Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How unlikely is it that God exists?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 1:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before we dive into becoming completely lost in your discussion of temporal vs extra-temporal, explain to us what you mean by "time". Do you know what time is? I ask because you speak as though you have a firm grasp on it and I find that rather awkward since even the top physicists studying that field and fields relating to time (pretty much all fields of physics), readily admit that they don't really know what time is.

We do know that time is a necessary component of the physical. But theists are still in a state of continual failure to show that a non-physical realm can, or does, exist.

This always comes back around to trying to explain existence by proclaiming pre-existence, and often, pre-existence in a non-temporal realm. I remain unsure what problem that's supposed to fix. Until we can explain specifically what time actually is - the exact physical process of time passing - I don't see it as an enhancement to our understanding to simply insisting that at some point, time didn't exist. It seems counter-intuitive. If there is no time, how can one transition from one state, to another state? In essence, it requires speaking in terms of a time before time, and the time following the time before time, when time began to exist. Is that somehow less confusing?

And if we attempt to view time as a concept similar to 2-dimensional space, with us moving through at a pre-set rate, we come up with temporality which is eternally omni-existent. We tend to think of time as coming... here... and gone. But perhaps we are what passes through time, rather than time passing around us. We know that all of our movement - whether spacial or temporal - totals to 1 light speed. Any movement through space, is subtracted from our movement through time. If we move through space at 1/2 light-speed, our rate of passage through time is reduced by 1/2. And while we do understand these consequences of time and space, we still don't really grasp what time is. So how are we making pre-universal existence any less confusing by removing time?

As for the existence of God, that's a totally separate issue. The likelihood of God existing is virtually the same as any other character produced from human imagination, to stand as a place-holder for ignorance.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:03:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:19:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
You might be interested in the debate within my signature.

lol you sound like a salesman.

BTW on the subject of our own debates, I would love to get your input on the questions I started asking Ajabi in our comment section.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 7:03:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:19:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
You might be interested in the debate within my signature.

lol you sound like a salesman.

I am not in the least bit ashamed :-p I do want feedback on that one argument though since it is my own.

BTW on the subject of our own debates, I would love to get your input on the questions I started asking Ajabi in our comment section.

Sure, did you agree with any of the feedback I gave in the RFD? Sorry if it was a bit harsh... I always speak my mind in my RFDs, and that includes most the cursing lol
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 7:18:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:03:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:19:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
You might be interested in the debate within my signature.

lol you sound like a salesman.

I am not in the least bit ashamed :-p I do want feedback on that one argument though since it is my own.

BTW on the subject of our own debates, I would love to get your input on the questions I started asking Ajabi in our comment section.

Sure, did you agree with any of the feedback I gave in the RFD? Sorry if it was a bit harsh... I always speak my mind in my RFDs, and that includes most the cursing lol

I had no problem with the tone, and appreciate the effort you put in. But as far as agreeing, well, not really. Some yes, but not when it came to what I thought to be the relevant points. But this is not the proper venue to discuss this. Perhaps in the debate or PM would be better if you're willing.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

You should define "God" before you claim it's the most logical possibility.

And in case your definition is anything more than "eternal, atemporal origin", you failed to show why god is a more logical possibility than an unspecified eternal, atemporal origin.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:18:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:51:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
Before we dive into becoming completely lost in your discussion of temporal vs extra-temporal, explain to us what you mean by "time". Do you know what time is? I ask because you speak as though you have a firm grasp on it and I find that rather awkward since even the top physicists studying that field and fields relating to time (pretty much all fields of physics), readily admit that they don't really know what time is.

We do know that time is a necessary component of the physical. But theists are still in a state of continual failure to show that a non-physical realm can, or does, exist.

If no space exists then time necessarily doesn't either since space and time exist on a continuum. If the Big Bang was the initial expansion of all space-time, then what preceded the Big Bang was necessarily spaceless and timeless. That means that a non-physical realm is one that must exist. Otherwise the Big Bang was either created from nothing, somehow shrank all pre-existing space, matter, and energy into a zero-point density then exploded, or lastly, and most logically, something non-physical created all physical things.

This always comes back around to trying to explain existence by proclaiming pre-existence, and often, pre-existence in a non-temporal realm. I remain unsure what problem that's supposed to fix. Until we can explain specifically what time actually is - the exact physical process of time passing - I don't see it as an enhancement to our understanding to simply insisting that at some point, time didn't exist. It seems counter-intuitive. If there is no time, how can one transition from one state, to another state? In essence, it requires speaking in terms of a time before time, and the time following the time before time, when time began to exist. Is that somehow less confusing?

Just from looking at the data, most scientists agree that time had a beginning. Even acclaimed atheist scientist Stephen Hawking believes that time had a beginning. I can't fathom what a timeless existence would be like. But simply, logically, time could not have lasted forever. An infinite duration can't progress. Since we have a past and future we are progressing from a finite duration.

And if we attempt to view time as a concept similar to 2-dimensional space, with us moving through at a pre-set rate, we come up with temporality which is eternally omni-existent. We tend to think of time as coming... here... and gone. But perhaps we are what passes through time, rather than time passing around us. We know that all of our movement - whether spacial or temporal - totals to 1 light speed. Any movement through space, is subtracted from our movement through time. If we move through space at 1/2 light-speed, our rate of passage through time is reduced by 1/2. And while we do understand these consequences of time and space, we still don't really grasp what time is. So how are we making pre-universal existence any less confusing by removing time?

Removing time isn't for the sake of logical argument. The evidence of the Big Bang shows that time and space had a beginning. I can't conceptualize what a timeless existence would be like.

As for the existence of God, that's a totally separate issue. The likelihood of God existing is virtually the same as any other character produced from human imagination, to stand as a place-holder for ignorance.

Based on the evidence, the Big Bang had a cause that was necessarily metaphysical and eternal. I think that is strong evidence, based on what we DO know, that God is a likely candidate.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:25:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 7:55:06 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

You should define "God" before you claim it's the most logical possibility.

And in case your definition is anything more than "eternal, atemporal origin", you failed to show why god is a more logical possibility than an unspecified eternal, atemporal origin.

I defined God in my opening statement. I gave reasons based on logical necessity and from observation of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe that God should not be considered an unlikely cause.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:31:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

Why do you believe in the Big Bang theory that those lost scientists believe in?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:37:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:31:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

Why do you believe in the Big Bang theory that those lost scientists believe in?

Because the Big Bang is scientifically supported. Why do you believe the Big Bang would exclude God as the cause?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:47:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:18:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:51:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
Before we dive into becoming completely lost in your discussion of temporal vs extra-temporal, explain to us what you mean by "time". Do you know what time is? I ask because you speak as though you have a firm grasp on it and I find that rather awkward since even the top physicists studying that field and fields relating to time (pretty much all fields of physics), readily admit that they don't really know what time is.

We do know that time is a necessary component of the physical. But theists are still in a state of continual failure to show that a non-physical realm can, or does, exist.

If no space exists then time necessarily doesn't either since space and time exist on a continuum.
That's an incorrect assumption. Just because time and space are now interwoven into space-time, doesn't mean that both have always had to exist. One of the functions of big-bang is thought to have been to interweave space and time. And as pointed out before; if you suggest a period without time, then you can't have a time before time, and a time after time. Everything remains absolutely static. Can you have events without sequence? How does it make sense to suggest a period without time, then an event which brought time into existence, followed immediately by existence coupled with time? Aren't you speaking about three different times; the time before time, the instant time began, and all of the time since time began?

How can you even have a time before space, if there was no time?

If the Big Bang was the initial expansion of all space-time, then what preceded the Big Bang was necessarily spaceless and timeless.
It appears that it was spaceless, but I think it's a mistake to assume it was timeless. And again; isn't it a bit futile to argue that there was a "time" when time didn't exist, when one of the few things we do know about time is that it allows a sequence such as before-space, inflation of space, existence of space?

That means that a non-physical realm is one that must exist.
Not at all. Does energy require space? How much space does a kilowatt require? What about a BTU, or a megaton?

Otherwise the Big Bang was either created from nothing, somehow shrank all pre-existing space, matter, and energy into a zero-point density then exploded, or lastly, and most logically, something non-physical created all physical things.
Or, all of the physical existed only as energy (which is physical), until some critical event caused the conversion of some of that energy to matter which requires space, leading to inflation.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

No! That would be the great invisible pink unicorn.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:16:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

Then there is your 3rd option.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:37:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Let's start from the beginning.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

Why do you believe in the Big Bang theory that those lost scientists believe in?

Because the Big Bang is scientifically supported. Why do you believe the Big Bang would exclude God as the cause?

There's no such thing as a Big Bang. There's no such thing as matter, space and time. These things are only illusions that each man perceives according to what God gave them to believe in.

Life is a dream my friend, not something that's real.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:29:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:16:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

Then there is your 3rd option.

That isn't a third option. That's something eternal. Something eternal can't "come" from anything since it has no origin. Everything either came from something eternal (like God) or from absolutely nothing.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:29:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:16:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

Then there is your 3rd option.

That isn't a third option. That's something eternal. Something eternal can't "come" from anything since it has no origin. Everything either came from something eternal (like God) or from absolutely nothing.

Having no origin is a 3rd option.

You claim God has no origin, therefore something can have no origin.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:00:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's pretend that your premises are correct. Even in that situation, they don't lead to your god. You're either simply calling the origin of the universe "god," or you're making a circular argument that assumes your god exists in the first place. As someone else alluded to with the pink unicorn comment, I can make up any potential being, include eternal, immaterial, and spaceless in its list of attributes, and it becomes just as likely as your god within the structure of your argument.

So, really all you have is an argument for the origin of the universe being eternal, immaterial, and spaceless. That's fine, but it says nothing about the likelihood of your personal conception of a god existing.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:50:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:29:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:16:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

Then there is your 3rd option.

That isn't a third option. That's something eternal. Something eternal can't "come" from anything since it has no origin. Everything either came from something eternal (like God) or from absolutely nothing.

Having no origin is a 3rd option.

You claim God has no origin, therefore something can have no origin.

My claim was that "everything originated from" and listed something with no origin as one of the two options from which everything originated from. Something that has no origin is exempt from originating. I didn't make a claim saying "everything has an origin".
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:12:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:14:57 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:35:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:31:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:26:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:23:47 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:21:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/20/2014 7:00:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Did. It's an invalid question. Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything did not originate from absolutely nothing. Those are your choices.

If something is not absolutely nothing it is something.

Your point?

How is it an invalid question?

It is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing & externally existent are not the only two options. Where for example did God originate?

What third option exists between originating from something eternally existent or from absolutely nothing? God is something eternally existent.

From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

No! That would be the great invisible pink unicorn.

It is obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

May his noodly appendage show you the way. R'amen.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 10:02:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:06:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How unlikely is it that God, as a supreme being, created all that exists?

Pretty unlikely.
1) All causes predate their effects in time.
2) There was no time before the Big Bang.
3) The Big Bang is uncaused.

Let's start from the beginning.

Okay.

Either everything originated from absolutely nothing or everything originated from something eternally existent. Take a moment to think about that.

Option 2 violates the deductive argument above. Also, the options are:
Originated from nothing.
Did not originate from nothing.

An infinite amount of necessary causes within a temporal existence is logically impossible. Something infinite is beginningless and endless. If we lived in a universe where the original cause is infinite and existing in time, "past" and "future" would be an incoherent concept because something that exists cannot have a duration relative to eternity and allow sequential progression in order to mark past and future. Thus, the origin of everything did not originate within a temporal eternity.

Okay.

If everything came from absolutely nothing (requiring no pre-existing physical thing) this would be a logical impossibility. Nothing in our universe has shown to exist without requiring a necessary pre-existing thing as a sufficient cause of its existence. Everything did not come from absolutely nothing.

This is flawed logic here. There is no "nothing" for us to observe, so we cannot know. Unless you want to call empty space nothing, in which case Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations debunks this.

What we are left with are two possibilities: everything began by logically impossible means or by logically possible means.

No, we are not.

The only logically possible means that we are left with is an eternal, atemporal origin. Amazingly, the Big Bang supports this idea. We have no good reason to believe that any time, space, or energy existed prior to the simultaneous zero-point expansion of all time, space, and energy. The necessary cause of the Big Bang, if only considering logically possible means, is necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

No, the logical conclusion is that it is uncaused.

God, as a supreme being, is premised as timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Thus far, God is logically compatible as a necessary origin.

Only if you ignore any sensible logic.

There are a few objections that I might receive to this. (1) laws that possibly preceded the Big Bang were necessarily different than the laws that currently govern our universe because current laws were created during the Big Bang so we can't use laws that currently govern our universe to explain logical possibilities that allowed the Big Bang to happen and (2) a necessary cause of the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because all causes must precede their effects in time.

2 follows logically. 1 also can in a way.

(1) laws are only evidenced by the effects they have on physical things. If no physical thing had existed prior to the Big Bang, the law would have nothing to affect in order to cause it. Imagine this law affecting something in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment. It's possible some other forms of metaphysical things guided by different laws existed in order to cause the Big Bang, but given the nature of laws and how they haven't shown to affect anything metaphysical, this shouldn't be a considered possibility.

Okay. At least you are smart enough not to say the laws needed to be created.

(2) the issue I have with this, is that an atemporal cause still precedes the effect. The temporal event isn't initiated until an atemporal necessary cause actualizes it. Also, if all causes must exist in time, all necessary causes would lead to a logically impossible regression of necessary temporal causes.

Not even close. You are assuming that everything needs a cause, which is not true. It is simply an UNCAUSED event. Also, an atemporal cause that creates time does not precede the effect because THERE IS NO TIME.

As well as that, in order for an action to be made (from the cause, to the effect) there must be 2 distinct points in time (beginning of the event, end of the event). According to you, the cause does not need to exist within time. This does not follow logically from anything we know.

What I'm inferring from these arguments is that God is the most logical possibility as the necessary cause of the Big Bang. God isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of macroevolution either. Given the evidence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, and that a necessary cause shows God to be a likely causal explanation of the Big Bang, what good reasons are there to believe that God is unlikely to exist?

No, god is not. You are STILL trying to twist logic in order to fit your view.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 10:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:04:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:50:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:29:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:16:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/21/2014 10:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:56:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
From where did God originate?

Something that is eternal has no origin. God is the eternally existent thing from which everything else came.

Then there is your 3rd option.

That isn't a third option. That's something eternal. Something eternal can't "come" from anything since it has no origin. Everything either came from something eternal (like God) or from absolutely nothing.

Having no origin is a 3rd option.

You claim God has no origin, therefore something can have no origin.

My claim was that "everything originated from" and listed something with no origin as one of the two options from which everything originated from. Something that has no origin is exempt from originating. I didn't make a claim saying "everything has an origin".

Law of parsimony would then support the universe (or maybe even energy) having no origin over your god. There are less assumptions.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO