Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[bhsmte]

It would help if you would study up on the doctrine of the trinity first. Then maybe we'll continue this exchange.

Depending on the source, you will get varying opinions on the same.

 

[Berean777]

Is this a two-way relationship?

A two way relationship between the God Christ Jesus and man. His heart to my heart. Thank you kindly.

 

[Joshua260]

Unless we consider what Hawking has to say. Is he wrong? Or, does he have to be wrong for your beliefs to be an accurate description of reality?

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

You only seem to quote the part you like. If you put your quote in context, he is saying that one cannot connect the material effect of the beginning of this universe with a material cause on the "before" side of the singularity.

This is further made plain by the comment below:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there..." [Kind of like equaling both sides of an equation.] "...This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe."

He doesn't like the idea of an immaterial cause, so he interjects imaginary time in order to preserve causality...but it has to be material cause. Read this:
"So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

Here's more:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

What Hawking is doing here is ruling out an immaterial cause a priori.

In summary.
1. Hawking claims that the universe and time itself had a definite beginning. (p2)
2. He apparently feels that the universe had to have a cause (p1), but believes that it had to be a material cause, so he interjects imaginary time in his model in order to connect the material effect of the beginning of the universe to a material cause.

 

[Berean777]

Got any proof of this?

I can prove tens of millions have died when they met Christians. At the end of a sword, bullet or disease. Usually when the Christians had come to rob them.

The proof is in your words that points to hatred towards Christians.

You can't handle the truth!

 

[Joshua260]

How did an immaterial whatever-it-was-made-of walk and talk in that hypothetical Garden of Eden?

I answered you already.

 

[Joshua260]

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread is for arguments in favor or against gods. If you're interested in discussing this argument, you should start your own thread.

The conclusion of the KCA version I advocate is not contested by any scientist (at least no one in this thread has been able to name any scientists that disagree with it) and yet supports a belief in God.

 

[Davian]

A two way relationship between the God Christ Jesus and man. His heart to my heart. Thank you kindly.

Can you get anything out of this "two-way" relationship that could not simply be imagined?

 

[Berean777]

Can you get anything out of this "two-way" relationship that could not simply be imagined?

Ask yourself the same question when you look at your wife, mother, father, daughter, son, sister and brother.

Can you get anything out of this "two-way" relationship that could not simply be imagined?

I believe that your answer will be the same as mine.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ask yourself the same question when you look at your wife, mother, father, daughter, son, sister and brother.

Can you get anything out of this "two-way" relationship that could not simply be imagined?

I believe that your answer will be the same as mine.

You're able to hug your god?

 

[Berean777]

You're able to hug your god?

What is hug. Is it not just a physicial sensory touch that once sensed is a feeling owing to electrical signals, an interface to communicate the deeper intention and meaning that is love.

Can love be communicated without the sensory touch?

Yes, because when God touches you he bypasses the primitive sensory electrical signal that is a hug and goes directly to the heart that discerns what love is and what it is to be loved.

You are looking at life from an empty shell that is stripped of all of its humanity, if it was just a sensory touch. I hope that you can see your fallacy.

Love is not seeing, smelling, touching, hearing and tasting.

These are only interface to our being who interprets these. A supreme being needs not any of these senses to communicate his intentions. They are discerned directly to your being. You see, the failure of not knowing God is a failure on your part of not knowing yourself and in this matter no one is to blame except you.

You need to go beyond the five year old's sensory awareness class and be the living YOU and once you find YOU then you would have known God. Otherwise you remain a stranger to yourself even to this day, like a robot who has only sensory inputs to go by.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

YWhat Hawking is doing here is ruling out an immaterial cause a priori.

I've asked you repeatedly but have yet to receive an answer to this: do you think it is impossible for the universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

The purpose of the argument is not merely to establish that the universe had a cause, but that the cause is a personal creator god. The unstated conclusion in the above argument is that "God is the cause of the universe's existence." That is the version we have been discussing. If you want to omit this conclusion from the discussion from this point on, then the KCA ceases to be relevant to the topic.

The conclusion of the KCA version I advocate is not contested by any scientist (at least no one in this thread has been able to name any scientists that disagree with it) and yet supports a belief in God.

The conclusion of the version you advocate is Goddidit.

 

[Berean777]

Natural world required no matter ingredients to start of with, it began from nothing, that is antimatter. The natural world needed a trigger, they call it the Big Bang. If no energy and no matter existed at the start, then what outside force triggered it and how was matter formed from nothing if everything that is now considered rationale to our discovery of the world we live in, Is completely irrational to how and why it all started.

I liken it to the proton generator at CERN how they are trying to replicate anti-matter, but they have not been able to do this because it require light at greater than the speed of light. Scientists have come to agree unanoumously that greater than light speed is unattainable within the constraints of our natural world.

So imagine these scientists at CERN trying to ignite the first particle of life they call the god particle when their key trigger, the light source is missing.

We know that the key trigger must be an energy source which is pure light that is in its very purest form not limited by space and time and is infinitely greater than the speed of light.

So anti matter requires infinite energy, hence the size of this monstrosity that is CERN is wanting to achieve this with no success.

The fact that matter can only be produced from antimatter conversion, requires an infinite source of energy that is infinitely faster than the speed of light, is outside of our natural realm of observation and reproduction.

What we are left with is that an infinite light source is the trigger that created matter from antimatter in a controlled timed Big Bang. The phase of the Big Bang determined all the cosmic constants from gravity to many others and this timed event could only come about by a controlled BANG. So who controlled it and what is the source of this infinite light?

Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It appears that before God declares the timing of the trigger for the Big Bang the heaven and earth meaning creation was not yet formed, meaning there was no matter formed yet and it was void, meaning absent. God moving upon the face of the waters which symbolises the key antimatter ingredients required that God timed perfectly when he declared his presence as the source of the infinite light by saying NOW, LET THERE BE LIGHT - BANG!

This first light is the Big Bang that triggered the antimatter to matter conversion, the god particle that scientists want to produce at CERN by the timed BANG with the infinite light source that was infinitely greater than the speed of light that occurred in the same way the scientist are trying to simulate this by colliding two protons at speeds greater than the speed of light. However many scientists including Lawrence Kraus states that this is impossible because we are constrained to the constants of the universe that were produced as a result of the Big Bang.

The author of the Big Bang is in the first three versus of Genesis, go figure!

 

[HitchSlap]

What is hug. Is it not just a physicial sensory touch that once sensed is a feeling owing to electrical signals, an interface to communicate the deeper intention and meaning that is love.

Can love be communicated without the sensory touch?

Yes, because when God touches you he bypasses the primitive sensory electrical signal that is a hug and goes directly to the heart that discerns what love is and what it is to be loved.

You are looking at life from an empty shell that is stripped of all of its humanity, if it was just a sensory touch. I hope that you can see your fallacy.

Love is not seeing, smelling, touching, hearing and tasting.

These are only interface to our being who interprets these. A supreme being needs not any of these senses to communicate his intentions. They are discerned directly to your being. You see, the failure of not knowing God is a failure on your part of not knowing yourself and in this matter no one is to blame except you.

You need to go beyond the five year old's sensory awareness class and be the living YOU and once you find YOU then you would have known God. Otherwise you remain a stranger to yourself even to this day, like a robot who has only sensory inputs to go by.

It would have been much easier to just type "no."

 

[Berean777]

It would have been much easier to just type "no."

No

 

[nonbeliever314]

We know that the key trigger must be an energy source which is pure light

Light is an electromagnetic wave.

So anti matter requires infinite energy

No it doesn't.

The fact that matter can only be produced from antimatter conversion, requires an infinite source of energy that is infinitely faster than the speed of light, is outside of our natural realm of observation and reproduction.

That made no sense whatsoever.

 

[Berean777]

Light is an electromagnetic wave.

No one knows what light is, they only model its observable behaviour, where at times it acts like particles and at other times it acts like an electromagnetic WAVE.

No it doesn't.

Anti-matter in the production of our universe is cited by scientists as requiring infinite energy beyond what is observable as the remnant to what is approximated to still remain from the initial Big Bang.


That made no sense whatsoever.

Greater than speed of light requires infinite source of energy and CERN is finding this out. There are theoretical equations where infinity is the required to achieve the bang/flash. Anything smaller doesn't sustain itself long enough and quickly disapated before being measured by CERN detectors.

 

[SkyWriting]

Or, it isn't.

I'm just working off the data that Christians were not the first group
to decide God existed. The evidence suggests a universal understanding.

 

[SkyWriting]

Light is an electromagnetic wave.

Or a particle if you expect it to be so, but not both.
The second reality collapses when you look for the other.

 

[nonbeliever314]

No one knows what light is, they only model its observable behaviour, where at times it acts like particles and at other times it acts like an electromagnetic WAVE.

Wave-particle duality. We know what light is.

Anti-matter in the production of our universe is cited by scientists as requiring infinite energy beyond what is observable as the remnant to what is approximated to still remain from the initial Big Bang.

Cite the source of that info.

Greater than speed of light requires infinite source of energy and CERN is finding this out. There are there're tidal equations where infinity is the required to achieve the bang/flash. Anything smaller doesn't sustain itself long enough and quickly disapated before being measured by CERN detectors.

CERN isn't trying finding out that achieving faster than light speed requires infinite energy. If you have mass, you need an infinite amount of energy to achieve the speed of light. That's known physics.