Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Two options exist: Which one will you pick?

 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PMPosted: 3 years agoOption 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. -------WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?
 Posts: 345 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 2:13:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoOption CThe Universe was created by Us in our far future when we learned how to do it. The time line for the power of God to create a Universe could theoretically be calculated by the logic of historical advances in human acquisition of knowledge and technical powers. Once we reach the Krell Machine level, i.e. the ability to turn thought into matter, well, we will have arrived at Godhood. And we did. This is a done deal where we play out our roles exactly like characters on a movie tape, disc, chip, molecule, atom, Big Bang Programmed Creation. Here and there We sent back angels to tell prophets about this system. It's the Jacob's Ladder system only in time and space. I am telling you now because I learned it from Ariel, the Angel of Peace, who was taught it from the Elohim, led by EL Elyon, God Most High, in our Judeo-Christian symbolism system.
 Posts: 2,649 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?What about quantum field fluctuations?
 Posts: 5,135 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 3:31:16 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. -------How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space. And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy."If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
 Posts: 3,880 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 4:20:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoOption 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.-------Personally: Either, I don't really care what the cause is. Could be 1 or 2, just don't know, will be interesting to find out. Could be neither too, it isn't logically incoherent for there to be other options.My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.Ok...If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?Depends by what you mean by physical. If physical reality is defined by what is contained by classical spacetime then it would obviously be a non-physical explanation.But this assumes that the PSR and causality hold in the same manner beyond that point, which it clearly doesn't. Especially when outside spacetime. Sean carroll satirised this, which I will paraphrase:"Asking what the cause of spacetime is is akin to taking a photo with your iphone and asking 'where does the film go?'"It's just a meaningless question....But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?No. First 'pre existence' in the absense of time is a nonsensical statement. And secondly you have all sorts of weird effects, such as reterocausality, self-determinicity, entropy and spontaneity, as well as an unbound potential/lack of potential. Weird stuff happening seems plausible.Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?No it doesn't.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p
 Posts: 37 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 4:21:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoMy epic ness created you azzhats. I'm the best around.
 Posts: 1,465 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 4:23:33 PMPosted: 3 years agoOr the universe never began to exist in the first place.404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution. Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
 Posts: 551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 4:36:42 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.If we go under the view of most religions (one universe), this cannot be. SNP1 pointed it out in your debate.1) Cause and effect happen in time.2) Time did not exist before the big bang.3) There was no time before the big bang,4) The big bang did not have a cause.You tried the following argument:(1) Causes must precede their effects in time(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)(3) Time began.(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.(7) Therefore, theism is logical.Let us look at this CAREFULLY.Premise 1 and 4 contradict each other. Since you have 2 faulty premises, your argument is flawed.If we go under the view of my religion (there might be a couple others out there) there is a multiverse, in which case an earlier universe's beings could cause the new universe.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. Define absolute nothing.-------WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.I will address this the way I would when I was an atheist.If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal.Time, as we understand it, did not exist, but we can say that imaginary time did. Think of time as the x-axis, imaginary time is the y-axis. There is an endless amount of it, but it does not stop time from moving forward.Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity?Infinity is not a number. Because of this you cannot say "infinity + 1000", that is an illogical statement.No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.Unless we look at imaginary time as the infinite time.If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?This is a flawed argument. Everything WITHIN the universe has come into existence ex materia (as far as we know), but that does not mean that the universe must, especially when science shows that it was ex nihilo.http://journalofcosmology.com...The universe is the only thing that came from nothing.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?If there is only one universe, there cannot be a transcendent cause. If there is a multiverse, there can be, HOWEVER, if there is a multiverse it is actually more beneficial for the atheist arguments.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 4:56:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?What about quantum field fluctuations?Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.
 Posts: 2,649 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 5:11:49 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 4:56:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?What about quantum field fluctuations?Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.Quantum fields are suggested to have existed forever themselves.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 7:26:44 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 3:31:16 PM, Beastt wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. -------How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.False. The Big Bang theory claims that the beginning of every physical thing was created in the instance of the big bang. No claim is made to know what might've caused it.The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.No claim like that was ever made. Show me where I've ever said that everything must've come from nothing if you don't believe in God. In the beginning of this topic I have two options, one of which contradicts exactly what you're proposing is the only option I've given.The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space. And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.Energy requires space in order to exist. Space, or more correctly "space-time" was created in the instance of the Big Bang according to Stephen Hawking. Please link me the pertinent objective evidence showing that pre-existing energy is responsible for the big bang. In addition, this would not require a "third option" because option 1 covers an eternally existing thing, whether it be energy or something else.Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.Regurgitated rhetoric.The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy.So you mean option 1 right? That's the option referring to something that has always eternally existed.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 7:37:34 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 4:23:33 PM, n7 wrote:Or the universe never began to exist in the first place.Then that's option 1... Despite the evidence for the Big Bang, you're free to believe that.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 7:38:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 5:11:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:At 7/15/2014 4:56:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?What about quantum field fluctuations?Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.Quantum fields are suggested to have existed forever themselves.Quantum fields still require emerging from an eternally existing substance or from nothing...
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 7:59:10 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 3:31:16 PM, Beastt wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. -------How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space.Mass and Energy through all observations state both need space.YOU HAVE absolutely no evidence to support this claim.Energy needs space to exist.Blatant Lies = 1 and counting now.And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2014 8:09:35 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/15/2014 4:36:42 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.If we go under the view of most religions (one universe), this cannot be. SNP1 pointed it out in your debate.1) Cause and effect happen in time.2) Time did not exist before the big bang.3) There was no time before the big bang,4) The big bang did not have a cause.I reject p1. Antithesis to 4 I reword, "What changed to produce the Big Bang?"You tried the following argument:(1) Causes must precede their effects in time(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)(3) Time began.(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.(7) Therefore, theism is logical.Let us look at this CAREFULLY.Premise 1 and 4 contradict each other. Since you have 2 faulty premises, your argument is flawed.If we go under the view of my religion (there might be a couple others out there) there is a multiverse, in which case an earlier universe's beings could cause the new universe.Unprovable and unfalsifiable. At least God has some physical evidence of an interaction.OROption 2: Everything came from absolute nothing. Define absolute nothing.-------WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.I will address this the way I would when I was an atheist.If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal.Time, as we understand it, did not exist, but we can say that imaginary time did. Think of time as the x-axis, imaginary time is the y-axis. There is an endless amount of it, but it does not stop time from moving forward.Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity?Infinity is not a number. Because of this you cannot say "infinity + 1000", that is an illogical statement.No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.Unless we look at imaginary time as the infinite time.If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?This is a flawed argument. Everything WITHIN the universe has come into existence ex materia (as far as we know), but that does not mean that the universe must, especially when science shows that it was ex nihilo.http://journalofcosmology.com...The universe is the only thing that came from nothing.Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?If there is only one universe, there cannot be a transcendent cause. If there is a multiverse, there can be, HOWEVER, if there is a multiverse it is actually more beneficial for the atheist arguments.