There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[serp777]

Kalam's argument is absurd though.

It makes a crazy amount of assumptions about infinity, and uses that to justify God.

But why the generic monotheistic God? It provides no reasoning for why it shouldn't be multiple Gods, or Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or baal, all of which have equivalent amounts of validity.The contemporary arguments put forth by the Kalam and people like william lane craig are bad because, although logically sound, their premises are entirely assumed.

The classical argument is also flawed on so many levels as well:
"1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2.The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3.The universe has a cause of its existence.[13]"

1. Is there some proof that EVERYTHING had a beginning? Perhaps somethings are eternal, like inflation. This would require you to know what everything was.
2. Who says there has to be a first moment the universe came into existence? How does one find a first moment when there was no time before? If there are multiple temporal dimensions, then perhaps several different times came into existence simulatenously. Or perhaps their relative order/causality doesn't even exist.
3. Maybe, but that doesn't exclude the multiverse, or infinite dimensions, or anything else for that matter.

Also I don't know why you would use some uninfluenced guy of the street, as if his judgment was somehow connected with the facts of the universe? Just because an individual in a species of poorly evolved primates thinks something without bias doesn't mean it's at all correct.

 

[Serenity7855]

Kalam's argument is absurd though.

How so.

It makes a crazy amount of assumptions about infinity, and uses that to justify God.

You would have to explain further because I do not see how it uses infinity at all.

But why the generic monotheistic God? It provides no reasoning for why it shouldn't be multiple Gods, or Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or baal, all of which have equivalent amounts of validity.The contemporary arguments put forth by the Kalam and people like william lane craig are bad because, although logically sound, their premises are entirely assumed.

Look, you are right. In my mind I worship a monotheistic God, separate and distinct. I could be wrong but it is my particular focal point. Surprisingly, when I envision God in my mind's eye I see a man of flesh and bones but in reality that maybe completely wrong because if he is eternal in nature, which I believe he is, then he existence pre-big bang when there was no matter, energy, space or time. I think it is just who you imagine God to be is unique to the individual. I think that the Muslims God is the same as mine but I bet they see him totally different to me.

I am also a open mind to string theory or multi-verses, so I see no reason why each universe could not have a caretaker God. I think our God is a caretaker God who does little but expects much. I am probably flogging a dead horse as you have said they are logically sound and that is what has fueled this anecdotal debate. As for the assumption of premise, I think that is fine provided that assumption is based on known constance and knowledge. In this case the physics behind one version is Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. My hero. That is not an assumed premise.

As for the nomenclature, it is incidental rely, God or Zues doesn't matter what name you use.

Yes, William Lane Craig relies heavily on the metaphysical, however, he reaches all of his conclusions using his vast amount of knowledge in physiological experiences. Reasoning is a very important tool to explain our world. Science use it all the time. It is a good deductive simulator to give clarity and reason to the very extraordinary world that we live in.

The classical argument is also flawed on so many levels as well:
"1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2.The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3.The universe has a cause of its existence.[13]"



1. Is there some proof that EVERYTHING had a beginning? Perhaps somethings are eternal, like inflation. This would require you to know what everything was.

In the world that we live in, everything has a beginning and an end. Entropy tells us the the universe will have an end and the cosmological model tells us that the universe had a beginning. If there is no example that can demonstrate that eternity is normalising then we have to assume that it is supernatural, unexplained by natural phenomenon. If there is anything that is eternal then we don't know about it and cannot explain it.

2. Who says there has to be a first moment the universe came into existence? How does one find a first moment when there was no time before? If there are multiple temporal dimensions, then perhaps several different times came into existence simulatenously. Or perhaps their relative order/causality doesn't even exist.

Once again, you can only reason things out with the knowledge you have. In our naturalistic world there is nothing that can explain certain phenomenon with any of the knowledge we have. Rapid expansion being one. But based on the naturalistic laws we have everything that has come into existence has had a cause, that must follow that if it is eternal then it could not have had a beginning which means it is not caused. Anything else suggests that it is possible to take a live rabbit out of a magicians hat, so a universe coming into distance without a cause is outside of our understanding, which is fine as long as we all accept that if the universe can come into existence without a cause then why not a motorcycle, a house, or a tree.
,

3. Maybe, but that doesn't exclude the multiverse, or infinite dimensions, or anything else for that matter.

Also I don't know why you would use some uninfluenced guy of the street, as if his judgment was somehow connected with the facts of the universe? Just because an individual in a species of poorly evolved primates thinks something without bias doesn't mean it's at all correct.

Surveys a polls are not scientific. You are give a target and you device a method to analyse it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is the answer to that post. It basically says that you are a fraud and I do not wish to exchange personal beliefs with someone whose motivated by ridiculing and discrediting someone's personal beliefs rather then to have a genuine interest it what makes them believe in what they believe. I am not here for the entertainment of the likes of you. Your discussions are artificial and confrontational. I have put you, Bunyip and Awkward Figures on my ignore list for this reason, a choice of contention over constructive debate. .

Are you saying this to yourself??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but you do not believe in the same things as I do. I believe that a third of the host of heaven have been losses on earth to torment and influence mankind. A baby on its own merits cannot be evil but a baby possessed by an evil spirit can. I assumed that if you are going to debate against Christians then you would be aware of what they believe. Many have said that I do not have the same beliefs as others do but everything I believe is substantiated in scripture.

I am aware of some of the things you believe, hence my questions regarding the things you have said you believe. You do not represent all or even most Christians, judging from my own personal experience with them and from my experience being one.

Regardless of whether or not I believe the same things as you, you are still portraying yourself as someone who thinks babies can be wicked - whether that entails being possessed by demons or any other unsubstantiated belief you may have about it. I'm sorry but that's the kind of thing I have a moral problem with. If you can convince yourself and others that babies can be wicked, you are starting down a very dangerous path indeed. A path where mothers kill their own children because they think they are possessed by the devil or because they think that's what god wants. This kind of thing actually happens. This kind of thinking makes it far too easy to carry out terrible acts against our fellow human beings. Would the Inquisition have happened if people didn't think they were carrying out god's works? I don't know but it makes it easier to do such things if you think you've got the big guy in the sky on your side.

The Bible has many examples of tribes pillaging and murdering neighbouring tribes because they think that's what their god wanted them to do. To me, it's obvious they're just trying to justify their own terrible actions that they wanted to carry out anyway.

See, I have this thing where I want to believe things that are actually true and verifiable. That's why I ask the questions I do.

 

[serp777]

How so.



You would have to explain further because I do not see how it uses infinity at all.



Look, you are right. In my mind I worship a monotheistic God, separate and distinct. I could be wrong but it is my particular focal point. Surprisingly, when I envision God in my mind's eye I see a man of flesh and bones but in reality that maybe completely wrong because if he is eternal in nature, which I believe he is, then he existence pre-big bang when there was no matter, energy, space or time. I think it is just who you imagine God to be is unique to the individual. I think that the Muslims God is the same as mine but I bet they see him totally different to me.

I am also a open mind to string theory or multi-verses, so I see no reason why each universe could not have a caretaker God. I think our God is a caretaker God who does little but expects much. I am probably flogging a dead horse as you have said they are logically sound and that is what has fueled this anecdotal debate. As for the assumption of premise, I think that is fine provided that assumption is based on known constance and knowledge. In this case the physics behind one version is Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. My hero. That is not an assumed premise.

As for the nomenclature, it is incidental rely, God or Zues doesn't matter what name you use.

Yes, William Lane Craig relies heavily on the metaphysical, however, he reaches all of his conclusions using his vast amount of knowledge in physiological experiences. Reasoning is a very important tool to explain our world. Science use it all the time. It is a good deductive simulator to give clarity and reason to the very extraordinary world that we live in.



In the world that we live in, everything has a beginning and an end. Entropy tells us the the universe will have an end and the cosmological model tells us that the universe had a beginning. If there is no example that can demonstrate that eternity is normalising then we have to assume that it is supernatural, unexplained by natural phenomenon. If there is anything that is eternal then we don't know about it and cannot explain it.



Once again, you can only reason things out with the knowledge you have. In our naturalistic world there is nothing that can explain certain phenomenon with any of the knowledge we have. Rapid expansion being one. But based on the naturalistic laws we have everything that has come into existence has had a cause, that must follow that if it is eternal then it could not have had a beginning which means it is not caused. Anything else suggests that it is possible to take a live rabbit out of a magicians hat, so a universe coming into distance without a cause is outside of our understanding, which is fine as long as we all accept that if the universe can come into existence without a cause then why not a motorcycle, a house, or a tree.
,





Surveys a polls are not scientific. You are give a target and you device a method to analyse it.

It uses infinity from the argument i found on wikipedia about contemporary uses of Kalam. It is commonly used by people like William Lane Craig.

"
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
"


"In the world that we live in, everything has a beginning and an end. Entropy tells us the the universe will have an end and the cosmological model tells us that the universe had a beginning."

Actually most scientific theories now point towards inflation.

CHeck the wikipedia article since I am not able to post links yet.

One of the consequences of inflation, and the predictions from it, are multiple universes, and or multiple timelines. In this case, inflation would have been past eternal--an ongoing process that spawns universes to infinity. If God doesn't need a beginning or an end, then why should we assume that some physical things cannot have an end or beginning?

"Surveys a polls are not scientific. You are give a target and you device a method to analyse it."


Well I think survey polls are scientific, but for a different set a scientific questions. I think that religion was important for the evolution of our species. It probably became a favored trait among humans because it was the first attempt to create and justify law, education, and society in general. Those early humans who practiced religion were more likely to have a better, more moral/advanced community,which contributed to that societies' survival. The poll would show what kind of factors contribute to someone being religious, which could provide evidence for a scientific question.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm confrontational?
Well, that's a new one!
Learn something new every day.

And if you're going to put me on ignore, at least be polite enough to get my name right!
Awkward Figures indeed...RUDE!

 

[Serenity7855]

It uses infinity from the argument i found on wikipedia about contemporary uses of Kalam. It is commonly used by people like William Lane Craig.

"
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

No, it uses infinity to argue something that we already know. I don't know why William Lane Craig uses the infinity fallacy to prove that the universe had a beginning. The cosmological model does a far better job of it. Infinity is a metaphysical concept though, I just do not see why it was necessary to use.

"In the world that we live in, everything has a beginning and an end. Entropy tells us the the universe will have an end and the cosmological model tells us that the universe had a beginning."

Actually most scientific theories now point towards inflation.

CHeck the wikipedia article since I am not able to post links yet.

No, that is not true. It is a scientific consideration but the big bang is still, very much, the main contender.

One of the consequences of inflation, and the predictions from it, are multiple universes, and or multiple timelines. In this case, inflation would have been past eternal--an ongoing process that spawns universes to infinity. If God doesn't need a beginning or an end, then why should we assume that some physical things cannot have an end or beginning?

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying other then if you are going to put forward anecdotal evidence then you should be prepared to accept anecdotal evidence like God.

"Surveys a polls are not scientific. You are give a target and you device a method to analyse it."

Well I think survey polls are scientific, but for a different set a scientific questions. I think that religion was important for the evolution of our species. It probably became a favored trait among humans because it was the first attempt to create and justify law, education, and society in general. Those early humans who practiced religion were more likely to have a better, more moral/advanced community,which contributed to that societies' survival. The poll would show what kind of factors contribute to someone being religious, which could provide evidence for a scientific question.[/QUOTE]

True.

 

[Serenity7855]

I am aware of some of the things you believe, hence my questions regarding the things you have said you believe. You do not represent all or even most Christians, judging from my own personal experience with them and from my experience being one.

In what areas am I different?

Regardless of whether or not I believe the same things as you, you are still portraying yourself as someone who thinks babies can be wicked - whether that entails being possessed by demons or any other unsubstantiated belief you may have about it. I'm sorry but that's the kind of thing I have a moral problem with. If you can convince yourself and others that babies can be wicked, you are starting down a very dangerous path indeed. A path where mothers kill their own children because they think they are possessed by the devil or because they think that's what god wants. This kind of thing actually happens. This kind of thinking makes it far too easy to carry out terrible acts against our fellow human beings. Would the Inquisition have happened if people didn't think they were carrying out god's works? I don't know but it makes it easier to do such things if you think you've got the big guy in the sky on your side.

What did you expect God to do with all those devil possessed babies?. I do not know how many there were but what do you do with thousands of babies who needs nurture and care when you cannot intervene. How do you get them fed. Do you just allow them to starve and die in horrible circumstances. That is as bad as thinking that God influences people to kill babies or blaming God for the thoughts of men. Have you thought this through? Would a universal law take that into consideration and take the babies straight to heaven or would it leave them lying on the floor rotting in pain. I go with the former. What about you?

You are clearly confusing the act of murder with destruction. Laws of the universe determine the fate of a population that becomes that wicked. It is an event not a series of random events involving human beings on human beings. You are indicting me with having a desire to kill children based on the wickedness of mankind. Quite an accusation.

Let me tell you that schizophrenics will hear voices telling them to kill even if God was not known. You are now blaming mental illnesses on the choice to believe in God. Man has free agency to act as he sees fit. You cannot blame the free agency of Man on God.

The Bible has many examples of tribes pillaging and murdering neighbouring tribes because they think that's what their god wanted them to do. To me, it's obvious they're just trying to justify their own terrible actions that they wanted to carry out anyway.

That is just not true. Even if it were true, what does that have to do with anything. Is God responsible for the very thoughts of mankind. Men are responsible for their own actions.

See, I have this thing where I want to believe things that are actually true and verifiable. That's why I ask the questions I do.

Hmm. That is sad because you will miss out on so much because somethings are true but just not verifiable, like the big bang and rapid expansion. How do you think we got here?

 

[ruffen]

How so.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on two highly questionable premises, so although it is logically coherent, the conclusion is questionable too.

And even if the conclusion is correct, it is useless, because it tells us nothing about the existence of any deity or anything like that. It then only asserts that the Universe coming into existence was caused by something.

So what?

 

[serp777]

No, it uses infinity to argue something that we already know. I don't know why William Lane Craig uses the infinity fallacy to prove that the universe had a beginning. The cosmological model does a far better job of it. Infinity is a metaphysical concept though, I just do not see why it was necessary to use.




No, that is not true. It is a scientific consideration but the big bang is still, very much, the main contender.



There is nothing wrong with what you are saying other then if you are going to put forward anecdotal evidence then you should be prepared to accept anecdotal evidence like God.




Well I think survey polls are scientific, but for a different set a scientific questions. I think that religion was important for the evolution of our species. It probably became a favored trait among humans because it was the first attempt to create and justify law, education, and society in general. Those early humans who practiced religion were more likely to have a better, more moral/advanced community,which contributed to that societies' survival. The poll would show what kind of factors contribute to someone being religious, which could provide evidence for a scientific question.

True.[/QUOTE]

"No, that is not true. It is a scientific consideration but the big bang is still, very much, the main contender.

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying other then if you are going to put forward anecdotal evidence then you should be prepared to accept anecdotal evidence like God. "

Not meaning to be rude, and no offense, but this is an ignorant statement, similar to those statements from creationists that would say equally ignorant things about evolution. Inflation is the explanation for why the big bang did not collapse back into a singularity when gravity emerged. Inflation is what initially caused space to expand faster than the speed of light after the big bang.

It's not just anecdotal evidence like God. I did not invent inflation like people invent God, although i'd be happy to get my nobel prize for inventing one of the greatest physics discoveries. There is a truckload of evidence that religion could not hope to compete with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

"Inflation explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[6] Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed."

And

"While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation.[7][8]"

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Eternal inflation is predicted by many different models of cosmic inflation. MIT professor Alan H. Guth proposed an inflation model involving a "false vacuum" phase with positive vacuum energy. Parts of the universe in that phase inflate, and only occasionally decay to lower-energy, non-inflating phases or the ground state. In chaotic inflation, proposed by physicist Andrei Linde, the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate."

Alan Guth originally discovered inflation. So no, this is the exact opposite of anecdotal evidence. This is cold, hard science.

 

[Serenity7855]

True.

"No, that is not true. It is a scientific consideration but the big bang is still, very much, the main contender.

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying other then if you are going to put forward anecdotal evidence then you should be prepared to accept anecdotal evidence like God. "

Not meaning to be rude, and no offense, but this is an ignorant statement, similar to those statements from creationists that would say equally ignorant things about evolution. Inflation is the explanation for why the big bang did not collapse back into a singularity when gravity emerged. Inflation is what initially caused space to expand faster than the speed of light after the big bang.

Not meaning to be rude, and no offense, (which always means that is what you are going to be.) but this appears to be wrong, similar to those statements from creationists that would say equally ignorant things about evolution.(NOT REALLY REQUIRED, I am not a creationist) . Inflation is the explanation for why the big bang did not collapse back into a singularity when gravity emerged. Inflation is what initially caused space to expand faster than the speed of light after the big bang.

That is saying it without purposely insulting you opponent.

NO, not so. You are reading from wiki, a very spurious site at best, but you are not understanding what is being written, notice that I did actually call you ignorant but I did not use the actual word to deliver an abrasive remark. The widely-accepted theory of cosmic inflation states that our universe expanded rapidly in the moments after its birth, resulting in the immense expanse we see today. There is a difference between rapid inflation and expansion. Expansion is what is happening now and inflation happened in a fraction of a second after the big bang. Cosmic inflation explains why the universe is billions of years old, as well as why the universe is nearly flat.

It's not just anecdotal evidence like God. I did not invent inflation like people invent God, although i'd be happy to get my nobel prize for inventing one of the greatest physics discoveries. There is a truckload of evidence that religion could not hope to compete with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Inflation was not invented, any more then God was, dam, you atheists just cannot be polite can you, it happened. It is not an invention. Why did you find it necessary to say "like people invent God", when you are conversing with a Christian. Do you not know that it would be met with contempt and that it is offensive and rude. Atheists are so confrontational born out of the fact that they cannot prove God does not exist.

"Inflation explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[6] Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed."

And

"While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation.[7][8]"

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what do you think you are saying that I would disagree with. I agree with all of this so what are you trying to say.

"Eternal inflation is predicted by many different models of cosmic inflation. MIT professor Alan H. Guth proposed an inflation model involving a "false vacuum" phase with positive vacuum energy. Parts of the universe in that phase inflate, and only occasionally decay to lower-energy, non-inflating phases or the ground state. In chaotic inflation, proposed by physicist Andrei Linde, the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate."

Alan Guth originally discovered inflation. So no, this is the exact opposite of anecdotal evidence. This is cold, hard science.

Once again you are cutting and pasting something that I would hope that Christians and atheists would agree with. You need to be more specific in what you are saying and less denigrating in the way you are saying it. It is not a pre-requisite of being an atheist, to be obnoxious, but I am sure that following this your replies will become even more odious. Amicable debate never lasts when your opponent is an atheist. .

 

[AlphaAlex115]

If god exists then how come mh17 was allowed to crash? And how come Jesus was not immortal and died needlessly?

 

[serp777]

"No, that is not true. It is a scientific consideration but the big bang is still, very much, the main contender.

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying other then if you are going to put forward anecdotal evidence then you should be prepared to accept anecdotal evidence like God. "



Not meaning to be rude, and no offense, (which always means that is what you are going to be.) but this appears to be wrong, similar to those statements from creationists that would say equally ignorant things about evolution.(NOT REALLY REQUIRED, I am not a creationist) . Inflation is the explanation for why the big bang did not collapse back into a singularity when gravity emerged. Inflation is what initially caused space to expand faster than the speed of light after the big bang.

That is saying it without purposely insulting you opponent.

NO, not so. You are reading from wiki, a very spurious site at best, but you are not understanding what is being written, notice that I did actually call you ignorant but I did not use the actual word to deliver an abrasive remark. The widely-accepted theory of cosmic inflation states that our universe expanded rapidly in the moments after its birth, resulting in the immense expanse we see today. There is a difference between rapid inflation and expansion. Expansion is what is happening now and inflation happened in a fraction of a second after the big bang. Cosmic inflation explains why the universe is billions of years old, as well as why the universe is nearly flat.



Inflation was not invented, any more then God was, dam, you atheists just cannot be polite can you, it happened. It is not an invention. Why did you find it necessary to say "like people invent God", when you are conversing with a Christian. Do you not know that it would be met with contempt and that it is offensive and rude. Atheists are so confrontational born out of the fact that they cannot prove God does not exist.



But what do you think you are saying that I would disagree with. I agree with all of this so what are you trying to say.



Once again you are cutting and pasting something that I would hope that Christians and atheists would agree with. You need to be more specific in what you are saying and less denigrating in the way you are saying it. It is not a pre-requisite of being an atheist, to be obnoxious, but I am sure that following this your replies will become even more odious. Amicable debate never lasts when your opponent is an atheist. .

"I did not use the actual word to deliver an abrasive remark"

The point is the same regardless. I can read between the lines. I just don't make it a big deal. We are all ignorant about somethings, which is why I tried to make it explicitly clear my goal wasn't to be offensive. I was just saying your statement that my claim was an anecdotal claim was just plain false. Ignorance is not inherently bad though nor insulting but many people assume it is for some reason.

"There is a difference between rapid inflation and expansion."

Maybe, although they are broadly similar to each other and there could be a correlation between inflation and current expansion. At some point, because expansion is accelerating, it's possible that the magnitude of expansion will become equivalent to inflation. They could be different forms of the same thing. This is a pure guess though.

"The widely-accepted theory of cosmic inflation states that our universe expanded rapidly in the moments after its birth, resulting in the immense expanse we see today."
You just made the same error i did though. The universe did not expand rapidly in the moments after its birth; the universe inflated at the same time the big bang occurred.

"You are reading from wiki, a very spurious site at best"

Well wikipedia is usually pretty reliable. I can find other sites which say the exact same thing if you wish. Most people accept wikipedia as mostly accurate on important topics. At least the summaries are relatively close at worst.

"Why did you find it necessary to say "like people invent God""
Because people have made thousands of different versions of God, or Gods. At least some of those versions of God and Gods have to be invented, assuming one of them is correct, since not all of them can be true, and many of them are mutually exclusive. People have invented Gods all the time, and this thread is about evidence for God.

But you're correct about inflation--it was discovered, not invented.

"But what do you think you are saying that I would disagree with. I agree with all of this so what are you trying to say. "

My original point, and our original discussion, was that some physical things need not be limited to the realm of the finite. It's possible some physical things are eternal and infinite like God. Eternal inflation would seem to suggest this, and would support the multiverse. But also, the point is that if God can be eternal and be the uncaused cause, then why can't the multiverse or other physical entities? There is more evidence for eternal inflation than there is for God at this point.

"I am sure that following this your replies will become even more odious"
Many religious people tend to be offended very easily. Anything that remotely challenges religion or suggests it is factually incorrect is immediately labelled as obnoxious, abrasive, and or aggressive. Athiests are simply stepping on glass here.

 

[Serenity7855]

If god exists then how come mh17 was allowed to crash? And how come Jesus was not immortal and died needlessly?

Because God cannot intervene.

Jesus died so that we could live,. If he was immortal then he wouldn't have died and the whole point of are existence would be a sham.

 

[AlphaAlex115]

If god cant intervene then what was the point of jesus dying exactly?

 

[serp777]

Because God cannot intervene.

Jesus died so that we could live,. If he was immortal then he wouldn't have died and the whole point of are existence would be a sham.

Well God can intervene. He has infinite power and can do whatever he wants. He just doesn't want to for whatever reason.

So then the point of his existence was to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to forgive us from himself, in order to save us from himself?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, William Lane Craig relies heavily on the metaphysical, however, he reaches all of his conclusions using his vast amount of knowledge in physiological experiences.

Wow. He has a vast amount of knowledge in physiological experiences. He's smoking reefers with amoebas?

My point is, that your claim just doesn't make sense.

Physiology is the study of living organisms, like chemical and physical functions of an amoeba. The "experiences" of the chemical reactions in an organisms are just natural effects. That WLC has knowledge about these experiences of the functions of the biological organisms makes me really wonder if he's a philosopher or some biologist-mystic?

Here's a definition of "physiology" on Wikipedia:

Physiology (/ˌfɪziˈɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek φύσις (physis), meaning "nature, origin", and -λογία (-logia), meaning "study of"[1]) is the scientific study of function in living systems.[2] A sub-discipline of biology, its focus is in how organisms, organ systems, organs, cells, and bio-molecules carry out the chemical or physical functions that exist in a living system.[3] Given the size of the field it is divided into, among others: human physiology, animal physiology, plant physiology, cellular physiology, microbial physiology (see microbial metabolism), bacterial physiology, viral physiology.[3]

Do you still think the chemical and physical functions of the liver has an experience and that WLC has a enormous knowledge about the liver function's experiences?

 

[Serenity7855]

"I did not use the actual word to deliver an abrasive remark

But the word is an abrasive word so the recipient is bound to take it abrasively.

The point is the same regardless. I can read between the lines. I just don't make it a big deal. We are all ignorant about somethings, which is why I tried to make it explicitly clear my goal wasn't to be offensive. I was just saying your statement that my claim was an anecdotal claim was just plain false. Ignorance is not inherently bad though nor insulting but many people assume it is for some reason.

You said this

One of the consequences of inflation, and the predictions from it, are multiple universes, and or multiple timelines. In this case, inflation would have been past eternal--an ongoing process that spawns universes to infinity. If God doesn't need a beginning or an end, then why should we assume that some physical things cannot have an end or beginning?

To be fair, multi-verses, multiple timelines, infinity, and past eternal are all viable concepts but they are also all anecdotal, or maybe I should have said metaphysical or without real evidence. That does not warrant the label of ignorance.

"There is a difference between rapid inflation and expansion."

Maybe, although they are broadly similar to each other and there could be a correlation between inflation and current expansion. At some point, because expansion is accelerating, it's possible that the magnitude of expansion will become equivalent to inflation. They could be different forms of the same thing. This is a pure guess though.

I am not going to argue with you. It is all sound reasoning to me.

"The widely-accepted theory of cosmic inflation states that our universe expanded rapidly in the moments after its birth, resulting in the immense expanse we see today."

You just made the same error i did though. The universe did not expand rapidly in the moments after its birth; the universe inflated at the same time the big bang occurred.

Yes, I did.

"You are reading from wiki, a very spurious site at best"

Well wikipedia is usually pretty reliable. I can find other sites which say the exact same thing if you wish. Most people accept wikipedia as mostly accurate on important topics. At least the summaries are relatively close at worst.

I use Wiki myself but I am very aware of who writes it.

"Why did you find it necessary to say "like people invent God""
Because people have made thousands of different versions of God, or Gods. At least some of those versions of God and Gods have to be invented, assuming one of them is correct, since not all of them can be true, and many of them are mutually exclusive. People have invented Gods all the time, and this thread is about evidence for God.

That maybe true, however, you had a choice to write it or not to write it. You wrote it. It didn't need to be said. Nothing in the discussion warranted it, indeed, it took away from the discussion because here we are discussing I instead. It just stifles debate and I was kinda hoping that you were a little different because your disagreements with me were polite.

"But what do you think you are saying that I would disagree with. I agree with all of this so what are you trying to say. "

My original point, and our original discussion, was that some physical things need not be limited to the realm of the finite. It's possible some physical things are eternal and infinite like God. Eternal inflation would seem to suggest this, and would support the multiverse. But also, the point is that if God can be eternal and be the uncaused cause, then why can't the multiverse or other physical entities? There is more evidence for eternal inflation than there is for God at this point.

How do you determine that something is eternal when your in it. How is it possible when it neither has a beginning or an end. How can a physical thing be eternal because if it is physical it will occupy space and have mass and energy all existing in time. Prior to the big bang, none of these things existed. They all came into being when the universe came into being, therefore, they are finite. God is eternal because he existed before the big bang, as did we.

There is more evidence for eternal inflation than there is for God at this point.

Well, there is no evidence for either so I guess you are right.

"I am sure that following this your replies will become even more odious"

Many religious people tend to be offended very easily. Anything that remotely challenges religion or suggests it is factually incorrect is immediately labelled as obnoxious, abrasive, and or aggressive. Athiests are simply stepping on glass here.

If you knock anybodies belief system, whether it be religion or antiques collecting or race car enthusiasm, you will not get a positive response. You can disagree with religion without being hostile. Sadly, it is a known fact that anti-theists are very angry people. The internet is full of blogs on it.

You have to remember that our religion is none of your business, and I am not being offensive, but it just isn't. You are coming into our arena and criticising our beliefs, which is fine, I do not mind, I like to be challenged, but at least do it respectfully and without malice. Surely that is not too much to ask?

 

[Serenity7855]

Well God can intervene. He has infinite power and can do whatever he wants. He just doesn't want to for whatever reason.

No, God cannot intervene because if he does we no longer have free agency. With all due respect, this has already been done, twice.

So then the point of his existence was to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to forgive us from himself, in order to save us from himself?

God has never sacrificed himself.

 

[serp777]

No, God cannot intervene because if he does we no longer have free agency. With all due respect, this has already been done, twice.



God has never sacrificed himself.

But we already have no choice but to have free will.

" God cannot intervene because if he does we no longer have free agency."
Then he voided that with jesus. God intervened by sending down Jesus, thus by your logic we have no free will. Also how does God intervening mean that free will suddenly and mysteriously vanishes without explanation? God is powerful enough to suspend free will, and then restart it, unless you're saying he's not all powerful. I don't see how intervention means no free will anyways.

"God has never sacrificed himself"

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”