The big bang theory is bs!

[Hatter23]

And God created the universe EX NIHILO - "from nothing"! ROTFLMAO!
 

that makes absolutely sense

God = the power
created = action
in the beginning = time
the heavens = space
and the earth = matter

in the first versicle of Genesis, the author described everything that exists, and could be described. That is something, that was discovered in the 19th century by a scientific philosopher named Herbert Spencer.

on the contrary, to assert, that absolutely nothing is the cause of everything, that is indeed laughable....., since absolutely nothing has no properties and no potential, it is the absence of any thing....

You are still obsfucating a special pleading fallacy.

You are stating

The Universe cannot have always existed.
That something cannot have come from nothing.

Yet you state the opposite for your god, without a speck of proof.

[relativetruth]

Based on what we do know, we can make a picture about the issues, confidently.

You have 3 alternatives on hand:

A eternal being, without beginning, without end, made all creation
Everything that exists were created out of absolutely nothing
The universe exists without beginning, eternally.

The second and third option runs in serious problems to be held as possible alternative.

Your alternatives are not mutually exclusive [i.e. there are many more options]
Here is why.

A eternal being, without beginning, without end, made all creation

So all the things that were 'created' in this universe had to be done by one eternal being, without beginning and without end.
So what about those bits that were not created?
And could there be more than one eternal being? [you cannot assume it].

Everything that exists were created out of absolutely nothing

again we have the word 'created' makes this option the same as the first regardless of the mechanism used to 'create' 'everything'.
And if 'everything' was created out of nothing then cause and effect is a meaningless concept.

The universe exists without beginning, eternally

What about the various hypothesis about Brane theory, multiverses, etc?
These do not have to real but until you can positively discount them you must include them as an alternative?

[Truth OT]

In order for there not to be some sentient God-being or more than one eternal being, then does it not stand to reason that something(s) have existed always? The issue we have IMO is trying to identify and describe what those somethings may be without being able to observe and test them.
A God or Gods may in fact exist and may have been responsible for the initiation of our reality, but even if that is the case, we still have no reason to believe that means anything to us. Who's to say that "God" purposefully initiated our reality and therefore even knows we exist?
When it comes to beginnings, saying "I Don't know is the only "right" answer".

[Godexists]

Because whatever logical problems there are with an eternal universe also apply to an eternal being.

Not , if that eternal being exists outside space and time.

It has extra problems in that we're left with having to explain how the eternal being functions.

Not necessarly. A explanation to be the best , it is not needed to explain the explanation. When you see on a tomb artifacts of gold, you know someone made them. You do not need to know who it was.

[Godexists]

You are still obsfucating a special pleading fallacy.

Until the big bang theory became " a jour ", it was also stated the universe existed eternally. Why is THAT not special pleading, but God is ?

[Godexists]

And could there be more than one eternal being? [you cannot assume it].

Yes, absolutely. We christians actually believe in a triune God.

again we have the word 'created' makes this option the same as the first regardless of the mechanism used to 'create' 'everything'.
And if 'everything' was created out of nothing then cause and effect is a meaningless concept.

so you confirm that is not a reasonable option ?

The universe exists without beginning, eternally

What about the various hypothesis about Brane theory, multiverses, etc?
These do not have to real but until you can positively discount them you must include them as an alternative?
[/quote]

In one form or the other, these all must state that the universe existed in one form or the other eternally. Its granted, it cannot arise from absolutely nothing.

[Godexists]

Who's to say that "God" purposefully initiated our reality and therefore even knows we exist?

http://www.carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

[Hatter23]

You are still obsfucating a special pleading fallacy.

Until the big bang theory became " a jour ", it was also stated the universe existed eternally. Why is THAT not special pleading, but God is ?

The Big bang may or may have not had an existence prior to it...it is stating how the universe AS WE KNOW IT came into existence. It does not state it came from nothing.

The charge of special pleading still stands

[Azdgari]

Because whatever logical problems there are with an eternal universe also apply to an eternal being.

Not , if that eternal being exists outside space and time.

In which case it is not eternal.  Eternity refers to time.  A being that exists outside of space and time does nothing at all, because action requires time.

Your proposition is incoherent.

It has extra problems in that we're left with having to explain how the eternal being functions.

Not necessarly. A explanation to be the best , it is not needed to explain the explanation. When you see on a tomb artifacts of gold, you know someone made them. You do not need to know who it was.

If someone proposed that they were made through a mechanism we don't know about, then that proposition would require additional explanation.  For example, if someone proposed that the tomb artifacts were fashioned through matter replication technology, then that would require additional explanation and involve additional assumptions.

Your god hypothesis does exactly the same thing.

[Truth OT]

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

A better explanation may be that SOMETHING(s) which is impossible (at this point) to identify, describe, or explain, acted or was acted upon (by something yet to be identified as well), causing the onset of our reality.
The SOMETHING in question here cannot yet be identified. So to say it made a purposeful decision is at best wishful thinking. A better guess, but still a guess nonetheless would be to say that the SOMETHING that gave rise to our cosmos was somehow capable of causing "creation", but again we have no way of knowing whether the capable party acted purposefully or whether our cosmos arose accidentally as an effect of its actions. The speculation is infinite and the definitive answers are lacking.

[Zankuu]

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

Are you familiar with the "the chain of being"? Here's the reader digest version. It looks a little something like this:

...Bt-2 --> Bt-1 --> Bt --> Bt+1 --> Bt+2...

If we let B stand for existence and t stand for time, then each of these "links" represent a causal place in time. This "chain of being" is nothing more than a collection of parts. Each link can be explained by the link before it (its temporal antecedent) thanks to a tool we call science. There is no reason to inject "God did it" simply because we have reached a link in the chain that is yet to be scientifically explained.

I'd also like to add that denying a cause does not mean caused by nothing. So when we reject a cause (like God) we are most certainly not saying the universe was created by nothing. I'm not even certain how plausible an original cause is. And since an original cause can't be proven, why assume that there is a reason for existence in the first place? Why does the universe exist at all? I don't know. What's wrong with having a brute fact: the universe just exists.

[screwtape]

Not , if that eternal being exists outside space and time.

Sweet.  I knew it would come to this eventually.

Can you even explain what this faux deep, very mysterious sounding explanation even means?  How does anything - especially disembodied personality that somehow weilds ultimate power - exists outside time and space?  How does a decision get made without time? 

I don't know if you realize or not, but the only reason you are giving this embarrassing excuse is to put god out of reach, intellectually.  You see, many cultures, even the hebrews, thought their gods lived in specific places.  The Greeks thought their gods lived on top of Mount Olympus.  Until someone actually went there and found no gods. 

The hebrew god had several homes. One was literally in the sky. That is why heaven (where god and the angels live) is the same word as the heavens (where the stars and planets are).  Their god yhwh also lived in the tabernacle in the holy of holies in their temple.  But, like the greeks, that was demonstrated to be obviously untrue when the babylonians crushed their kingdom and destroyed the temple.  However, unlike the Greeks, the hebrews were not rationalists and could not deal with that reality.  So they reinvented their god in a way that allowed them to avoid reality and continue to live in delusion. 

You are continuing in that tradition.  You have made a claim that is completely unverifiable - god lives[1] outside space and time.  How would you even know?  You just reasoned it out?  Well, that's crap.  The ancient greeks used to do that and it was a giant fail. 

They'd sit around and propose things you and I know to be preposterous.  They'd claim that the world was made of four elements and argue about who had the best model.  But they never observed reality to see if their philosophy matched it and made sense. 

And your problem here, buckaroo, is you have no way to observe whether god is outside space-time or not.  So the rational thing to do, the smart thing to do, is to avoid that claim altogether.  Otherwise you end up looking like a fucking idiot.  I know, I know, you're immune to that.  jesus H wants you to look like an idiot.  jesus H blesses those who are spit upon for following him.  Newsflash, Mortimer, you aren't following him and you're no martyr.  That's just a fantasy.


As for your link to that shitty carm sight, it was a belabored example of special pleading.  "Everything that exists must have a creator.  You know.  Except god."  Yeah.  There's some deep thinking for you.  And that dipshit had the gall to start off talking about the "intellectual bankruptcy" of atheism.  Amateur hour.  You should be embarrassed to even post that link.

1.	if "living" can even be applied to yhwh

[Godexists]

Sweet.  I knew it would come to this eventually.

Can you even explain what this faux deep, very mysterious sounding explanation even means?  How does anything - especially disembodied personality that somehow weilds ultimate power - exists outside time and space?  How does a decision get made without time?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

You are continuing in that tradition.  You have made a claim that is completely unverifiable - god lives[1] outside space and time.  How would you even know?  You just reasoned it out?  Well, that's crap.  The ancient greeks used to do that and it was a giant fail.

1.	if "living" can even be applied to yhwh

I don't know why you think its crap. I think its logical reasoning. Any better explanation on hand ?

 

And your problem here, buckaroo, is you have no way to observe whether god is outside space-time or not.  So the rational thing to do, the smart thing to do, is to avoid that claim altogether.  Otherwise you end up looking like a fucking idiot.  I know, I know, you're immune to that.  jesus H wants you to look like an idiot.  jesus H blesses those who are spit upon for following him.  Newsflash, Mortimer, you aren't following him and you're no martyr.  That's just a fantasy.

You can write big words, but as long as you do not have any better explanation on hand, yours are just empty words.

As for your link to that shitty carm sight, it was a belabored example of special pleading.  "Everything that exists must have a creator.  You know.  Except god."  Yeah.  There's some deep thinking for you.  And that dipshit had the gall to start off talking about the "intellectual bankruptcy" of atheism.  Amateur hour.  You should be embarrassed to even post that link.

You sound quit arrogant. Not the best way to make your point.

[Azdgari]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html[/url]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

So it (your god) began to exist from nothing?  If not, then what caused your god to begin to exist, as you've stated?

[Hatter23]

You sound quit arrogant. Not the best way to make your point.

The is an ad hom argument furthermore;

(1) Special Pleading: You state the universe had to have a beginning and had to have been cause by an outside force....but not your God.

(2) Appeal to ignorance: The outside force must have been God

(3) Equivocation: The Creator god had to be Yahweh....you show your bait and switch intentions

[jaimehlers]

Okay...so if I'm understanding this latest argument correctly, God existed timelessly in the eternal instant T = 0, which also just so happens to be the instant that the universe began when time actually started.  In other words, it assumes that there was no duration without time, that T = 0 was eternal because there was no way to tell how long it actually lasted.

There are two problems with that.  First, if someone were to hypothetically turn off time for the universe, right now, and then turned it on again sometime later, we would never know, because our consciousnesses are not capable of functioning without time.  We would exist during that time[1], but it would not be provable that it did indeed happen and it would not make any difference at all.

Second, the much more fundamental problem is that an instant is also over in an instant.  Without duration to measure an interval, the interval does not matter.  So without a way to measure duration, this timeless instant T = 0 was over in an instant for God.  In effect, things started for him at the same exact moment they started for everything else.

1.	If you can call a timeless period which nobody is aware of and where nothing happens 'existence'.

[Godexists]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html[/url]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

So it (your god) began to exist from nothing?  If not, then what caused your god to begin to exist, as you've stated?

No, my God exists without beginning, and without end. He exists eternally.

[jetson]

No, my God exists without beginning, and without end. He exists eternally.

Convenient.  How do you know this?

[Godexists]

Are you familiar with the "the chain of being"? Here's the reader digest version. It looks a little something like this:

...Bt-2 --> Bt-1 --> Bt --> Bt+1 --> Bt+2...

If we let B stand for existence and t stand for time, then each of these "links" represent a causal place in time. This "chain of being" is nothing more than a collection of parts. Each link can be explained by the link before it (its temporal antecedent) thanks to a tool we call science. There is no reason to inject "God did it" simply because we have reached a link in the chain that is yet to be scientifically explained.

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

[Godexists]

No, my God exists without beginning, and without end. He exists eternally.

Convenient.  How do you know this?

because there was never a moment, where absolutely nothing existed. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would be still today, we would not be here. So something must have existed eternally, without beginning , and without a end. i call it God.

[Azdgari]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html[/url]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

So it (your god) began to exist from nothing?  If not, then what caused your god to begin to exist, as you've stated?

No, my God exists without beginning, and without end. He exists eternally.

Note the text of yours that I've underlined in your quote.  Here you have referred to your god's beginning, saying that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist happened simultaneously with your god's beginning to exist.

You contradict yourself.

[Godexists]

A better explanation may be that SOMETHING(s) which is impossible (at this point) to identify, describe, or explain, acted or was acted upon (by something yet to be identified as well), causing the onset of our reality.

I don't think its impossible.

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-the-Existence-of-God-is-Sound/1/

Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

[Godexists]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html[/url]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

So it (your god) began to exist from nothing?  If not, then what caused your god to begin to exist, as you've stated?

No, my God exists without beginning, and without end. He exists eternally.

Note my text of yours that I've underlined in your quote.  Here you have referred to your god's beginning, saying that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist happened simultaneously with your god's beginning to exist.

You contradict yourself.

what happened simultaneously ?

 the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist

thats not God beginning to exist........

[Azdgari]

Then you need to use English grammar, because your post had indicated that it was God who was beginning to exist.

When did God decide to create the universe?

If he decided at a time, then time predates the universe.
If he did not decide at a time, then he never decided it.

This out-of-time reasoning is monumentally dumb.  Case in point:  By your own reasoning, your god is exactly as old as the universe is, because "older than the universe" is meaningless.

[Godexists]

In which case it is not eternal.  Eternity refers to time.  A being that exists outside of space and time does nothing at all, because action requires time.

Your proposition is incoherent.

we need to define terms :

http://books.google.com/books?id=DDPk9eGFpS8C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=boethius+timeless+eternity&source=bl&ots=XYxbsQKhKt&sig=VTTk0YSJHXxYeARotBwSa03yFH4&hl=en&ei=8vZJTO71OsLTngfq9-CvDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=boethius%20timeless%20eternity&f=false

Eternity is the simultaneous possession of boundless life which is made clearer by comparison with temporal things.

This becomes clear when we consider temporal things: whatever lives in time lives only in the present, which passes from the past into the future, and no temporal thing has such a nature that it can simultaneously embrace its entire existence, for it has not yet arrived at tomorrow and no longer exists in yesterday.

We cannot be considered eternal: Even one’s life today exists only in each and every transient moment. Therefore, anything which exists in time… cannot properly be considered eternal, for anything in time does not embrace the infinity of life all at once, since it does not embrace the future or the past.

Since every intellect understands according to its own nature, and since God lives in an eternal present, with no past or future, his knowledge transcends the movement of time and exists only in a single, simple, unified present.

If someone proposed that they were made through a mechanism we don't know about, then that proposition would require additional explanation.  For example, if someone proposed that the tomb artifacts were fashioned through matter replication technology, then that would require additional explanation and involve additional assumptions.

Your god hypothesis does exactly the same thing.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

[jaimehlers]

Godexists:  You are still assuming that the universe came from nothing.  You have no proof for this.  The only thing you've said is that we have a strong philosophical reason to reject the universe always existing, but you do not give it, and a philosophical reason proves nothing in any case.  So I'll ask you, point-blank:  Why should we reject the universe always existing?  Just give me a straight, simple answer.

[Godexists]

Then you need to use English grammar, because your post had indicated that it was God who was beginning to exist.

When did God decide to create the universe?

If he decided at a time, then time predates the universe.
If he did not decide at a time, then he never decided it.

This out-of-time reasoning is monumentally dumb.  Case in point:  By your own reasoning, your god is exactly as old as the universe is, because "older than the universe" is meaningless.

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be. nothing dumb about this reasoning.

[Godexists]

Godexists:  You are still assuming that the universe came from nothing.

from nothing physical. 

You have no proof for this.

no, indeed i don't. Thats neither what its all about. We should max. try to find out which is the best explanation for our existence. We cannot presume to find out more than that.


 

Why should we reject the universe always existing?  Just give me a straight, simple answer.

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-the-Existence-of-God-is-Sound/1/

If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

[Azdgari]

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be. nothing dumb about this reasoning.

You never answered my post.  When did your god decide to create?