Argument for God's existence.

[gaara4158]

so parallel universes would not be considered part of our universe? That would be changing the bars yet again.

Wrong again. Just explaining that the word “universe” can be used to include all that exists, whether that includes a multiverse or not. You really need to move on. Answer the question we’ve all been asking you: if God can be causeless, why can’t the universe?

 

[createdtoworship]

We’re not saying anything about spontaneous generation or anything coming from nothing. That is a straw man fallacy. We’re saying that whatever exceptions you want to plead for God to exist without a cause, we can also say about the universe.

so then where did your multiverse come from? If not from spontaneous generation?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong again. Just explaining that the word “universe” can be used to include all that exists, whether that includes a multiverse or not. You really need to move on. Answer the question we’ve all been asking you: if God can be causeless, why can’t the universe?

if you can please find a definition online that includes multiverse in the definition of universe, then we can move on. I presume you can't, and have redefined universe according to your personal viewpoint, which is not authoritative. The definition of universe does not exclude time, God's definition does. Time is a physical property in our universe, it is the 4th dimension of our universe.

 

[gaara4158]

so then where did your multiverse come from? If not from spontaneous generation?

It doesn’t have to have come from anything. That’s the point.

 

[gaara4158]

if you can please find a definition online that includes multiverse in the definition of universe, then we can move on. I presume you can't, and have redefined universe according to your personal viewpoint, which is not authoritative. The definition of universe does not exclude time, God's definition does. Time is a physical property in our universe, it is the 4th dimension of our universe.

u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
   

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn’t have to have come from anything. That’s the point.

causality is self evident. If you deny causality, you must explain why.

 

[createdtoworship]

u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

It refers to all matter in the single universe, not multiple parallel universes. You even mentioned in several posts that it was hypothetical to believe in multiple universes, so how is it that you think a standard definition of universe applies to the theoretical? In conclusion, If it was referring to plural universes, it would have used the plural form of universe.

 

[gaara4158]

It refers to all matter in the single universe, not multiple parallel universes. You even mentioned in several posts that it was hypothetical to believe in multiple universes, so how is it that you think a standard definition of universe applies to the theoretical? In conclusion, If it was referring to plural universes, it would have used the plural form of universe.

Now you’re adding to the definition so you don’t have to admit you were wrong. It’s ok, you were confused because there are multiple uses of the word “universe” at play here.

 

[gaara4158]

causality is self evident. If you deny causality, you must explain why.

Causality applies inside the universe. There is no reason to suppose it applies to the universe itself. Fallacy of composition.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now you’re adding to the definition so you don’t have to admit you were wrong. It’s ok, you were confused because there are multiple uses of the word “universe” at play here.

you need to verify if your definition was referring to all matter in one universe or multiple. And you cannot. So that definition is thrown out.

 

[createdtoworship]

Causality applies inside the universe. There is no reason to suppose it applies to the universe itself. Fallacy of composition.

can you provide sources for that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

can you provide sources for that?

I'd simply reply "Logic", but since I'm one of the cool kids and have been blocked by gradyll, someone else will have to do it...

 

[gaara4158]

you need to verify if your definition was referring to all matter in one universe or multiple. And you cannot. So that definition is thrown out.

In existence. If another “universe” exists, it’s included in the definition of universe. It’s time to stop.

 

[gaara4158]

can you provide sources for that?

Logic.

 

[createdtoworship]

In existence. If another “universe” exists, it’s included in the definition of universe. It’s time to stop.

so is there multiple universes? if so, then that should be in the definition. If it's not multiple universes then I think you fail to understand the concept of parallel universes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Logic.

so gravity applies to all my organs does that mean it does not apply to my actual person as a whole? So then how can causality apply to aspects of the universe and not the universe itself? I await your reply.

 

[gaara4158]

so is there multiple universes? if so, then that should be in the definition. If it's not multiple universes then I think you fail to understand the concept of parallel universes.

I think you fail to understand the concept of multiple usages of a word.

 

[gaara4158]

so gravity applies to all my organs does that mean it does not apply to my actual person as a whole? So then how can causality apply to aspects of the universe and not the universe itself? I await your reply.

Causality is observed in the universe. Nothing, including causality, is observed outside the universe. We cannot infer that causality applies outside the universe. If there is no universe, there is no reason to expect causality.

A tire is made of rubber. That does not mean the entire car is made of rubber. A brick is small and light. That does not mean a brick wall is small and light.

 

[createdtoworship]

Causality is observed in the universe. Nothing, including causality, is observed outside the universe. We cannot infer that causality applies outside the universe. If there is no universe, there is no reason to expect causality.

A tire is made of rubber. That does not mean the entire car is made of rubber. A brick is small and light. That does not mean a brick wall is small and light.

so let me put it this way. Your universe (which does not have attributes of God, or at least has not evidence of attributes), behaves like God in that it can create other multi universes? And you claim this is not evidence of God? If not, then simply answer where did the universe come from.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

so let me put it this way. Your universe (which does not have attributes of God, or at least has not evidence of attributes), behaves like God in that it can create other multi universes? And you claim this is not evidence of God? If not, then simply answer where did the universe come from.

If I can interpolate - and gaara, forgive me if I'm mistaken in your views - but gaara doesn't need to answer where the Universe came from. I don't know where it came from. I'm not sure if anybody does. And although I'm sure we'd all very much like to know, there's no justification for saying "You don't know, therefore it must have been God". You need to provide your evidence for your theory, same as everyone else.