Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

where did the multiverse come from?

 

[createdtoworship]

I have noticed many Christians doing that. Not many atheists, though, because they tend to win the debates.

I agree. Christians typically are not prepared, get offended and mad. But it does happen to both sides. From my perspective, I see insults and ad hominems on a regular basis. I try not to encourage them, as I have done them in the past. The important thing is to be prepared, and to be open minded. No one is perfect, and our views should be fluid, that is, they should be changeable. If we are not open minded, we have the problem of defending to the death a position, and at that point, we start fighting. Cognitive dissonance is a key term here:
“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

1. The importance of the subject to us.
2. How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
3. Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”

it is important to be open minded so that we don't have too much stress due to contradicting viewpoints.

 

[bhsmte]

Cognitive dissonance, at its best.

 

[gaara4158]

Cognitive dissonance, at its best.

Next, he’ll accuse us of projecting and denial.

 

[bhsmte]

Next, he’ll accuse us of projecting and denial.

Sure and that would all be driven from the cognitive dissonance.

 

[createdtoworship]

Next, he’ll accuse us of projecting and denial.

I am just trying to help you guys deal with the repercussions of having cognitive dissonance. I have had it many times myself so I am no stranger to it. One time I was doing evangelism and I encountered a theology called "free grace." And it was contrary to what my church and Bible College taught. I liked it because it made salvation simpler in my mind. But it contradicted much of the Bible as I found out later. The proper soteriology is something called "Lordship Salvation." There are hosts of people who hold both positions, and it is not a salvation issue as far as one group is saved while the other is not saved (its not like that, it's a side issue). But I started to notice that I had to take huge portions of scripture and come up with alternate explanations to it. It was very very difficult. I had cognitive dissonance. To the point of nearly going through a mental collapse. (I was a teacher of evangelism so many looked up to me as having all the answers, and I did....at least I thought). But I was 180 degrees wrong. I wrote journals for soteriology, proving my perspective, I debated people from that perspective, and I was absolutely wrong. I keep the journals just to remind myself that I once believed it. I had a few gotcha points that convinced me it was true. But I had to do so much work, to make my view work. It was easier and truly humbling to come to the truth. Which happened nearly five years later. That is when I started to realize I was not approaching the Bible logically, but through the views of other people. Logic was a key thing for me at that point.

It is the same with the topic of this thread, with the existence of God. IF I believed the multiverse caused the known universe. I would still wonder, "where did the multiverse come from?" IT would be a cognitive dissonance. I would know that everything has a cause. And the universe is no exception. I would even believe one universe was caused by another (larger multiverse), but it would contradict because the multiverse itself would have no cause. On the other hand the truth is much simpler. God who encompasses all space and matter, it actually outside of the time domain and has no beginning because of this. No cause due to not having a beginning. He would then be the initiator. The creator. The maker. It all makes sense now. Much much easier to grasp. Does that make sense? The alternative is to believe the universe has no purpose, but simply to exist. Which is both illogical and depressing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have noticed many Christians doing that. Not many atheists, though, because they tend to win the debates.

“Win” is subjective. I’ve seen many apologists exasperate their opponents with nonsense, and then claim victory when the opponents stop responding.

I’m sure you’ve seen this before. Maybe even... recently...

 

[gaara4158]

It is the same with the topic of this thread, with the existence of God. IF I believed the multiverse caused the known universe. I would still wonder, "where did the multiverse come from?" IT would be a cognitive dissonance. I would know that everything has a cause. And the universe is no exception. I would even believe one universe was caused by another (larger multiverse), but it would contradict because the multiverse itself would have no cause. On the other hand the truth is much simpler. God who encompasses all space and matter, it actually outside of the time domain and has no beginning because of this. No cause due to not having a beginning. He would then be the initiator. The creator. The maker. It all makes sense now. Much much easier to grasp. Does that make sense? The alternative is to believe the universe has no purpose, but simply to exist. Which is both illogical and depressing.

I'm a fool to think this will have the intended effect, but I'm going to try one last approach. Gradyll, please read the following paragraph and tell me if I'm making any logical errors.

IF I believed God caused the known universe. I would still wonder, "where did God come from?" IT would be a cognitive dissonance. I would know that everything has a cause. And the universe is no exception. I would believe one mysterious thing (universe) was caused by another (God), but it would contradict because the God itself would have no cause. On the other hand the truth is much simpler. The Cosmos encompasses all space and matter, it actually isn't inside of the time domain (rather, time is inside of it) and has no beginning because of this. No cause due to not having a beginning. It would then be the initiator. The creator. The maker. It all makes sense now. Much much easier to grasp. Does that make sense? The alternative is to believe the universe was created for the entertainment of an anthropomorphic cosmic wizard, existing for nothing but his pleasure. Which is both illogical and depressing.

Now, while you're counting up logical fallacies (if you found any), tell me why they couldn't be applied to your version of this paragraph just as easily.

 

[createdtoworship]

IF I believed God caused the known universe. I would still wonder, "where did God come from?"

here you say God has no cause

The Cosmos encompasses all space and matter, it actually isn't inside of the time domain (rather, time is inside of it) and has no beginning because of this.

Here you say the universe does not have a cause.

so you saying that God has a cause, but that the universe does not?

So your comment contradicts here.

You have applied my timeless argument to the universe but refuse to apply it to God, which is inconsistent.

I have provided peer review that states that completely separate universes have caused this universe.

but either one of them have mass, so they would still be involved with time. So because they are in time, they would have a beginning.

time is fatally tied to mass, via Einsteins theory of relativity.

 

[gaara4158]

You have applied my timeless argument to the universe but refuse to apply it to God, which is inconsistent.

Exactly. And you have applied a timeless argument to God and refuse to apply it to all of existence, whether that be a single universe or an aggregate multiverse. Which is inconsistent. Now you’re starting to get it.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. And you have applied a timeless argument to God and refuse to apply it to all of existence, whether that be a single universe or an aggregate multiverse. Which is inconsistent. Now you’re starting to get it.

We call that special pleading. A god doesnt work, without it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Exactly. And you have applied a timeless argument to God and refuse to apply it to all of existence, whether that be a single universe or an aggregate multiverse. Which is inconsistent. Now you’re starting to get it.

The universe has mass and therefore is subject to time. Unless you can prove that the universe is not subject to time or gravity. Which you cannot. So at this point you are stuck. So like I said it was a pleasure to debate with you. I hope that we get to debate in the future.

 

[gaara4158]

The universe has mass and therefore is subject to time. Unless you can prove that the universe is not subject to time or gravity. Which you cannot. So at this point you are stuck. So like I said it was a pleasure to debate with you. I hope that we get to debate in the future.

The mass in the universe is subject to time. There is no evidence that the universe itself is subject to time. The universe is not just the mass it contains. It is all mass, all time, and all space that exists. To say that the universe is subject to time is to say that time is subject to time, which is nonsensical. For the universe to be subject to time there would have to be a larger meta-existence for the universe to exist in as mass, meaning that time is mass and space is mass, which would also be nonsensical, so time cannot apply to the universe itself. This logically defeats your argument.

 

[cloudyday2]

Hello Cloudyday. I'm sorry to say that you probably have lost something. By no longer being a Christian, you may indeed - and this is just a guess, since I don't know you personally - have lost things like meaning in life, fellowship, a sense of purpose, even actual friends. Please don;t be disheartened - Christianity does not by any means have a monopoly on these.
Can I recommend Dan Barker's book, Godless. It has some very interesting chapters in it, which may be of use or comfort to you, about why he gradually lost faith in faith, and how his life became much richer and more meanginful after he became an atheist.
You might also find Essays - Daylight Atheism to be of use, especially Rats in a Maze - Daylight Atheism, Unapologetic - Daylight Atheism and Who Needs God? - Daylight Atheism

Just wanted to mention that I am enjoying Dan Barker's book, "Godless". I was a bit apprehensive about trying another of Barker's books, because I didn't like the previous book ("God the most unpleasant..."). As a former Episcopalian, a lot of Barker's criticisms of God as portrayed in the Bible didn't resonate. But I like "Godless" so far.

 

[createdtoworship]

The mass in the universe is subject to time. There is no evidence that the universe itself is subject to time. The universe is not just the mass it contains. It is all mass, all time, and all space that exists. To say that the universe is subject to time is to say that time is subject to time, which is nonsensical. For the universe to be subject to time there would have to be a larger meta-existence for the universe to exist in as mass, meaning that time is mass and space is mass, which would also be nonsensical, so time cannot apply to the universe itself. This logically defeats your argument. B

galaxies have mass, even though 99% of it is space. Gravity applies to galaxies the same way as planets. So how do you know the same gravitational aspect and thus mass, and time for that matter is not applied to the universe as a whole. You dont, and that is my point. You simply cannot prove that the universe as a whole is outside of time. In fact your viewpoint is so weak in fact that it cannot account why anything exists at all. Theism has a reason for existence in general and is not limited to time the same way that the universe is.

 

[ananda]

You simply cannot prove that the universe as a whole is outside of time.

In a similar fashion, I would also say neither can you not only prove that god is outside of time, you cannot prove god.

 

[gaara4158]

galaxies have mass, even though 99% of it is space. Gravity applies to galaxies the same way as planets. So how do you know the same gravitational aspect and thus mass, and time for that matter is not applied to the universe as a whole. You dont, and that is my point. You simply cannot prove that the universe as a whole is outside of time. In fact your viewpoint is so weak in fact that it cannot account why anything exists at all. Theism has a reason for existence in general and is not limited to time the same way that the universe is.

The universe isn’t inside or outside of anything. It is not subject to anything. Only the things inside it are subject to rules. When you ask questions and then try to answer them for me, it shows that you’re really not here to learn anything because you think you already know the answer when in fact you’re wrong, and that is the height of arrogance. Your continued attempts to argue that because things inside the universe are subject to time, the universe itself must be subject to time, is the fallacy of composition. I have repeated myself far more times than I care to now. To learn more about the fallacy of composition, please visit Fallacy of Composition

And again, my viewpoint doesn’t have to explain anything. I don’t claim to have all the answers. Just because I don’t know something doesn’t mean God is the answer. It is not evidence of God to say “well what else could it be?” That is argument from ignorance. To learn more about the argument from ignorance, please visit Argument from Ignorance

 

[InterestedAtheist]

“Win” is subjective. I’ve seen many apologists exasperate their opponents with nonsense, and then claim victory when the opponents stop responding.

I’m sure you’ve seen this before. Maybe even... recently...

Have courage. We remain...
...undefeated.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Just wanted to mention that I am enjoying Dan Barker's book, "Godless". I was a bit apprehensive about trying another of Barker's books, because I didn't like the previous book ("God the most unpleasant..."). As a former Episcopalian, a lot of Barker's criticisms of God as portrayed in the Bible didn't resonate. But I like "Godless" so far.

That's nice to hear!

 

[createdtoworship]

In a similar fashion, I would also say neither can you not only prove that god is outside of time, you cannot prove god.

please see op, as you are a late commer. I answer all of this there.