Post Any Evidence For God Here

[jonesthecurl]

I wish I had one great big bag
Of popcorn so that I could have
A seat on the side
And watch limerick fights
Even though mine don't rhyme very well...

So crispybit's sat eating corn
just like he does while watching porn
If my taste buds aren't faulty,
it tastes really salty,
ewwww! spit! gag!Splutter!

[crispybits]

ewww

Thankfully I really don't like salty popcorn, I was referring to the toffee variety

[Viceroy63]

And BTW: I was not trying to avoid you before but you ask me questions and never wanted to answer mines. So if you ignore my questions, then why shouldn't I ignore yours?

I asked first.
We need to know what authority you're quoting for your very important assertations before we can go anywhere.
If you just meant "it is obvious that..."
or "My opinion is..."
then you shouldn't be making lazy appeals to spurious authority.

Jones; This is an excellent example of just one of the many ways in which misinformation comes into existence and then everyone believes the theory and not the facts. The facts are that technically you did not ask any question of me first but made a statement instead, but I did ask you a question first. Here are the facts...

First I made this post on...
"Post by Viceroy63 on Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:32 pm"

OK; I'm back. Boy take a little break and the whole conversation digresses all to hell.

That's what many are motivated to oppose. Not the notion that there may or may not be a God, I'm quite happy either way with that for my own definition of God, if he exists then great, if he doesn't that's fine too. But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other. And the only way to attack that sickness of the human mentality is to attack the idea.

I'd like to address this quote first because if by, "But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other..." we are then speaking of savage barbaric acts, then let me point out that mankind in general is a savage barbaric species without the aid of religion. Religion is simply the highest point of Barbarism and savagery that mankind can invent.

Does mankind enslave others in the name of religion? The American Civil War is one of the most barbaric, brutal and savage wars ever fought. "Approximately 625,000 men died in the Civil War, more Americans than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined."
(http://www.history.com/news/10-surprisi ... -war-facts)

And lets not mention Adolf Hitler who slaughtered 11 Million Civilians, Non combatants, because he believed that it was the, "Final Solution." Was it all done in the name of Allah or Christ or some other religious belief? History is filled with human inhumanities to other humans and it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just an excuse to commit all the atrocities that already lie in the hearts of men.

Oh, the evil that men do.

But laying that aside because it really has nothing to do with the existence of God... I just wanted to throw that in there. =)

Science does confirm that the Universe is indeed comprised of three elements and only three elements. Time, Space and Matter. Quantum Physics also falls in there some where just like every noun is either a person place or thing. There is nothing else. When scientist speak of empty space not being empty, This does not prove that an empty universe had already existed and was just waiting to be filled with matter. It merely shows what the knowable universe consist of. Not what brought the universe into existence.

Some scientist even speak of all the known universe, Everything we see being somehow compressed together (perhaps by a big crunch) into a tiny infinitesimal point and that was the cause of a Big Bang. But where does time fit into that equation? Did time go backward as well in that big crunch that caused the big bang? Because if everything is relative and Time continues in as a constant doesn't that mean that an expanding Universe is also a constant? At least that is what I get from that "youtube" that was posted earlier. Yes I watched it. =) So then where is all that energy that pushes this universe apart at an ever increasing rate, Where is all that quantum energy coming from?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

Empty Space as an explanation for an ever increasing Universe is logical but simply does not explain where all that emptiness is coming from. If energy is never lost only transformed into other forms of energy and or matter then the universe should not be expanding as it is all the time, if all the energy in the universe is a constant and most of it (99.99999% percent of it) in empty space.

Three thousand years ago or so God informed Isaiah...

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it;..."
-Isaiah 42:5

Wait a minute, "... the heavens, and stretched them out;"? I don't know about anyone else but gee, that sounds a lot like an expanding universe to me. And what about that bit about the earth spreading fourth? Has not science shown that the earth is larger or more "Spread Forth" now than in the past? That at one time, (perhaps 65 Million Years ago? IDK), that the earth was not so "Spread Forth" as it is today?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

But how did anyone know this Three Thousand Years Ago? Unless it was revealed Knowledge by The Creator Himself. The knowledge and understanding that scientist are only now figuring out Three Thousand Years after the fact. That's like looking at the cats testacols and saying, "It's a male???"

So if the universe consist of three elements, Space, Time and Matter, and only these three elements, and everything else (Quantum Mechanics) falls into these three co-related and co-existing elements, and if the Bible also states this fact before man ever figured it out, does that not prove the existence of an Intelligent Creator God?

"In the beginning (Time) God created the heaven (Space) and the earth (Matter).
-Genesis 1:1

To me it's, Case Closed!

Warning: This comment may be revised and updated at a future point of Time and Space in order to correct it's spelling, Matter.

I had not posted anything in days if not weeks as sometimes happens to me when I lose interests in a topic. =) That is how I know that I had not posted anything prior to this and this is where our journey began.

Then you posted this on...
"Post by jonesthecurl on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:09 am"

Scientist have confirmed that the Universe is indeed comprised of three elements and only three elements

I must have missed that announcement.

Technically, there is no question here. So far you have not asked any questions what so ever. Then I posted this in reply to your post asking you a question first. Even used a "?" Question mark. =) LOL.

Then I posted this comment on...
"by Viceroy63 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:15 am"

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

Also; What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine? That falls outside of the three?

So actually, I asked you three questions here in this post.

1)
"What word would you use?"
[confirm is the word in question. Is there another word that perhaps I should have used?]

2)
"What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine?

3)
"That falls outside of the three?"

That third question was like a clarification question of what I referred to as the three elements of the Universe that Science and Scientist in general are all "AGREED" upon that our Universe consist of. Perhaps "Agreed" is the word that I should have used instead but it just did not occur to me at the time. And you never answered that question.

Some one had pointed to "Energy" But Energy and Matter are related by Einstein's E=MC(2). Energy is also composed of Matter or originates from Matter so that energy is not some independent element as are Time and Space. Which really are not independent of each other but work together to comprise this Universe.

The same can be said of Gravity, Quantum Particles and any other observable phenomenon in this Universe. Even when they don't obey the rules of the Universe such as in the case of Quantum Mechanics yet Quantum Particles do exist in this Space/Time Continuum just as the fabric of the universe, Matter, contributes to gravity and any other observable event (Black Holes, Dark Matter...) or condition in the Universe.

But those are also points that some one else brought up and not you in the way of answering my questions.

I really hate to have to get all technical over such a little matter but I would rather make a mountain out of a mole hill before I let some "tid bit" of disinformation such as, "Well, I asked you first" which is just not true, get all out there and believed upon by the general public.

Sorry. =(

[jonesthecurl]

OK,Mr grammar nazi: I didn't ask a question, I just questioned what you said.
I'd still like to know where you got the "science" from.

[TeeGee]

Will we find this proof in 12 or 13 days time?????

[john9blue]

And BTW: I was not trying to avoid you before but you ask me questions and never wanted to answer mines. So if you ignore my questions, then why shouldn't I ignore yours?

I asked first.
We need to know what authority you're quoting for your very important assertations before we can go anywhere.
If you just meant "it is obvious that..."
or "My opinion is..."
then you shouldn't be making lazy appeals to spurious authority.

you realize that this entire argument about einstein was one big appeal to authority?

[jonesthecurl]

I really really wanted to join a show in NYC called "End of the World Comedy", which starts at 11.59 on Thursday 20th. Unfortunately I have to get up at 6 am to go film the end of the Robert Heinlein thing. If there IS a 6am.

[Viceroy63]

OK,Mr grammar nazi: I didn't ask a question, I just questioned what you said.
I'd still like to know where you got the "science" from.

And I already explained that it was my bad in a post after that one and you still keep insisting. Makes me wonder if you read that post. Perhaps you need to read it again...

I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.

I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

Also; What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine? That falls outside of the three?

BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------

Crispybits; I was only trying to clarify what I thought was a statement about the problem of religion. The tackling of human ills, I believe would be better served on another thread.

But I would like to address that religion or that belief in a higher power greater than us has always been manipulated by the self serving for their own personal gain. Mostly though because of the power over the masses that religion enables and the money that it brings in. Money and power are about the same thing anyway.

Now what a lot of people do not realize is that Atheism is also a religion. It's higher power greater than us is man's indomitable spirit. And it is manipulated by those who want money and power just the same. Atheism also exerts influence over the masses that helps to bring the people under control. And it is just as deceptive.

For example we can't teach about God in schools because the constitution separates church and state. But this country began as a God fearing nation. Yet we can teach unfounded theories that explain creation without a Creator??? How much more deceptive can you get?

But simple truth is simple truth and the existence of a Creator God is as simple as it gets. To explain creation without a Creator is simply not logical. To deny the evidence in science and history is madness. And to fight against the truth, to fight against God with Theories of Evolution for the Origin of life or the Universe, or even the origin of species, Well that is simply insanity.

It's only a small sentence but it is clear that I did admit that it was my bad in using the word "Scientist." Here is that sentence again in case you missed it.

"BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?"

Perhaps that is why you had no comments on my other post as well. allow me to repost them here in case you missed them as well...

[Viceroy63]

The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.

How Could Time Exist Prior To Creation?
By Viceroy63
[updated and revised]
I also added an additional [Note] at the end.

The second most visible and obvious evidence for the existence of God is an expanding universe. The first is, how monstrously huge this universe really is. But the fact that this incredibly huge Universe is expanding and has been doing so for some 13 to 16 Billion Years is mind boggling. If you really consider this with an open mind, how can you not see the hand of God in creation.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVApTLE7Csc

In the video they said that the Universe has been expanding from 10 to 20 Billion Years but more recent observations suggest 13 to 16 Billion Years. I don't know exactly how they come up with the number of years but it is safe to assume that if the galaxies are rushing away from each other that at one time they should have been closer to one another. Else how can you rush away?

I think that the the direction in which the galaxies are flying in can also be determined by the Doppler effect. So when you align all the directions together you get an idea of a more central location that the galaxies began their journey through time. But how does Time fit into all of this?

Einstein hypothesized that the universe must be related and work together some how. He was not the first to come up with this. If you've ever seen a Japanese Rock Garden and then ask the "Gardener" what it means he would explain to you that by moving one pebble in the Garden, you alter the destiny of the universe. That is what Einstein is basically saying with his special relativity theory and that idea was hundreds if not thousands of years before Einstein hit upon it. Everything is relative and related to everything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fv ... iwq94&NR=1

But basically speaking, all three elements, Time, Space and Matter are related to each other so that by changing one you change the other. So if the Universe had a beginning some 14 Billion years ago, which of course implies a Beginner or Creator, then so also had all three of these elements their beginning at the same point in creation. To say that Time existed before Space and Matter, is to say that Time is not a part of our Universe and that simply is not the case. Either something is a part of the universe or it is not. And if the three are related then the three began when the Universe began. It's really just that simple.

Also it is safe to point out that if something is not a part of our universe, then it most likely can not be observed. Something outside of the universe, like a Creator God, can not be observed by the universe as the universe can only observe things inside of the universe. This is why we see and detect the presence of Time. Because Time is inside of and a part of this universe just as Matter and Space is also.

As a thought experiment I would like to suggest that when the Universe was only 5 Billion years old, that this part of Time and Space that we currently occupy did not exist. The universe at 5 Billion years old only had the stretch of space of 10 Billion Light Years in Diameter. So this Thirteenth Billion Light year that we call our home, our time and place, had not yet come to exist in a 5 Billion year old universe.

The Universe is constantly expanding in an outwardly direction from the epicenter of what we call the "Big Bang." So then at this point in time, the universe being 13 Billion Years old, the Time, Space and Matter of 20 Billion years from now does not yet exist. That is to say that the future has yet to be created. Along with the Space, Time and Matter that goes with it. [Tomorrow does not yet exist]

Currently our universe is 13 Billion years old so that means that it is safe to assume that our universe has a diameter of 26 Billion Light Years across. There is nothing that exist outside of the sphere of this 26 Billion Light Year Universe because everything outside of the sphere of this universe is yet to be created. Not Time nor Space nor Matter exist outside of the universe. If it does exist then it would be observational and a part of the universe and we could then say that the Universe is not 13 Billion years old but older.

We certainly can not detect light from the other side of this universe because of the distance and speed that light travels. If the other side of our universe is 26 Billion light years away then it takes light from the other side 26 billion light years to get to us. But if we are also moving at light speed or close to it away from the epicenter then the point will come when we will no longer be able to detect any light from the other side. We can how ever see and observe light in front of us and around us from surrounding galaxies, even if it is all also moving away from us as well, but we can observe it more easily then light from all the way on the other side of the universe, some 26 Billion light years away.

When scientist speak of empty space not being empty, they are referring to the space inside of our created universe. But beyond our Universe there is no empty space. There is simply nothing that exist outside of the sphere of this universe just as there is nothing that exist outside of the sphere of the Creator. The word universe means, all that there is. So outside of this universe there is no Time, Space or Matter. Not yet anyway!

[Note]

When I say, "Currently our universe is 13 Billion years old so that means that it is safe to assume that our universe has a diameter of 26 Billion Light Years across. There is nothing that exist outside of the sphere of this 26 Billion Light Year Universe because everything outside of the sphere of this universe is yet to be created...

First of all I am talking "Approximately." Secondly I would like to point out that it is the expanding Universe that is constantly creating and not that there is some "Room" in the "Universe" that is being filled up with time, space and matter.

As a thought experiment, if you could some how travel beyond the leading edge of our ever expanding universe; If you could some how go beyond the confines our our universe and go into tomorrow, Then you would simply cease to exist because Tomorrow does not yet exist as the past already does.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that if you could travel faster than light then you could end up in the past. But how does one go into tomorrow? It has to exist first and this alone is what makes time travel into the future, impossible. The fact that tomorrow does not yet exist for any of us because the Universe has not yet expanded into the realm of tomorrow.

But as we creep into the tomorrow, one second at a time, tomorrow is being created with every second that passes, even as I write these thoughts. This is why Time could not exist prior to the creation of the Universe because if time had existed prior to the creation of the Universe then the universe would not have had a beginning. And Astronomy and Astrophysics, "Science," do show us that Yes, The Universe does have a beginning. So how could time exist prior to creation, when there is a Beginning to all of Creation?

The end of my article and my words.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... tSAvcslxag

Have you seen the January 11 issue of New Scientist? There's a story by Lisa Grossman entitled, "Why Scientists Can't Avoid a Creation Event." It seems that at a conference in Cambridge in honor of Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday (truly an amazing achievement, it must be said), Alex Vilenkin showed up with the results of a new paper demonstrating the impossibility of yet another way of trying to escape the conclusion of an absolute cosmic beginning. Vilenkin concludes, ""All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."

Grossman characterizes this news as "the worst birthday presesnt ever" for Hawking, who in a pre-recorded messaged to the conference declared, ""A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."
-Reasonable Faith, Facebook.

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories - for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe - which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn't necessarily the Big Bang.

At a meeting of scientists - titled "State of the Universe" - convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the Universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist Magazine, 11 January 2012. I've quoted a few brief high lights below.

In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.

One popular theory is the eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^-36 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The Theory of eternal infaltion goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes withing an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forward in time, allowing the possibilitly of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i15/e151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns our that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past." says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."

A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there's a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists - nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn't increase, so needn't reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.

However, Vilenkin's options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lessor-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the "Cosmic Egg." This finally "cracked" to create the big bang leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed - and therefore also after a finite amount of time.

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe," Vilenkin concludes.

So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin's verdict?

"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."

A Supernatural Creator?

I've always been a bit leery of the Kalam version of the cosmological argument which says that since (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause, and (2) the universe began to exist, therefore (3) the universe has a supernatural cause. Of course, I don't doubt the first premise, and as Professor William Lane Craig, who is a noted defender of the argument, points out, neither did the skeptical philosopher David Hume. Hume wrote in 1754: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (The Letters of David Hume, Two Volumes, J. Y. T. Greig, editor: (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), 1:187; quoted in Craig, Reasonable Faith, Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, revised edition, 1994,p.93).

And as philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe has pointed out, if you think about how you'd go about determining that an object which just appeared out of nowhere had actually come into existence or had just been very rapidly transported from some other place where it had existed previously, the only way you could settle the issue would be to identify something which was responsible for generating it, as opposed to merely transporting it. In other words, you'd need to identify a cause. (In the case of virtual particles which come into and go out of existence over very short time periods, that cause is the quantum vacuum, which, because it has a specific energy level and can be described by scientific laws, is a genuine entity in its own right, pervading the universe of space.) In short: methodologically, there seems to be no way in principle of showing that something which appeared out of the blue actually came into existence without a cause, and our ability to imagine it doesn't make it really possible (after all, I can imagine winged horses too).

But I've always been a bit doubtful about the second premise until now. Cosmologists themselves seemed to have lots of ideas as to how the universe might be eternal, and it seemed to me that as fast as one idea was refuted, another one sprang up.

So when I see a leading cosmologist such as Vilenkin admit that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning," I sit up and take notice.

Suppose Vilenkin is right. What follows then? The universe had some kind of cause - obviously not a natural cause, so you'd have to call it supernatural. But where does that take us?

A Personal Creator?

Professor William Lane Craig goes on to argue that this supernatural cause of the cosmos must be personal. According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason. Personal explanation is the only schematic that can explain the coming-to-be of the cosmos, reasons Craig.

Professor Craig defends the notion of a personal Creator in a post entitled, "Is the Cause of the Universe an Uncaused, Personal Creator of the Universe, who spans the Universe Is Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Spaceless, and Enormously Powerful?
-Reasonable Faith, Facebook.
-Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design on January 12, 2012

[comic boy]

Still no evidence then.....

[crispybits]

OK then Viceroy, lets assume you are correct with that (I must confess I skim read it as once again I'm rushing but I caught the bits that matter to this argument).

Would you agree that causality is a function of a temporal reality? As in you cannot have causality without time, as there is no "cause and effect" without a "before and after". I dropped it - it fell. I pushed it - it moved. I said "biatch go make me a sammich" - the biatch went and made me a sammich (or slapped me upside the head for being a twat).

So we have two possible states. The universe does not exist or the universe exists.

If we are in the state when the universe does not exist and causality is a function of a temporal universe, then there is no causality. There is no need for a cause to have the universe start existing.

If we are in a state where the universe exists, then there is no need for a cause because the universe already exists. It's a fait accompli (or however you spell that)

Either way, there is no need for the universe to be caused, so there is no necessity to have God brought into the argument. I do not deny the possibility of God existing, I simply point out that it is not a necessity.

Therefore the argument that the universe needs a cause and therefore God must exist falls down.

Where am I going wrong in that train of thought?

[jonesthecurl]

V63;
have YOu seen the edition of New Scientist in question?
Or have you just seen reports on it from theosophist or Intelligent Design sites?
Because what you give us is a direct lift from one of these.

Vilenkin (not one of the major speakers) did indeed say that he believes the universe had a beginning. He said nothing aboout a divine creator - that is a gloss put on it by commentators.
Indeed he is famous for theorising exactly that the universe DID come from nothing at all.
This is not a "new" paper from 2012.
His theory is a elaborate version of what I said a few pages back, or of what crispybits just said:
A first event, a beginning is exactly that:
the first thing that ever happened.
Therefore a thing without a cause, a moment without a predecessor - precisely because it IS the beginning.

[Viceroy63]

If we are in the state when the universe does not exist and causality is a function of a temporal universe, then there is no causality. There is no need for a cause to have the universe start existing.

If we are in a state where the universe exists, then there is no need for a cause because the universe already exists. It's a fait accompli (or however you spell that)

Either way, there is no need for the universe to be caused, so there is no necessity to have God brought into the argument. I do not deny the possibility of God existing, I simply point out that it is not a necessity..

I think that you need to run this part by me again in small English words please. LOL. In both cases, whether the universe exist or it does not, you state that there is no need to have a cause to start it. In that second half of my post, the part that I did not write, Vilenkin dealt with the three schools of taught as to how the universe is an eternal universe. Perhaps you need to read that second half again to gain a better idea of how the universe is not an eternal universe.

Could you be referring to a state before the universe began? In such a state there is nothing. Except for a Creator who needs nothing in order to exist. I think that perhaps people get confused and start to think, "Well, there had to be something, up, down sideways?" For where then did this Creator live? Where did he hang his hat? But where there is no universe there is nothing, not even dimension and a true God needs nothing in order to exist. He simply is. It's hard to imagine nothing but that's exactly what there is left when you take away the universe. No Thing.

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of Good. Nothing is the absence of the universe. So before the universe there was nothing. Not Time, Space nor Matter.

But facts are facts and the Universe did start approximately 13 billion years ago. That is a science fact. Before then, 13 billion years ago, there was nothing. There is no denying science fact. So if the universe did start approximately 13 billion years ago then how did it start? There was nothing to start it. Except that there must have been something because how did it start. But certainly nothing natural started the universe. So it must have been supernatural.

Now we can move into cause and effect. It is the nature of this universe that cause and effects simply are and that they are precisely the way that they are and no other way can they be. The universe determines that.

Some may say, yes, but quantum mechanics changes everything. It breaks all of the rules. But perhaps it is the way in which we observe QM that changes all of the rules. Like watching a wild animal outside of it's natural environment. Of course they behave differently.

The natural environment in the universe when it comes to cause and effect is that first we drop something and then it falls. In the natural environment things happen according to the natural laws of the universe. Up will always be up and down will always be down. And time travel is just a theory.

So if our universe itself dictates these laws to us in their natural environment then they must be true. Thus design must always have a designer, Art always an artist and Creation always must have a Creator. That is just the natural order of things in this universe. Our universe had a beginning thus there must by observance of natural universal laws, be a Beginner of it all. Something or some God must have begun it all.

When you really consider the heart of this debate, it comes down to this. Atheist do not want to believe in a Supernatural Creator God. So they will devise any excuse, any argument to advance the idea that God is not necessary for the universe to exist. It's really that simple.

All evidence to the facts of logical reasons are summarily dismissed. Any and all actual observations to the facts are neatly explain away with some theory or another. Anything at all that even hints at the possibility of a Creator God are either ignored or attacked. It has always been this way.

Take carbon dating for example. If the date is close enough to their ideas of evolution then it is used and publicized. But if the date is anything different then their preconceived notions and ideas they simply put it back and keep looking until they find some thing that gives them the right date. Thus the theory of evolution and origin of life on this planet must be true. Just look at all this fossil evidence. And people believe that because why would a man science ignore evidence that may suggest otherwise?

It's the same old argument. Those who do not believe in a Creator God do not believe because they simply do not want to. And all the evidence in the World will not change their minds. They will continue to believe that Evolution is the reason why we exist and that the Universe has always existed and so there is no need for a cause or a Creator God!

[crispybits]

OK I'll try and put it a different way.

If we have the following logical argument:

Premise: There is a black cat sitting on my kitchen window sill
Premise: My kitchen window sill is sunny
Premise: Black cats love to sit in sunny places
Conclusion: There is a black cat sitting on my kitchen window sill

Do you see how the first premise and the conclusion are identical? It makes the other 2 premises meaningless, because you are effectively just making the statement that there is a black cat sitting on my kitchen window sill. Remove the premise that is identical to the conclusion and you get:

Premise: My kitchen window sill is sunny
Premise: Black cats love to sit in sunny places
Conclusion: There is a black cat sitting on my kitchen window sill

Now those premises do not prove that there isn't a black cat sitting on my kitchen window sill, but they also do not prove that there is. I might not have a cat in the house at all and both my premises would remain true, but the conclusion would be invalid. Logically the argument is not sound.

Now lets do the same with the God argument:

Premise: God exists
Premise: Nothing else exists
Premise: The universe does not exist
Premise: Causality does not exist ( these last two are not really separate from the "Nothing else exists" one, but just making it as clear as possible)
Premise: The universe begins to exist
Premise: The universe must have been caused
Premise: Only God could have caused the universe
Conclusion: God exists

Do you see how this is the equivalent of the black cat one? I'm assuming my conclusion as one of the premises. That then isn't an argument, it's a statement. God exists therefore God exists. Take that out of it and you get:

Premise: Nothing exists
Premise: The universe does not exist
Premise: Causality does not exist ( these last two are not really separate from the "Nothing else exists" one, but just making it as clear as possible)
Premise: The universe begins to exist
Premise: The universe must have been caused
Premise: Only God could have caused the universe
Conclusion: God exists

Now this is still not a valid argument, because the premises are contradictory. Namely these ones:

Premise: Causality does not exist
Premise: The universe must have been caused

Also the following premise is linked to the "there is a God" conclusion.

Premise: Only God could have caused the universe

The existence of God has not been established yet. It would be the equivalent of me adding in "My kitchen window sill always has a blak cat sitting on it" to my first example. Again it turns it away from a proper logical argument into a statement again, because it adds the conclusion back into the premises.

So we remove these faulty sections and the clarifications I added that were essentially duplicates and we get:

Premise: Nothing exists
Premise: The universe begins to exist
Conclusion: God exists

Now we're at the same situation again with the black cat one. The argument does not contain enough to prove the conclusion. It doesn't disprove it, it doesn't say that there is definitely no God, but it doesn't make God a necessity without adding further premises.

What premises could I add to that argument, that do not assume the existence of God to begin with, that would make God necessary again? Remember you can't add in any of the ones I've taken out already because they've been showed to make the argument logically unsound.

Also:

It's the same old argument. Those who do not believe in a Creator God do not believe because they simply do not want to. And all the evidence in the World will not change their minds. They will continue to believe that Evolution is the reason why we exist and that the Universe has always existed and so there is no need for a cause or a Creator God!

I could just as easily say:

It's the same old argument. Those who do believe in a Creator God do believe because they simply want to. And all the evidence in the World will not change their minds. They will continue to believe that God is the reason why we exist and that the Universe was created and so there is definitely a need for a cause or a Creator God!

But if we put "invisible badgers" into that kind of argument, you have one person saying:

Those who do not believe in invisible badgers do not believe because they simply want to, and all the evidence in the world will not change their minds. Invisible badgers exist!

And another saying:

Those who believe in invisible badgers believe because they simply want to, and all the evidence in the world will not change their minds. Invisible badgers do not exist!

But, if I ask a neutral person, with no opinion at all about invisible badgers to look at these two arguments, and decide who should have to provide evidence for the claims, they will say that the person claiming the existence of invisible badgers has to provide proof. If there is no reason to think that invisible badgers exist to start with, then someone simply saying "invisible badgers exist" does not make them real. They have the burden of proof upon them to show everyone an invisible badger, and prove that what they are showing us could not be anything other than an invisible badger.

It's the same with God. Show us evidence for God, and show us that the evidence can mean that there could be no other explanation but God, and I'll believe in God (as, I suspect, will the rest of the world). But making flawed arguments (like the ontological one above, or the design one which just says "it's really, really unlikely for this to happen by chance therefore it must have had a mind behind it") that can easily be said to be down to other explanations, and a lot of people will continue to remain skeptical.

[Viceroy63]

I'm sorry crispy bits but your premise is wrong.

I did not start out by saying that God exist. I did say that nothing existed except for God. I guess that we need to define nothing which is simply the absence of the universe is nothing. To think that God is a part of this universe is a big assumption. God is not a part of this universe. The universe can cease to exist and God will still exist. How ever if God ceases to exist, then there goes the neighborhood and our universe with it.

I started out by saying that the universe began. That the universe had a beginning. Therefore my conclusion is that there must be a Beginner or Creator. See how the two are actually different? And not the same as in your version of the facts? You are doing much like curl when he says that I said that he said that she said, and none of it is right and True. "Oh, but I asked the question first." Of course you did???

Read that "Paper" again and quote me from that paper and base my premise on those words. Or better yet start your own paper to disprove mine, rather than question incorrectly what I said.

Here, I will even start you out...

The Universe could not have had a beginning because...
by crispybits

Now you finish it and in the process explain to me how I am wrong and where the fault in my paper lies.

As to the second part; Religious belief is in fact hereditary passed down from father to son but the truth is what I am talking about here and not religious belief. Those who do not see the truth, choose to ignore it just as the scientist who do not use carbon dating results that do not agree with their opinions and preconceived notions about evolution, dinosaurs and the origin of life etc. etc. etc. And that my friend is a little know fact about out scientific community.

There is so much body of evidence out there for the existence of God as to make the Pacific Ocean appear as a small child's swimming pool. But those who argue it rather than examine it do so because they simply don't want to believe in a Creator God and so one by one they start to propose theories that don't fit the facts. Like your false premise where I start out by assuming that there is a God and I did not. Or that there is nothing and then conclude that there is a God. Two very different things.

Again, I start by showing how the universe had a beginning, The body of evidence, and concluded how that it must have been God. Now you should write how the Universe did not have a beginning and prove me wrong in that paper.

And just to entertain any visitors...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... QFfbc&NR=1

[MeDeFe]

I'm sorry crispy bits but your premise is wrong.

I did not start out by saying that God exist. I did say that nothing existed except for God. I guess that we need to define nothing which is simply the absence of the universe is nothing. To think that God is a part of this universe is a big assumption. God is not a part of this universe. The universe can cease to exist and God will still exist. How ever if God ceases to exist, then there goes the neighborhood and our universe with it.

Yep, that's "God exists" as a premise.

[comic boy]

A lot of waffle but not a shred of hard evidence for a supernatural 'designer ' , even if such existed where is the evidence that this 'designer' hung around for several billion years to keep an eye on his rather insignificant project ?
I think that Inteligent Design is a cute way to evade awkward realities , it allows for a measure of self delusion, but what it most definitely does not do is further the case for a monolithic deity.
You may indulge in philisophical debate and fancy until the end of time but you will never present one single scrap of scientific fact endorsing ' God ' , the irony of course being that if he/she/it actually existed then such proof could be presented in a flash.

[Gillipig]

Viceroy, YOU CAN'T MAKE UP QUALITY WITH QUANTITY! It's pretty obvious that all you're doing is making your arguments unfalsifiable. You start with an assumption and then you swoop around a circle and end up quoting your intitial assumption as the reason for why the assumption is true. Like this;
God has always existed.............bla bla bla.......... and because god has always existed we must conclude that he exists.
Quantity is worthless without quality.

[crispybits]

I was going to reply, but MeDeFe basically just said what I would have written anyway.

All "evidence for God" arguments I have ever seen are circular like this, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming that something exists to offer (non-circular) proof of their claim.

I have not at any point said that "God does not exist", I only ever say that "God might exist, but I have seen no evidence that proves it." And the evidence to prove that God exists must be of a nature where not only can you show me something divine, but you must show that it could not possibly be anything but divine. That there is no possibility of it being natural.

Pointing to the universe and saying "it's huge and complicated and beautiful" is just pointing out natural characteristics of the universe, there are no supposedly divine characteristics there that do not also exist as natural qualities, and can be explained by natural laws and theories without any need for any divine element.

[Viceroy63]

Ahhh! I finally get it and you are so right of course. You guys wont hear another peep out of me on this thread.

Sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

[crispybits]

Your downgrading of "divine" to the mundane and everyday (if I read the implication correctly) is more astonishing imo.

(as is your ability to delete posts when someone is half way through typing a one line reply )

[Metsfanmax]

Your downgrading of "divine" to the mundane and everyday (if I read the implication correctly) is more astonishing imo.

(as is your ability to delete posts when someone is half way through typing a one line reply )

I thought better of getting into this thread again, but this has nothing to do with the "divine." That's a straw man argument. It has to do with the belief that everything out there can be explained by our own limited powers of reasoning. Whether or not the part that we can't explain, is "divine" is a separate story altogether.

For reference: what I had said was something like "Your apparent belief in the unlimited powers of human reasoning to understand our universe is astonishing."

[crispybits]

Can you point to any post in which I claimed any understanding of something beyond our intellect AND put in any sort of "maybe this" that was based on my imagination of what could possibly be out there?

I've been purely reductionist, lets look at what we can know for sure, not claim anything beyond that, and if we can prove anything from that I'll believe it. If we can't I won't. I havent added any invisible badgers to any of my premises

[Gillipig]

Ahhh! I finally get it and you are so right of course. You guys wont hear another peep out of me on this thread.

Sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

Typical Christian thing to say.
Pettyness and playing the guilt card.

[Metsfanmax]

Can you point to any post in which I claimed any understanding of something beyond our intellect AND put in any sort of "maybe this" that was based on my imagination of what could possibly be out there?

I've been purely reductionist, lets look at what we can know for sure, not claim anything beyond that, and if we can prove anything from that I'll believe it. If we can't I won't. I havent added any invisible badgers to any of my premises

It's in the post I was just responding to...

there are no supposedly divine characteristics there that do not also exist as natural qualities, and can be explained by natural laws and theories without any need for any divine element.

You're explicitly claiming that everything in the universe can be explained by "natural laws and theories" without any need for a divine explanation. This includes all things in the universe that we cannot observe (including due to our limited intelligence) and have not yet observed. So yes, by construction you are asserting here that we understand everything, or that we can understand everything, which is far too bold a claim to be justified.