if I thought for one second that you were the kind of man who puts his money where his mouth is. Needless to say, you are of course bearing false witness - the significance of which appears lost to you.
Especially given that most of that last post was you talking about truth.

 

[Serenity7855]

I would ask that you support your gutless accusation with a quote, if I thought for one second that you were the kind of man who puts his money where his mouth is. Needless to say, you are of course bearing false witness - the significance of which appears lost to you.
Especially given that most of that last post was you talking about truth.

No problem. How about this one

I would ask that you support your gutless accusation with a quote, if I thought for one second that you were the kind of man who puts his money where his mouth is. Needless to say, you are of course bearing false witness - the significance of which appears lost to you.
Especially given that most of that last post was you talking about truth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3943772

 

[TheGunShoj]

Wow, 307 pages of the same fallacies repeated over and over.

I found this little nuggest amusing..

I do not take any of this seriously. I never become agitated or angry at what is being said and I am very happy to hear the opinions of others without it affecting my own.

307 pages of crying about being attacked and persecuted by "anti theists" but he's not been agitated or taken anything personally once. Nope, not once.