Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Irrefutable Evidence For God

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless,
There is absolutely no evidence for anything "outside of the universe". It's a false concept developed as a place to hide your imaginary God to isolate him from the rules applied to everything else.

it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.
The universe WAS NOT "created". Nothing is EVER "created". First Law of Thermodynamics.

In other words, God.
In other words, "B.S.". This is the same old tired PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), theists have been attempting to use since my very first days of apologetics debate nearly 12-years ago. It consists of 5-points, each and every one of them, a complete and total failure. It starts from false premise, making use of special pleading, and cascades in continual expanding failure from there.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

Sorry for jumping in Installgentoo but I hate it when people twist words. The premise was that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since God is outside the universe or transcends it He is not included in everything that begins. How can an eternal being have a beginning?

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

Again, Beastt is being emphatic with his 'No'. He doesn't know the universe is eternal, he just assumes it from the biased way he looks at the evidence. There is no neutrality in his disposition.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

What already existed? If the universe did not begin to exist then it is eternal. How do you get to the present from eternity?

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless,
There is absolutely no evidence for anything "outside of the universe". It's a false concept developed as a place to hide your imaginary God to isolate him from the rules applied to everything else.

There is yet Beastt will not consider it evidence. Beastt looks at everything through his funneled naturalism.

it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.
The universe WAS NOT "created". Nothing is EVER "created". First Law of Thermodynamics.

Beastt has no reason, thus no agency, no intent, no intelligence, no information, for his "transformation" at the Big Bang. His words drip with ignorance and his starting presuppositions.

In other words, God.
In other words, "B.S.". This is the same old tired PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), theists have been attempting to use since my very first days of apologetics debate nearly 12-years ago. It consists of 5-points, each and every one of them, a complete and total failure. It starts from false premise, making use of special pleading, and cascades in continual expanding failure from there.

Beastt's premises also start with unproven premises, special pleading, that cascade into his particular worldview. He was not there and he is looking at data and information from his particular worldview bias. He also believes that there is 'absolutely no evidence' for God. He discounts the Bible as His revelation to us, yet we, as Christians, offer the Bible as evidence for God to him. Since he, in his worldly wisdom rejects its claim he has no choice but to construct his worldview outside its perimeters. But make no mistake, he is thoroughly vested in his particular bias as any subjective, relative human being is without objective, absolute evidence or revelation from Someone all knowing. The funny thing is he even states the absolute in his rebuttal. He is bluffing. How would he know there is 'absolutely no evidence?' His whole worldview smacks of inconsistency. This worldview states: "Follow me, I know what is and what isn't. I won't steer you wrong." That is the same kind of human pride that stems from the Garden, "Did God really say?"

Peter
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

I am unpersuaded by all three of your premises. Ergo you need to justify all 3 of your premises. Otherwise SNP1's argument just debunks it out of the gate:

(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) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:05:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:37:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

I am unpersuaded by all three of your premises. Ergo you need to justify all 3 of your premises. Otherwise SNP1's argument just debunks it out of the gate:

(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) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause

SNP1's argument doesn't debunk my argument because God could have created the universe simultaneously with coming into existence. When you think about it, that is in fact the most logical way of thinking of God's creation of the universe.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:15:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:37:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

I am unpersuaded by all three of your premises. Ergo you need to justify all 3 of your premises. Otherwise SNP1's argument just debunks it out of the gate:

(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) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause

Time is a part of the force. Which existed eternally. This means God can create the universe under the force and have it precede its effect. Also since God is spread througout time God can use retrocausality to create the universe.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:25:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

1. How big was it before this "transformation" occurred?

2. What happened to cause this "transformation"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:57:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:25:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

1. How big was it before this "transformation" occurred?
I don't know.

2. What happened to cause this "transformation"?
I don't know.

- By what mechanism did God bring matter/energy into existence through speech?

- How did God change a lump of dirt into a fully formed adult human male?

- By what mechanism did God convert a rib into a fully formed, adult human female?

The questions can run both ways, Anna. Why don't you take a shot at answering?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:27:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

Sorry for jumping in Installgentoo but I hate it when people twist words. The premise was that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since God is outside the universe or transcends it He is not included in everything that begins. How can an eternal being have a beginning?
How can you have an eternal being when you don't have an eternal being. Show that God exists?

Now... how can that which exists, but cannot be created, have had a beginning? Because matter/energy exists, but cannot be created (First Law of Thermodynamics). If you think you have objective evidence that 1LoT is wrong, then present that evidence.

No one "twisted" anything. (Except you in your claim that words were twisted.)

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

Again, Beastt is being emphatic with his 'No'. He doesn't know the universe is eternal, he just assumes it from the biased way he looks at the evidence. There is no neutrality in his disposition.
If you're going to sit here and claim that it is biased to note that matter/energy exists, but cannot be created; and to therefore conclude that it is eternal, then I'd like to see you take those two premises (which are based in evidence - unlike EVERY assertion about God), and demonstrate a logical but contrary conclusion. And if you can't, you can either apologize or shut your mouth (figuratively).

- 1. Matter/energy exists
- 2. Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. This is a property of matter/energy. (First Law of Thermodynamics)

Now... demonstrate a logical conclusion which does not result in the eternal existence of matter and/or energy. And don't try to skate out sideways.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

What already existed? If the universe did not begin to exist then it is eternal. How do you get to the present from eternity?
How does God get to the present from eternity? Christians want to treat eternity as the non-existence of time, rather than the continual existence of time. Given that we can't define time, it's rather ridiculous for you to suggest that time becomes inaccessible if it doesn't start and/or end.

Remember that matter and energy are interchangeable - either can transform into the other. So if energy pre-existed big-bang, we have our answer as to how the universe AS WE KNOW IT, came into being 13.7 billion years ago, from that which already existed. It's basically the same thing you're claiming about God, except that energy actually exists. It's not an imaginary fabrication kept alive through tens of thousands of years of mandated ignorance as is God.

Secondly...
Theists tend to believe that existence requires an explanation, but that non-existence would not require an explanation. Why is existence any more or less unlikely than non-existence? (Again, actually try to answer that.)

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless,
There is absolutely no evidence for anything "outside of the universe". It's a false concept developed as a place to hide your imaginary God to isolate him from the rules applied to everything else.

There is yet Beastt will not consider it evidence. Beastt looks at everything through his funneled naturalism.
Don't throw stones if you're not willing to actually defend your stance. If you want to claim there is objective evidence for God, then present it. If you can't, then accept that reality and don't imply it to be some form of bias on my part.

it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.
The universe WAS NOT "created". Nothing is EVER "created". First Law of Thermodynamics.

Beastt has no reason, thus no agency, no intent, no intelligence, no information, for his "transformation" at the Big Bang. His words drip with ignorance and his starting presuppositions.
Pure and ignorant ad hominem. You've done nothing to refute anything I've said. Instead you've simply spewed hatred at me for the fact that I have presented concepts which are based in objective evidence, and are beyond your ability to refute.
I'm sure Brian Clegg, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok would find your assessment of their work to be humorous to say the least, and pathetic to be totally honest. You see, unlike you I've actually engaged in some solid research on big-bang and pre big-bang on the basis of scientific standings, formed on the evidence. ("Evidence" - that which you lack for the promotion of your favorite fairytale.)

In other words, God.
In other words, "B.S.". This is the same old tired PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), theists have been attempting to use since my very first days of apologetics debate nearly 12-years ago. It consists of 5-points, each and every one of them, a complete and total failure. It starts from false premise, making use of special pleading, and cascades in continual expanding failure from there.

Beastt's premises also start with unproven premises, special pleading, that cascade into his particular worldview.
In what special pleading have I engaged?

He was not there
And you were? Were you there for the dinosaurs or do you disbelieve they existed too?

he is looking at data and information from his particular worldview bias.
Objective evidence is a bias?

He also believes that there is 'absolutely no evidence' for God.
And yet, I've still not found any theist who can present objective evidence for God - including YOU! So I'll invite you once again; if you have objective evidence for God, PRESENT IT! (Or shut up until you can.)

He discounts the Bible as His revelation to us
As would any sane rational person. The Bible is known to contain multiple false claims, forgeries, fallacies and flaws, yet proclaims itself to be the word of a "perfect", "all-knowing" being. It's obviously not credible.

yet we, as Christians, offer the Bible as evidence for God to him.
Dozens of men writing down their thoughts and beliefs over many centuries, followed by a council of men who picked through over 2,000 of these writings and selected a small number which they preferred, is NOT "evidence of God". It's evidence of men picking through the writings of men, throwing out what they didn't like, and accepting what they did like.

Since he, in his worldly wisdom rejects its claim he has no choice but to construct his worldview outside its perimeters.
Yes, instead of forming a world-view independent of the world and demonstrable reality, I choose to construct my world-view on the basis of the world and demonstrable reality. You construct your world view on the unevidenced and counter-evidenced ancient writings of fools and idiots.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:06:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:27:10 PM, PGA wrote:
But make no mistake, he is thoroughly vested in his particular bias as any subjective, relative human being is without objective, absolute evidence or revelation from Someone all knowing.
And your "all-knowing" sources tell us that baby goats are patterned after the view held by their parents while copulating, that the Earth (which is formed of elements fused in stars), existed before stars, that Jesus was born twice at times at least 10-years apart, and that it's perfectly moral not to just own slaves and rape women, but to beat slaves to death, so long as they suffer for a few days before dying.

The funny thing is he even states the absolute in his rebuttal. He is bluffing. How would he know there is 'absolutely no evidence?'
I can find no objective evidence for God. And despite challenging thousands of Christians over the years to present evidence, none of them ever have. So not only do I have no evidence for God, you have no evidence for God, and science can find no evidence for God.

His whole worldview smacks of inconsistency. This worldview states: "Follow me, I know what is and what isn't. I won't steer you wrong." That is the same kind of human pride that stems from the Garden, "Did God really say?"
While your worldview smacks of the claims that man should be mating with non-human animals (Genesis 2:18), that lions used to be vegetarians, that a planet without enough water to be flooded was indeed flooded with even less water, and that your loving God can't forgive unless someone who is guilty of nothing suffers and dies needlessly.

Peter
And a few other names, consistent with the suggested limited intellect.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

ex nihilo or ex materia?

If ex materia, we only have to look at quantum physics to see that the statement is false.

If ex nihilo, then the entire premise is false because the only thing to exist ex nihilo is the universe, so you are asserting that the universe has a cause with no evidence or logic to back it up.

2. the universe began to exist

Okay.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause

Flawed premise one, this does not follow.

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

Heavily flawed argument.

I am a theist, and I feel ashamed when people try these silly, flawed arguments.
Yarowold
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:14:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

I have questions regarding the first premise; Doesn't this property only apply within our universe for all we know? Who is to say that the same physical laws rule whatever is "outside" the universe, especially if such an "outside" harbors a creator? And if so, is it self-aware or is it just a mechanism obeying certain existential laws?
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:15:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:57:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:25:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

1. How big was it before this "transformation" occurred?
I don't know.

2. What happened to cause this "transformation"?
I don't know.

- By what mechanism did God bring matter/energy into existence through speech?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know. By what mechanism could matter/energy have always existed? What law of physics allows for this?

- How did God change a lump of dirt into a fully formed adult human male?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know

- By what mechanism did God convert a rib into a fully formed, adult human female?

The questions can run both ways, Anna. Why don't you take a shot at answering?

I do not mind answering. The Bible does not reveals what you style "mechanisms" for the creative process, as far as I know. If the Bible does not inform us, how in the world do you expect an answer? The bottom line is that on the important questions, the REAL questions, you do not know.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:15:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:57:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:25:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

1. How big was it before this "transformation" occurred?
I don't know.

2. What happened to cause this "transformation"?
I don't know.

- By what mechanism did God bring matter/energy into existence through speech?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know. By what mechanism could matter/energy have always existed? What law of physics allows for this?

- How did God change a lump of dirt into a fully formed adult human male?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know

- By what mechanism did God convert a rib into a fully formed, adult human female?

The questions can run both ways, Anna. Why don't you take a shot at answering?

I do not mind answering. The Bible does not reveals what you style "mechanisms" for the creative process, as far as I know. If the Bible does not inform us, how in the world do you expect an answer? The bottom line is that on the important questions, the REAL questions, you do not know.

How do you propose the question regarding the size of the universe (if indeed it had any size), as being one of the "important questions", while not seeing by what mechanism God created what can't be created, as important ?

There's nothing wrong with stating "I don't know" when one doesn't know. It's something Christians shy away from called "honesty". But one cannot suggest that big-bang didn't occur on the basis of that question, nor on the basis of what initiated big-bang. It may well be that the transformation of energy to matter triggered the inflation of space-time, but that's conjecture, which only leads to the question; "what triggered the conversion of energy to matter?". But everything in science is a matter of the answer to each question, opening the doors to one or several more questions.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:01:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:05:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

SNP1's argument doesn't debunk my argument because God could have created the universe simultaneously with coming into existence. When you think about it, that is in fact the most logical way of thinking of God's creation of the universe.

There's a statement devoid of meaning if there ever was one. If two events occur absolutely simultaneously then they are independent. Cause and effect go out of the window. Your 'creator' is then no longer a creator or first cause. We have evidence for the universe existing, so now it's back to the drawing board for your irrefutable evidence for god.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:14:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:39:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:15:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:57:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:25:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:43:23 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
False premise, right out of the gate.
Either everything has a cause, or not everything has a cause. And we can just as easily suggest the universe didn't "begin to exist" as you can claim God didn't begin to exist. The difference is; the universe is real.

2. the universe began to exist
No it didn't. No accepted variation of big-bang begins with nothing.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause
Wrong. The universe didn't "begin to exist". It was transformed in big-bang from what already existed.

1. How big was it before this "transformation" occurred?
I don't know.

2. What happened to cause this "transformation"?
I don't know.

- By what mechanism did God bring matter/energy into existence through speech?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know. By what mechanism could matter/energy have always existed? What law of physics allows for this?

- How did God change a lump of dirt into a fully formed adult human male?

See Question #2 above. The Bible does not say, and science does not know

- By what mechanism did God convert a rib into a fully formed, adult human female?

The questions can run both ways, Anna. Why don't you take a shot at answering?

I do not mind answering. The Bible does not reveals what you style "mechanisms" for the creative process, as far as I know. If the Bible does not inform us, how in the world do you expect an answer? The bottom line is that on the important questions, the REAL questions, you do not know.

How do you propose the question regarding the size of the universe (if indeed it had any size), as being one of the "important questions", while not seeing by what mechanism God created what can't be created, as important ?

Oh, I am merely assuming that the theorized universe had a theorized size for the sake of argument. You're the one who fertilized that egg, so you can be responsible for its growth and development. As far as I'm concerned, God could have employed any "creative process" or "mechanism" without conflicting with the Bible.

There's nothing wrong with stating "I don't know" when one doesn't know.

Certainly not. You can certainly state the possible theories, can't you?

It's something Christians shy away from called "honesty". But one cannot suggest that big-bang didn't occur on the basis of that question, nor on the basis of what initiated big-bang.

It may well be that the transformation of energy to matter triggered the inflation of space-time, but that's conjecture, which only leads to the question; "what triggered the conversion of energy to matter?".

Well, state the possible theories - other than intelligent design. The trouble, IMO, is that you won't even have an hypothesis when you get right down to it.

But everything in science is a matter of the answer to each question, opening the doors to one or several more questions.

You left out the point at which science can honestly say, "We do not know - and the likelihood is that we will never know." The change of which you speak, whatever supposedly triggered this "big expansion", certainly was caused by something, wasn't it?

Is not your theory that matter/energy just always existed, and at some point it expanded into what we call the universe. Prior to this expansion, it was of unknown size. But something happened. Something caused this rapid expansion. What are the possibilities?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:14:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:16 PM, Beastt wrote:

There's nothing wrong with stating "I don't know" when one doesn't know.

Certainly not. You can certainly state the possible theories, can't you?
Yes, and then I get the "those are just theories" response, usually accompanied with the pure ignorance of "you have no evidence for them".

It's something Christians shy away from called "honesty". But one cannot suggest that big-bang didn't occur on the basis of that question, nor on the basis of what initiated big-bang.

It may well be that the transformation of energy to matter triggered the inflation of space-time, but that's conjecture, which only leads to the question; "what triggered the conversion of energy to matter?".

Well, state the possible theories - other than intelligent design. The trouble, IMO, is that you won't even have an hypothesis when you get right down to it.
Are you suggesting that big-bang theory doesn't exist, that abiogenesis theory doesn't exist? Is that what you want me to propose?

But everything in science is a matter of the answer to each question, opening the doors to one or several more questions.

You left out the point at which science can honestly say, "We do not know - and the likelihood is that we will never know." The change of which you speak, whatever supposedly triggered this "big expansion", certainly was caused by something, wasn't it?
It seems likely that it would have been caused by something. This is where theists tend to jump on with "It was caused by GOD!". And they don't seem at all swayed by the fact that the founder of big-bang theory didn't find that response to be at all appropriate. And we might note that the founder of big-bang theory was Georges Lemaitre... Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre.

Is not your theory that matter/energy just always existed, and at some point it expanded into what we call the universe. Prior to this expansion, it was of unknown size. But something happened. Something caused this rapid expansion. What are the possibilities?
Firstly, it's not "my" theory. I didn't propose the theory. Secondly, one can't credibly speak of size outside of space-time. However, one possible cause has been presented by Paul J Steinhardt and Neil Turok, in which pre-existing brane-worlds collided, producing an energy field and that collision triggered big-bang, in which the energy field partially converted to matter, resulting in the universe.

Most of what one can entertain amounts to conjecture since there are very limited conclusions we can draw regarding a realm we know virtually nothing about. However, the moment Christians saddle up the tired mare of "It was God", they're back in the stable with the need to provide evidence for the existence of God, and that's something they don't have, nor have they ever had. And if the Christian God existed, there would be physical evidence for him. One cannot interact with the physical, and not leave physical evidence. Parting seas, burning bushes, diverting cars from an intersecting path, etc., all leave physical evidence and yet, in thousands of years of searching, no one has ever found any objective evidence, for any god.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:49:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:54:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:14:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:16 PM, Beastt wrote:

There's nothing wrong with stating "I don't know" when one doesn't know.

Certainly not. You can certainly state the possible theories, can't you?

Yes, and then I get the "those are just theories" response, usually accompanied with the pure ignorance of "you have no evidence for them".

As a rule, I assume that you have no real evidence when you start trying to discuss some theorized event that took place billions of years ago.

It's something Christians shy away from called "honesty". But one cannot suggest that big-bang didn't occur on the basis of that question, nor on the basis of what initiated big-bang.

It may well be that the transformation of energy to matter triggered the inflation of space-time, but that's conjecture, which only leads to the question; "what triggered the conversion of energy to matter?".

Well, state the possible theories - other than intelligent design. The trouble, IMO, is that you won't even have an hypothesis when you get right down to it.

Are you suggesting that big-bang theory doesn't exist, that abiogenesis theory doesn't exist? Is that what you want me to propose?

I am aware of the various theories that exist - so no, I am not suggesting that they do not exist. I suggested that you did not give the theories that exist in answer to those questions. Surely someone has come up with something, no matter how bizarre.

But everything in science is a matter of the answer to each question, opening the doors to one or several more questions.

You left out the point at which science can honestly say, "We do not know - and the likelihood is that we will never know." The change of which you speak, whatever supposedly triggered this "big expansion", certainly was caused by something, wasn't it?

It seems likely that it would have been caused by something. This is where theists tend to jump on with "It was caused by GOD!". And they don't seem at all swayed by the fact that the founder of big-bang theory didn't find that response to be at all appropriate. And we might note that the founder of big-bang theory was Georges Lemaitre... Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre.

Well, is your position that it was caused by "something", or caused by "nothing"?

Is not your theory that matter/energy just always existed, and at some point it expanded into what we call the universe. Prior to this expansion, it was of unknown size. But something happened. Something caused this rapid expansion. What are the possibilities?

Firstly, it's not "my" theory. I didn't propose the theory.

It is your theory if you endorse it. I didn't say that you originated it. I've never said that you originated anything.

Secondly, one can't credibly speak of size outside of space-time. However, one possible cause has been presented by Paul J Steinhardt and Neil Turok, in which pre-existing brane-worlds collided, producing an energy field and that collision triggered big-bang, in which the energy field partially converted to matter, resulting in the universe.

Most of what one can entertain amounts to conjecture since there are very limited conclusions we can draw regarding a realm we know virtually nothing about. However, the moment Christians saddle up the tired mare of "It was God", they're back in the stable with the need to provide evidence for the existence of God, and that's something they don't have, nor have they ever had. And if the Christian God existed, there would be physical evidence for him. One cannot interact with the physical, and not leave physical evidence.

Parting seas, burning bushes, diverting cars from an intersecting path, etc., all leave physical evidence and yet, in thousands of years of searching, no one has ever found any objective evidence, for any god.

Burning bushes leave evidence thousands of years later? How would I go about looking for this evidence, other than reading about it?

"And a certain man that was lame from his mother's womb was carried ... In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. And he took him by the right hand, and raised him up: and immediately his feet and his ankle-bones received strength. And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God."

No one? Don't you mean "No one that Beastt will accept"? Whoever wrote the preceding account certainly believed it, and apparently Peter and John and the beggar believed it. The Bible is full of such accounts - and, of course, you deny every one of them. Not only that, but it is full of prophesies - including Jesus's prophesies on the fall of Jerusalem - which you tacitly rate as one big scam.

There are in fact around thirty prophesies scattered among the OT prophets concerning the manner of death of the Messiah alone. THIRTY. And among these is a method of execution, crucifixion, which as far as anyone knows was unheard-of at the time the prophesies were written. Whoever heard of nailing a man to wood and raising the wood in 1000 BC? If you can provide any evidence at all for such a means of execution in 500-1000 BC, I'd love to see it. Anyway, your theory is that 1st-century fanatics concocted a story about an imaginary man, and then fabricated the whole story to match the OT prophesies! And in so doing, duped the whole world.

Then when we come to the NT, we have men who DID claim to be comrades of Jesus who stated again and again that Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple and the surrounding events. You, of course, follow the liberal-modernist pseudoscholars who re-date all of the books of the NT - then have the nerve to tell us that they did so in order to escape the conclusion that Jesus supernaturally issued such prophesies with such accuracy.

Suppose the following occurs. Just suppose it.

1. This year, Beastt predicts the siege and destruction of London by foreigners within 40 years.

2. I write down what you said, and I write it about twenty years after you said it. It circulates, and you have a few (comparatively) followers

3. The events come to pass in 2054 exactly as you prophesied, to the letter.

4. Some fool comes along and says, "Oh, Anna wrote that in 2070 to make it look like Beastt had some power of prophesy."

THAT is the #1 reason for assigning late dates to the books. Far and away, it's #1. I have never seen a shred of what-you-call "palaeographical" evidence to the contrary. There are, however, a few words scattered throughout the NT which were common in the early 1st century, but became less utilized by AD 100.

Do you realize that for one hundred years, the liberal modernists told us that the Gospel of John could not be dated prior to 160 AD, and more likely 170-180 AD. Scholar after scholar joined ranks, until that was the "scholarly consensus." And .... lol .... as it turns out, if one reads the original literature from back in the 1850's, the whole "dating method" was based upon (get this) philosophical arguments, the so-called "development of Christian theology". Well, p52 came along containing small portions of John, but papyrologists dated it from AD 90 to AD 140, with about AD 120 hitting in the middle. And it's a copy! Within all reason at all, that would push the original back into the first century - right where normal Christian placed it all along.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 9:08:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

The Big Bang is consistent with 2 being false, so I see no reason to affirm 2. Also, there is no good reason to accept 4 (who says a "will" is necessary?). So, much for being "irrefutable". Many notable philosophers have refuted the Kalam (Wes Morriston, Quentin Smith ect.).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 9:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

I find that metaphysics is used to justify this claim, there are claims of what is and is not meta possible. I have found no systematic process that is applied to get to these claims, in other words its just made up to suit one purpose.

All minds are dependent on brains, see I can make claims too.

2. the universe began to exist

Debatable. I understand "began" to exist as meaning that something exists but there was a "time" in the past where it did not exist. After all if there was no time in the past where it did NOT exist we would say it had always existed as opposed to began to exist.

Since there is no "time" absent the universe, there was no "time" when the universe did not exist thus the universe did not begin to exist.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

Scientific causation can't be applied outside of the universe (requires time)

I have never seen an argument that justifies the cause must be personal, other than begging the question and appealing to ignorance of non personal causes.


In other words, God.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:01:34 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:05:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

SNP1's argument doesn't debunk my argument because God could have created the universe simultaneously with coming into existence. When you think about it, that is in fact the most logical way of thinking of God's creation of the universe.

There's a statement devoid of meaning if there ever was one. If two events occur absolutely simultaneously then they are independent. Cause and effect go out of the window.

Not at all, there is such a thing as simultaneous causation. For example, a bowling ball being put on a pillow simultaneously causes the bowling ball to stand lower than it would have and the pillow to deform. Thus you have a simultaneous cause and effect.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 10:22:39 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Not at all, there is such a thing as simultaneous causation. For example, a bowling ball being put on a pillow simultaneously causes the bowling ball to stand lower than it would have and the pillow to deform. Thus you have a simultaneous cause and effect.

That old canard has been comprehensively debunked many times. If the pillow deformed simultaneously with the bowling ball falling into it, it would violate the speed of light limit. That's a spectacular fail. Want to try again?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 1:12:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:37:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/23/2014 10:22:39 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Not at all, there is such a thing as simultaneous causation. For example, a bowling ball being put on a pillow simultaneously causes the bowling ball to stand lower than it would have and the pillow to deform. Thus you have a simultaneous cause and effect.

That old canard has been comprehensively debunked many times. If the pillow deformed simultaneously with the bowling ball falling into it, it would violate the speed of light limit. That's a spectacular fail. Want to try again?

Your objection is somethig which has no bearing on whether God could simultaneously cause the BIg Bang or not. Hence irrelevant.
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 1:17:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

Why?

2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

In general, the argument is also dependent on the A-Theory of time being true.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 2:42:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:55:46 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

ex nihilo or ex materia?

Ex nihilo.

If ex nihilo, then the entire premise is false because the only thing to exist ex nihilo is the universe, so you are asserting that the universe has a cause with no evidence or logic to back it up.

I may not have empirical evidence, but I do have logic. It is a logical assumption to assume a cause can create even if there appears to be nothing in a place. A cause creates some degree of change in nothing, like a wood-carver creates a pattern in wood even if there appears to be no pattern at first. This is known as efficient causation, and is a sound metaphysical principle, universally accepted to exist in metaphysics.

2. the universe began to exist

Okay.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause

Flawed premise one, this does not follow.

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

Heavily flawed argument.

I am a theist, and I feel ashamed when people try these silly, flawed arguments.

You have not shown flaws in the argument yet, though you came close. Thank you for being a sounding-board for these ideas.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 2:55:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:14:00 PM, Yarowold wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

I have questions regarding the first premise; Doesn't this property only apply within our universe for all we know? Who is to say that the same physical laws rule whatever is "outside" the universe, especially if such an "outside" harbors a creator?

What I failed to make clear is that this principle is based not off of simply a posteori reasoning about the relationship between causes and effects, but also off of a priori reasoning about what constitutes something being made to "begin to exist". Generally, something beginning to exist must be acted upon by a cause in order for it to be created, so it's an abstract principle that can be applied on a metaphysical level and thus applied to the outside of the universe.

And if so, is it self-aware or is it just a mechanism obeying certain existential laws?

I'd say there are two reasons the thing that created the universe must be self-aware:

1) if it existed before space and time, it must have existed forever. But an eternal cause should have produced an eternal effect, which has not happaned. Therefore, the cause should be an agent, because only an agent can freely-will itself to produce a cause at T=1 if it has existed for eternity past, like a man who has been sitting down for eternity willing himself to stand up.
2) the agent's characteristics as described in the OP can only fit two categories of objects: a) an abstract object, such as the number 7, or b) a mind (or consciousness), but abstract numbers can't cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe must be a mind, and therefore self-aware.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 3:38:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

If God exists then what is the cause of his existence? And for claiming that God exists you have to show a claim from a God that can be seen by millions of people.
Secondly since when did theists change their interpretation that God exists where. First they claimed that God sits on a throne just above the sky. But when NASA has proven them wrong, now they are saying outside space and time.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 5:02:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 1:12:33 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Your objection is somethig which has no bearing on whether God could simultaneously cause the BIg Bang or not. Hence irrelevant.

Irrelevant, are you kidding?

You come here and arrogantly post that you have an 'irrefutable proof' for god. When it's shown that your causality based argument fails because there is no time without the universe already existing, you come up with the concept of 'simultaneous causation' of which you cannot provide a single example in the real world. So, in order to prove the existence of your mythical god you rely on another non-existent concept you simply pulled out of your hat. Your water-tight 'proof' is in tatters and all you can say is that the objections are irrelevant? Sheesh!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 5:30:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 3:38:31 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

If God exists then what is the cause of his existence?

According to the deductive syllogism you just quoted, he requires no cause, as he is eternal and therefore uncaused.

And for claiming that God exists you have to show a claim from a God that can be seen by millions of people.

False, all I have to do is show consciousness exists as understood by neuroscience.

But that is not the topic of this thread.

Secondly since when did theists change their interpretation that God exists where. First they claimed that God sits on a throne just above the sky. But when NASA has proven them wrong, now they are saying outside space and time.

God came into the universe when he created it, so he always existed within space and time, most people would say God exists within space and time, but is uninfluenced by it, because of his privileged role in the world.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 6:39:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 2:42:18 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:55:46 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:08:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So here is the air-tight evidence for the existence of God

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause

ex nihilo or ex materia?

Ex nihilo.

That means that this premise is, since the only thing that came into existence ex nihilo is the universe, The universe has a cause.

That means that this is your argument:
1) The universe has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe has a cause
4) Therefore God.

There is no support for your first premise, and 2 of your premises are the same thing (1 and 3). That means that this argument is flawed.

If ex nihilo, then the entire premise is false because the only thing to exist ex nihilo is the universe, so you are asserting that the universe has a cause with no evidence or logic to back it up.

I may not have empirical evidence, but I do have logic.

Let's take a look then.

It is a logical assumption to assume a cause can create even if there appears to be nothing in a place.

Why is it?

A cause creates some degree of change in nothing, like a wood-carver creates a pattern in wood even if there appears to be no pattern at first.

False analogy. You are comparing ex materia and ex nihilo.

This is known as efficient causation, and is a sound metaphysical principle, universally accepted to exist in metaphysics.

Source please.

2. the universe began to exist

Okay.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause

Flawed premise one, this does not follow.

4. this cause being outside the universe must be timeless, spaceless, it must also be personal since it could only have made the universe a finite time ago by use of a will, it must be enormously powerful, because it created the universe from nothing, and it must also be immaterial.

In other words, God.

Heavily flawed argument.

I am a theist, and I feel ashamed when people try these silly, flawed arguments.

You have not shown flaws in the argument yet, though you came close. Thank you for being a sounding-board for these ideas.

Your argument falls flat because of an unsupported first premise, and the first and third premise are the same thing.