Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[quatona]

You answered your own question right here:



Precisely. God is outside of time, so the normal idea that everything that exists must have come from something doesn't apply to God.

We can as well assume that the universe is outside of time.

 

[Belk]

So you don't believe that young earth creationists can be real scientists? Everything they say must be wrong then, huh?

They can be real scientists. They can not support YEC with science because it was falsified several hundred years ago by religious men who had enough faith in their god to follow the evidence.

 

[Achilles6129]

They can be real scientists.

So then the article I linked to might be true.

They can not support YEC with science because it was falsified several hundred years ago by religious men who had enough faith in their god to follow the evidence.

They can support YEC with science. They may not be able to prove YEC with science, but they can certainly support it. YEC is proven not with extra-biblical science, but with the science of theology.

 

[Achilles6129]

We can as well assume that the universe is outside of time.

How?

 

[quatona]

How?

Post #134.

 

[Achilles6129]

Post #134.

Well, because time is obviously a part of the universe, so everything in this universe (which includes the universe itself) is subject to time. God is outside of the universe and so not necessarily subject to time.

 

[Achilles6129]

Regarding the earth being near the center of the universe:

Galactocentric cosmology - creation.com

we are likely very near the centre of the universe filled with billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each. This is what Edwin Hubble concluded; his observations of the galaxies’ redshifts indicated to him that we are at the centre of a symmetric matter distribution. But Hubble rejected his own conclusion—that we are in a very special place—on philosophical grounds.2 And Hubble wasn’t alone in realizing this situation:

“‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,’ Ellis argues. ‘For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.’ Ellis has published a paper on this. ‘You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.’”3
​

The quote below (3) is from Scientific American, 273(4):28-29, 1995.

 

[quatona]

everything in this universe (which includes the universe itself)

That´s nonsense.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well, because time is obviously a part of the universe, so everything in this universe (which includes the universe itself) is subject to time. God is outside of the universe and so not necessarily subject to time.

The bible mentions Yahweh deciding things. Does this mean Yahweh had antecedent thoughts?

 

[durangodawood]

Well, because time is obviously a part of the universe, so everything in this universe (which includes the universe itself) is subject to time. God is outside of the universe and so not necessarily subject to time.

The universe itself is not among the set of things "in the universe".

The universe (and possibly others) could be eternal, while the things within it exist in-time.

There's no good reason to exclude this possibility....(unless, of course, it conflicts with a cherished theological commitment).

 

[BL2KTN]

Point of clarification: universe refers to everything in our event horizon. The cosmos refer to everything there is. I think people are confusing the terms.

 

[Belk]

So then the article I linked to might be true.

It could be if not for the fact that it is contradicted by the evidence which shoes the idea of a 'center' of the universe to be non nonsensical.

They can support YEC with science. They may not be able to prove YEC with science, but they can certainly support it. YEC is proven not with extra-biblical science, but with the science of theology.

No, it has been falsified long ago. OEC is still a possibility but the evidence for deep time contradicts any short time hypothesis that is not Omphaloes.

 

[Achilles6129]

Describe what evidence "shoes the fact that the earth could be at the center of the universe," particularly in light of the quotes and links I just gave above.

Also, do you really believe that there is no science whatsoever that supports the YEC view of the universe?

 

[Achilles6129]

The universe itself is not among the set of things "in the universe".

The universe (and possibly others) could be eternal, while the things within it exist in-time.

There's no good reason to exclude this possibility....(unless, of course, it conflicts with a cherished theological commitment).

So are you saying that the things in the universe came into being, but the universe itself never came into being? Where'd the things in the universe come from, then?

 

[durangodawood]

So are you saying that the things in the universe came into being, but the universe itself never came into being? Where'd the things in the universe come from, then?

I'm saying its possible, as far as we know.

And the matter and energy inside the universe could be eternal too, but constantly changing, as things tend to do over time.

I dont know this to be true, but there's no good reason to think it impossible.

 

[variant]

I don't think so. Such a lake is not a necessary being like God would be. Rather, this lake is a contingent being. Hence the same argument cannot apply.

Defining God as necessary at the beginning of the argument when laying out the term "Maximally great being" is begging the question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You answered your own question right here:



Precisely. God is outside of time, so the normal idea that everything that exists must have come from something doesn't apply to God.

It's not clear what being "outside time" even means. Could you clarify how a conscious being is capable of existing sans matter, energy, space and time?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So are you saying that the things in the universe came into being, but the universe itself never came into being? Where'd the things in the universe come from, then?

The expansion of our universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but whatever happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

The expansion of our universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but whatever happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us.

I find this to be more sensible than magic sky wizard.

 

[FireDragon76]

There have always been Christians that found Anselm's ontological argument lacking, even in Anselm's day. The Episcopal Church's book of feasts and fasts sums it up politely in just saying that Anselm showed how belief in God is compatible with reason. Personally, I find the argument obscure. Sometimes it seems to click, other times it does not. But "necessary being" is a commonly understood definition of God in most monotheistic religions, it is certainly the case in Judaism and Islam. And I believe that would be true in some schools of Hinduism as well (most Hindus are actually monotheist).


I like the cosmological arguments. But I suppose my greatest reason for belief in God is that I believe Jesus was who he said he was.