Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

Do you accept what these readings tell us about the age of the universe?

You look very comfortable in your armchair. As I recall, nonbeliever314 invited you to discuss quantum mechanics and relativity in greater depth given your apparent proficiency in physics, but you chose the armchair.

I'd also like to note he totally botched the interpretation of that math thing I wrote up. If he took undergrad math courses he would have understood it. Wouldn't even need to know QM or GR. I'm not saying what I wrote was even right, it was an idea. Most likely what I wrote is wrong, but at least I can admit wrong. Unlike some people.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd also like to note he totally botched the interpretation of that math thing I wrote up. If he took undergrad math courses he would have understood it. Wouldn't even need to know QM or GR. I'm not saying what I wrote was even right, it was an idea. Most likely what I wrote is wrong, but at least I can admit wrong. Unlike some people.....

It's amazing that some people think that they can satisfactorily answer one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology, all without so much as touching a physics textbook. Given that we now apparently know the answer, we can shut down the Large Hadron Collider and wipe all the equation-covered blackboards clean. Problem solved. Now we need only concern ourselves with who gets the Nobel?

 

[nonbeliever314]

It's amazing that some people think that they can satisfactorily answer one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology, all without so much as touching a physics textbook. Given that we now apparently know the answer, we can shut down the Large Hadron Collider and wipe all the equation-covered blackboards clean. Problem solved. Now we need only concern ourselves with who gets the Nobel?

Well, Willy Craig of course!

 

[quatona]

As for the KCA, I still would like to see an example of "something that begins to exist", from which we can extrapolate a rule about things beginning to exist that includes the ex nihilo creation of the universe.
Next: "Causation" as a fundamental principle governing within the universe is only meaningful if "cause" is qualified. We do observe that physical events have physical causes. Thinking physical stuff into existence isn´t covered by anything that we´d accept as a "cause". Even if this happens within this already existing world, it is claimed to be a "miracle" by theists.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well, Willy Craig of course!

WLC trumps LHC.

As for the KCA, I still would like to see an example of "something that begins to exist", from which we can extrapolate a rule about things beginning to exist that includes the ex nihilo creation of the universe.
Next: "Causation" as a fundamental principle governing within the universe is only meaningful if "cause" is qualified. We do observe that physical events have physical causes. Thinking physical stuff into existence isn´t covered by anything that we´d accept as a "cause". Even if this happens within this already existing world, it is claimed to be a "miracle" by theists.

Weeks ago, the response I got to "something that begins to exist" were things like: chickens make eggs, painters paint a piece of art, a symphony by Beethoven, the Reformation by Luther, an idea, etc.

 

[nonbeliever314]

LHC = Large Hadron Collider
17 mile circumference / Upgraded beams = 6.5 TeV / Most likely discovered the Higgs Boson (They're still making sure..) / Cost = 9 billion dollars-ish.

WLC = William Lane Craig
3 foot circumference? / Beams = none / Discovered how the universe got here / Cost = makes money off his amazing insights and discoveries.

 

[TillICollapse]

LHC = Large Hadron Collider
17 mile circumference / Upgraded beams = 6.5 TeV / Most likely discovered the Higgs Boson (They're still making sure..) / Cost = 9 billion dollars-ish.

WLC = William Lane Craig
3 foot circumference? / Beams = none / Discovered how the universe got here / Cost = makes money off his amazing insights and discoveries.

Okay I'll admit, I do feel a little guilty this is as funny as it is to me

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LHC = Large Hadron Collider
17 mile circumference / Upgraded beams = 6.5 TeV / Most likely discovered the Higgs Boson (They're still making sure..) / Cost = 9 billion dollars-ish.

WLC = William Lane Craig
3 foot circumference? / Beams = none / Discovered how the universe got here / Cost = makes money off his amazing insights and discoveries.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LHC = Large Hadron Collider
17 mile circumference / Upgraded beams = 6.5 TeV / Most likely discovered the Higgs Boson (They're still making sure..) / Cost = 9 billion dollars-ish.

WLC = William Lane Craig
3 foot circumference? / Beams = none / Discovered how the universe got here / Cost = makes money off his amazing insights and discoveries.

I imagine Craig barging into a room full of astrophysicists, wiping all the equations off the blackboard, scrawling "Goddidit" in their place and declaring the mystery solved.

 

[Joshua260]

Weird how cherry-picked speculation from scientists counts as a good reason to accept various propositions, but an actual verified scientific model is only a "pipe dream".

"This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn’t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation!

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/beginning-to-exist#ixzz3dqcFcni0"

Me: "Well that just solves the whole thing then!"

It's funny how Willy doesn't say eternal because he's anti-infinity. So he says "He exists timelessly".

“26 "There is none like God, Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens for your help, In his excellency on the skies.
27 The eternal God is your dwelling place. Underneath are the everlasting arms. He thrust out the enemy from before you, and said, 'Destroy!”

Excerpt From: The World English Bible (WEB). “The Holy Bible.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/0HhDC.l

“6 He stood, and shook the earth. He looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains were crumbled. The age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal.”

Excerpt From: The World English Bible (WEB). “The Holy Bible.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/0HhDC.l

Eternal: "having infinite duration" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal)

So I guess either Willy is right and god is "timeless", or the Bible is right and god is eternal, OR the bible I have is the wrong bible and there is another one that says something different.

eternal means: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing(opposed to temporal). ...it helps if you read all the definitions.
Since logic and science seems to support that time had a beginning, then that would mean that God existed in a state of affairs in which time did not. So he existed in a state of affairs eternally (without beginning or end (opposed to temporal)) and timelessly (without time). Both definitions apply.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

eternal means without beginning or end. Since logic and science seems to support that time had a beginning, then that would mean that God existed in a state of affairs in which time did not. So he existed in a state of affairs eternally (without beginning or end) and timelessly (without time). Both definitions apply.

How does one decide to create in a state of timelessness given that decision-making unfolds over time?

 

[Joshua260]

Hmmm, I seem to recall a past poster who tended to plagiarize WLC. Someone who's posts seem remarkably like a current poster...

First, I am not whoever you are confusing me with. Those kinds of accusations are tended to discredit my responses by discrediting me (my character) which is not only ad hominem and against forum rules, but also brings me to my second point which is that it's off-topic.

 

[Joshua260]

Someone pointed out the situation to me, so when something felt "odd", I copied and pasted, and then copied and pasted again.

This is an ad hominem attack in that you are attacking me rather than the subject at hand.

In any case, why should anyone be surprised if I often use the same language as Craig since I agree with him? That's a ridiculous and pointless objection.

 

[Joshua260]

Which ones? Aristotle? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Metzinger? Dennett?

Possibly. Thanks for agreeing with me in that it would be philosophers who we would consult in order to consider the nature of reality.

 

[nonbeliever314]

eternal means: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing(opposed to temporal). ...it helps if you read all the definitions.
Since logic and science seems to support that time had a beginning, then that would mean that God existed in a state of affairs in which time did not. So he existed in a state of affairs eternally (without beginning or end (opposed to temporal)) and timelessly (without time). Both definitions apply.

Infinite duration makes more sense than timeless. Why? Because I said so. Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is an ad hominem attack in that you are attacking me rather than the subject at hand.

In any case, why should anyone be surprised if I often use the same language as Craig since I agree with him? That's a ridiculous and pointless objection.

At the very least cite your sources. Especially when it's literally copied and pasted. Which it was.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Possibly. Thanks for agreeing with me in that it would be philosophers who we would consult in order to consider the nature of reality.

I'd prefer a physicist.

 

[quatona]

Possibly. Thanks for agreeing with me in that it would be philosophers who we would consult in order to consider the nature of reality.

I would like to learn which philosopher(s) established the rule "Everything that begins to exist has a cause", and how they did it.

 

[Joshua260]

I'd also like to note he totally botched the interpretation of that math thing I wrote up. If he took undergrad math courses he would have understood it. Wouldn't even need to know QM or GR. I'm not saying what I wrote was even right, it was an idea. Most likely what I wrote is wrong, but at least I can admit wrong. Unlike some people.....

Wait a minute. You're saying that most likely what you wrote was wrong, but then you attack me for not being able to understand it? Maybe it wasn't that I "botched it", but rather that your paper was incoherent. I asked you to explain your idea, but you never did.

 

[nonbeliever314]

eternal means: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing(opposed to temporal). ...it helps if you read all the definitions.
Since logic and science seems to support that time had a beginning, then that would mean that God existed in a state of affairs in which time did not. So he existed in a state of affairs eternally (without beginning or end (opposed to temporal)) and timelessly (without time). Both definitions apply.

Also you should read all the science. Read everything about inflation, preferably the technical articles since you know relativity and quantum mechanics, and then explain to me why the KCA in technical terms, makes sense. But wait, this argument should stay in the philosophical realm, but use scientific evidence when needed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is an ad hominem attack in that you are attacking me rather than the subject at hand.

In any case, why should anyone be surprised if I often use the same language as Craig since I agree with him? That's a ridiculous and pointless objection.

So it's okay for us to copy, word for word, from the material of people that we agree with and to not acknowledge our sources? Is that your position?