Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Is there really such thing as a beginning?

imperialchimp
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:48:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Correlation is not causation.
Simply because turning on your computer preceded the typing of your post does not mean one caused the other.
Anyone could have turned your computer on.
It is not true that every single event that precedes another event is the cause.
Your post had a beginning, that was a thought in your mind. That may have happened a week ago, that did cause you to turn on your computer. It may have happened after you turned the computer on.

Intentional actions by actors begin in the mind.
It can be argued that unintentional actions, particularly by inanimate objects, have an infinitely regressive chain of events. That is, no actual first cause.

I do not see how one can say 'God can not be the first cause, because something had to cause God. On the other hand, the cosmos probably had no first cause, and probably existed forever.'
It seems to me what may apply to the cosmos, could as easily apply to God, in the case of first causes versus eternal existence.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 4:06:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:48:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Correlation is not causation.
Simply because turning on your computer preceded the typing of your post does not mean one caused the other.
Anyone could have turned your computer on.
It is not true that every single event that precedes another event is the cause.
Your post had a beginning, that was a thought in your mind. That may have happened a week ago, that did cause you to turn on your computer. It may have happened after you turned the computer on.

Intentional actions by actors begin in the mind.
It can be argued that unintentional actions, particularly by inanimate objects, have an infinitely regressive chain of events. That is, no actual first cause.

I do not see how one can say 'God can not be the first cause, because something had to cause God. On the other hand, the cosmos probably had no first cause, and probably existed forever.'
It seems to me what may apply to the cosmos, could as easily apply to God, in the case of first causes versus eternal existence.

Would you say that God caused/created the universe?
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 4:17:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.


It would be impossible to progress to any time.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

It makes sense, if not logically then at least experientally. It's like how you can't tell how much time is passing while you sleep.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 10:50:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 4:06:20 AM, difference wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:48:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Correlation is not causation.
Simply because turning on your computer preceded the typing of your post does not mean one caused the other.
Anyone could have turned your computer on.
It is not true that every single event that precedes another event is the cause.
Your post had a beginning, that was a thought in your mind. That may have happened a week ago, that did cause you to turn on your computer. It may have happened after you turned the computer on.

Intentional actions by actors begin in the mind.
It can be argued that unintentional actions, particularly by inanimate objects, have an infinitely regressive chain of events. That is, no actual first cause.

I do not see how one can say 'God can not be the first cause, because something had to cause God. On the other hand, the cosmos probably had no first cause, and probably existed forever.'
It seems to me what may apply to the cosmos, could as easily apply to God, in the case of first causes versus eternal existence.

Would you say that God caused/created the universe?

It matters not.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 3:16:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

Hence if you are right our universe must have a beginning.

What does that imply for God? It seems it isn't possible for him to exist before a beginning, since by definition there can be no time before the beginning.
How can one say he created the universe?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 3:16:39 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

Hence if you are right our universe must have a beginning.

What does that imply for God? It seems it isn't possible for him to exist before a beginning, since by definition there can be no time before the beginning.
How can one say he created the universe?
Well, if God exists outside of time and space, problem solved.
As I understand them, all of the classical definitions say God is outside of time and space, so this is hardly a novel concept.

The tougher questioned would be, how could God create the universe if constrained by Time and Space.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 3:27:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Why must God exist before the Big Bang? One would assume that an omnipotent being would have the ability to go back in time and create everything even if that being only comes into existence in the distant future. Point in case, to our distant cave dwelling ancestors we would appear Godlike with our current abilities. Can you convincingly argue that evolution will not result in God like beings? (At least in our perception of them.) I think not.
imperialchimp
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 7:25:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 3:27:26 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Why must God exist before the Big Bang? One would assume that an omnipotent being would have the ability to go back in time and create everything even if that being only comes into existence in the distant future. Point in case, to our distant cave dwelling ancestors we would appear Godlike with our current abilities. Can you convincingly argue that evolution will not result in God like beings? (At least in our perception of them.) I think not.

Of course not. You are giving me a situation where more "complex" descendants of humans will always be god-like to us. I'm sure everyone today will call the descendants of humans god-like if the average IQ is 300. Though, there are many atheists that won't consider the descendants of humans gods.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 7:52:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 7:25:18 PM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 5/15/2016 3:27:26 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Why must God exist before the Big Bang? One would assume that an omnipotent being would have the ability to go back in time and create everything even if that being only comes into existence in the distant future. Point in case, to our distant cave dwelling ancestors we would appear Godlike with our current abilities. Can you convincingly argue that evolution will not result in God like beings? (At least in our perception of them.) I think not.

Of course not. You are giving me a situation where more "complex" descendants of humans will always be god-like to us. I'm sure everyone today will call the descendants of humans god-like if the average IQ is 300. Though, there are many atheists that won't consider the descendants of humans gods.

I guess it all boils down to ones definition of God. Could the descendants of mankind one day have the ability to create the universe? To know everything? To be eternal?
It's not impossible.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 11:47:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:48:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Correlation is not causation.
Simply because turning on your computer preceded the typing of your post does not mean one caused the other.
Anyone could have turned your computer on.
It is not true that every single event that precedes another event is the cause.
Your post had a beginning, that was a thought in your mind. That may have happened a week ago, that did cause you to turn on your computer. It may have happened after you turned the computer on.

Intentional actions by actors begin in the mind.
It can be argued that unintentional actions, particularly by inanimate objects, have an infinitely regressive chain of events. That is, no actual first cause.

I do not see how one can say 'God can not be the first cause, because something had to cause God. On the other hand, the cosmos probably had no first cause, and probably existed forever.'
It seems to me what may apply to the cosmos, could as easily apply to God, in the case of first causes versus eternal existence.
So much for Newtons law of motion. You really should be published don't ya think?
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:11:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe. : :

There was a beginning to the world's we perceive with our created senses but beyond that, we don't know who created our creator. All we can do is guess.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 1:15:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 10:50:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
All things are possible, in Science at least.
Only a few of them are probable.

If all things are possible, then God exists.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 3:19:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:15:44 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 10:50:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
All things are possible, in Science at least.
Only a few of them are probable.

If all things are possible, then God exists.
You need to brush up on your reading for comprehension skills.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 11:14:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 3:16:39 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

Hence if you are right our universe must have a beginning.

What does that imply for God? It seems it isn't possible for him to exist before a beginning, since by definition there can be no time before the beginning.
How can one say he created the universe?
Why do you argue God as if he is man? Man is limited to time, not God. Time is in your mind as a person who lacks wisdom that is at the level of Gods. Therefore claiming your level of wisdom in regards to time must equal Gods means you are arguing man is God. Straw man plain and simple.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 11:19:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.
As far as I'm concerned this isn't coherent intelligence it is just a monkey that's smarter than a dog but less intelligent than a God. When you can explain anything in which you demonstrate a level of wisdom equal to Gods, then you'll be typing a thought. Until then , you merely believe your thoughts are equivalent to actual thoughts. At least I used to thought that.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 11:42:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 11:14:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:16:39 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

Hence if you are right our universe must have a beginning.

What does that imply for God? It seems it isn't possible for him to exist before a beginning, since by definition there can be no time before the beginning.
How can one say he created the universe?
Why do you argue God as if he is man? Man is limited to time, not God. Time is in your mind as a person who lacks wisdom that is at the level of Gods. Therefore claiming your level of wisdom in regards to time must equal Gods means you are arguing man is God. Straw man plain and simple.

It is indeed a straw man to say I am arguing man is God, simply because I haven't even argued anything so far. I have only asked questions.

If you think you understand God then please explain to me if God existed before the beginning of the universe. I have never thought about this before, I am asking you an honest question and I would appreciate an honest answer instead of the rhetorical tactic of claiming "straw man".
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 12:19:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 11:42:44 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/18/2016 11:14:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:16:39 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:50:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Logically, you can't traverse an infinite, if there was no beginning then there would necessarily be an infinite temporal regress, and with an infinite temporal regress, it would be impossible to have progressed to the present.

So "there is no beginning" doesn't make sense either.

Hence if you are right our universe must have a beginning.

What does that imply for God? It seems it isn't possible for him to exist before a beginning, since by definition there can be no time before the beginning.
How can one say he created the universe?
"By definition (yours as a human limited by your wisdom) there can be no time......
Here is where you made an argument. You claimed there can be no time before the beginning, therefore claiming humanities wisdom in regards to time must apply to God. Which by definition is you claiming God understands time your way and is limited to the time you are currently aware of via your limited wisdom. Hence, Mans wisdom in regards to time is Gods wisdom.
Your "how can one say he created the universe" is easy to answer. He could because your wisdom is insufficient to argue what God is limited by, namely your idea of time.
Why do you argue God as if he is man? Man is limited to time, not God. Time is in your mind as a person who lacks wisdom that is at the level of Gods. Therefore claiming your level of wisdom in regards to time must equal Gods means you are arguing man is God. Straw man plain and simple.

It is indeed a straw man to say I am arguing man is God, simply because I haven't even argued anything so far. I have only asked questions.

If you think you understand God then please explain to me if God existed before the beginning of the universe. I have never thought about this before, I am asking you an honest question and I would appreciate an honest answer instead of the rhetorical tactic of claiming "straw man". .
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 6:35:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 6:47:32 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Aquinas (in his argument from motion) said that there had to be a first mover. I disagree with this because there had to be something before god. If not, then god just popped out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong about Aquinas.

Think about it. I wanted to type this post. I started to type this post. BUT before i typed this post, I had to turn on my computer and before that it had to be made. This must keep continuing, just like a number line. The numbers will never end including the negative #.

Basically, it wouldn't make sense of the universe started out of nothing. Therefore there is no beginning of everything, which is the universe.

Given: Something has always existed.

Given: The universe has not always existed (science tells us).

Given: God, if He exists, has always existed (by definition).

Conclusion: God exists.

Monkey-brained Atheist Conclusion: God does not exist and the Universe has always existed.
rocket
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:22:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 6:35:07 PM, Rukado wrote:
Given: Something has always existed.

Given: The universe has not always existed (science tells us).

Given: God, if He exists, has always existed (by definition).

Conclusion: God exists.

Your argument is of the form:

1. There exists a thing with property A (A being the property of having always existed)
2. X exists and does not have property A (The universe, which is known to exist, does not have property A)
3. If Y exists, Y has property A (If God exists, he has property A)
4. Therefore, Y exists (God exists)

So using your logic, I could say:

There exists something with a red hat
My dog does not have a red hat
If Santa Claus exists, he has a red hat
Therefore, Santa Claus exists

Do you see why your reasoning is fallacious? Think it over for a bit.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 3:58:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:22:52 AM, rocket wrote:
So using your logic, I could say:

There exists something with a red hat
My dog does not have a red hat
If Santa Claus exists, he has a red hat
Therefore, Santa Claus exists

Do you see why your reasoning is fallacious? Think it over for a bit.

You're faulting my logic for not being air-tight, but you're not faulting the Atheist OP logic for being @ss-backwards?

For my logic is air-tight to the degree that God and the Universe are the only two options.