"proofs" and "disproofs" of God's existence

[JonF]

The simple statement that "God created Himself" should clue you into exactly who God must be.

I really hope you aren’t affirming this proposition.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I really hope you aren’t affirming this proposition.

Think about concepts. Spiritual minded people (not the fundamentalists) speak only in terms of concepts. What is the only conceptual "thing" that could cause itself? Does that thing have the properties of omnipresence, impossible to fool, impossible to escape, and impossible to avoid?

There is only one. They now refer to that one as "God"

Unfortunately many also refer to the Holy Spirit as God as well. This leads to the confusion concerning the real characteristics and thus the very existence.

 

[tcampen]

1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.

2. The universe had a biginning.

3. (Therefore) The universe had a cause.

It's very simple.

Ok, but what caused the universe? One can throw up one's arms and just say "God did it," but that's just faith in a God-of-the-Gaps.

My four year old asked "Who made God?" to which my wife said, "nobody." Then my four year old thought, and responded, "I think they just made him up." If a four year old can see why the Kalam argument is so lacking, can't we all?

One is true to the point that gravity is true. We can't say for sure... but come on. Everything ever that we have witnessed has had a biginning. Nothing has ever just come into existance.

The beginning of the universe is known as the Big Bang. It's difficult to quantify before the big bang, because all time, energy and matter was wrapped up in that thing (called the Singularity) before the big bang as well. Linear time references don't really work with this, as law of physics, relativity and and so on, did not operate as they after the big bang. We don't know how they operated, or why the universe suddenly expanded. One cannot step outside the singularity and ask what happened before the singularity expanded, as such linear time references cannot be applied - as far as we know. So, I really don't see how your first premise is valid.

And actually, there is some scientific/mathmatical evidence to suggest something can come from nothing.

Two is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know this because of the impossibilty of transversing a infinte amount (I don't know if that has a special name). But... I'll just use the domino analogy.

The universe, cosmology, and the study of the origins of the universe are infinitely more complex than a domino analogy. It just doesn't work that way.

Therefore, having 2 been proven beyond doubt, and 1 being the most logical solution, 3 is true. That cause is God. Now don't get me wrong, at this point in time that cause could be anything supernatural, not neccesarilly God, but it is, and I'll just save that for another day.

Jumping from 1 and 2 to = God is a HUGE jump. Why God? Why not Gods? Who said God(s) is/are infinite, other than our arbitrary definition. Who says God(s) does/do not need a beginning, or had a beginning? These are all matters of faith, not logic.

The initial cause of the universe may indeed be supernatural, but that is not something that we will ever be able to prove objectively, for the supernatural (by definition) transcends the natural - meaning logic, science and mathmatics do not apply.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Ummm... excuse my sarcasam, but isn't this my argument???

No, I didn't disagree with your conclusion, but this is not your same argument, unless I'm misunderstanding you (which I didn't doubt until your last post)

My point and "argument" was that being on an proposed infinite time line is no different than being on any other propsed infinite line. You can not speculate that you could not be at that point merely because of the seeming impossibility of it. You ARE at that point on the line (time or otherwise) thus any speculation of how impossible it is should be obviously one of error.

Well, there can not be a infinte amount of regressions into the past.

This is the very assertion under question so how can you presume it as premise?

You say that it doesn't take an infinte amount of time to get to the point where you ask the question,..

I was referring to the amount of time from the beginning of each cycle (where ever you might choose that point in the cycle to be)

Second of all, you started this one off well when you said suppose. There is no evidence at all for this, this is all pure speculation. No facts or evidence support this claim.

When you make the statement that something "CAN NOT BE" as you have concerning the infinite past, then you are saying that absolutely no possibility can exist concerning the matter. Thus any possible even speculated scenario voids the impossibility theory.

If a single, actual or not possibility of something exists, then it can not be concluded as impossible.

.. There can be no causes that require time,

??? There can be no causes that require time??? Seriously lost me on that one. I have to pitch in with michabo on this and ask what it is that you are calling a "cause" (of course he doesnt want you to speak of semantics, so slip it in quick while he isnt looking)

.. there can only be causes that are eternal in nature. That is why we dub them "super-natural".

I don't know of anyone's definition of supernatural requiring an eternal nature.

This argument doesn't necessarily prove the YHWH of the bible,..

We agree on this point.

And just for you, my defenition of supernatural is existing outside of time, eternal

Since you are talking about things being "outside of time", could I ask what you define "existence" as? What properties determine if something exists or does not exist?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

And actually, there is some scientific/mathmatical evidence to suggest something can come from nothing.

We'll have to discuss this sometime. Logic states otherwise without question at all. But that doesn't mean that science hasn't proclaimed something different.

 

[TeddyKGB]

We'll have to discuss this sometime. Logic states otherwise without question at all.

Logic does nothing of the sort. Logic is a framework for building arguments; the content of the components, however, is not strictly a matter of logic.

It is trivially easy to construct a valid syllogism that 'proves' that something can come from nothing. Whether or not the employed definitions of "something" and "nothing" are correct is another matter... one for empiricism or philosophy.

But that doesn't mean that science hasn't proclaimed something different.

Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Logic does nothing of the sort. Logic is a framework for building arguments; the content of the components, however, is not strictly a matter of logic. ... Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.

If I wanted to argue it here, I would have introduced a statement for such. If you want to clarify the issue, I would be glad to enter that discussion. But this thread is about proves for the existence of God or not.

It would seem evident to me that if you say the 2 words "God exists" then you should be prepared to define both "God" and "existence"

I have yet to see anyone bother with either primary words, but argue a great deal about other words.

 

[OObi]

Can you tell me something, anything, which begins to exist?

What is its cause?

Time. Time began to exist. Since time is a finite concept, logically it follows that if you suppose that time has been infinite, then this present "time" should not be present because it has emerged from a past of infinite time, meaning that the past wasn't infinite, meaning time had a biginning, therefore time began to exist.

It's cause is God, but that is a different discussion. One that probably requires a PM if not a separate thread.

So, can you think of anything which has a begining comparable enough to the begining of the universe to allow this argument to proceed? If you want to stick to your building example, then fine. But the rest of your argument is trivially false as the conclusions don't follow from the premises.

I knew where you were going with this, so above I tried to avoid it to save myself some writting, but I see that everyone has fallen into this so I'll just elaborate on my above post instead of rearranging everything.

I've shown that time began to exist. I think it was you that said without time, there are no causes. Well, I've already stated that without time, there are no dependent causes. So, since the universe is dependent, and everything in it is dependent, they could not have existed before time. Because if they did exist before time, that would mean they aren't dependent, but we know they are. So, when time began, so did everything else. Maybe not right away, or all at the same time, but they all did begin nonetheless. At one point they didn't exist, but now here they are. This is not a re-arrangement of things, it is the creation of them.

I can only asume that you are willing to champion his cause.

lol... not mine, YHWH's. Glory be to God.

ReluctantProphet,

Since you don't seem to have a point to make, and you seem to be interested only in starting fights, I would appreciate if you would allow Obbi to speak for himself and not interrupt.

lol... I'm sorry, but I have to laugh when I read stuff like this. And it's OObi (with two, count 'em, 1, 2, capital O's)

Ok, but what caused the universe? One can throw up one's arms and just say "God did it," but that's just faith in a God-of-the-Gaps.

My four year old asked "Who made God?" to which my wife said, "nobody." Then my four year old thought, and responded, "I think they just made him up." If a four year old can see why the Kalam argument is so lacking, can't we all?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but didn't you read the rest of my post? I gave reasons why the second premise is true beyond doubt, and the first is the only logical position you can hold, and so therefore the conclusion. Learning fancy phrases like God of the gaps and throwing them at me doesn't mean that I live in ignorance, even though you accuse me of it.

The beginning of the universe is known as the Big Bang. It's difficult to quantify before the big bang, because all time, energy and matter was wrapped up in that thing (called the Singularity) before the big bang as well. Linear time references don't really work with this, as law of physics, relativity and and so on, did not operate as they after the big bang. We don't know how they operated, or why the universe suddenly expanded. One cannot step outside the singularity and ask what happened before the singularity expanded, as such linear time references cannot be applied - as far as we know. So, I really don't see how your first premise is valid.

The biginning of the universe is known as Genesis. (I'm sure you don't believe this, but you see now how far that statement got with me) Science is the study of observations. Was anyone around to observe the big bang? No. So, any observations that we think might come from the big bang, are all speculation. Sure, we see red shift, but to link that to the big bang we must first assume that the big bang happened. Otherwise we have nothing to link it to. At this point we can't be sure of anything, because what if we're wrong? And the big bang didn't happen? Saying that in the point of singularity and in planck (I think that's how you spell it) time the laws that govern the universe weren't valid, you are just trying to run away from the obvious. "We can bring time back to the point of singularity. But before that we don't know because our equations get all mixed up and that doesn't mean that it is wrong, it just means that if was... uh... different back then, and we'll just never know."

And actually, there is some scientific/mathmatical evidence to suggest something can come from nothing.

So.... can you post it instead of just trying to cast doubt?

The universe, cosmology, and the study of the origins of the universe are infinitely more complex than a domino analogy. It just doesn't work that way.

Anyone can say that! "Your God is too simple! So it can't be right!" Instead of just saying stuff, provide some insight to back it up. It really helps to further the conversation.

Seems to work that way for me. I don't see anything wrong with it?

Jumping from 1 and 2 to = God is a HUGE jump. Why God? Why not Gods? Who said God(s) is/are infinite, other than our arbitrary definition. Who says God(s) does/do not need a beginning, or had a beginning? These are all matters of faith, not logic.

The initial cause of the universe may indeed be supernatural, but that is not something that we will ever be able to prove objectively, for the supernatural (by definition) transcends the natural - meaning logic, science and mathmatics do not apply.

Again, I try not to be rude (this is something I have to work on with God) but didn't you read what I said???? I said it doesn't necessarily have to be the God of the Bible, it is, but this argument doesn't prove that. I've been over this many times with other people and the same stuff keeps being brought up! That is why I try to make an effort to answer all questions before they are asked!!

All this argument proves is a supernatural cause! We can't progress any further untill you guys recognize that! This is the part where you say "Oh!". Then we can talk about whether it be gods or God.

I was referring to the amount of time from the beginning of each cycle (where ever you might choose that point in the cycle to be)

But then you say there are infinte cycles. So, if each cycle is finite and takes time, then saying there are infinte cycles gets you to the same place as saying there was infinte time passed.

??? There can be no causes that require time??? Seriously lost me on that one. I have to pitch in with michabo on this and ask what it is that you are calling a "cause" (of course he doesnt want you to speak of semantics, so slip it in quick while he isnt looking)

lol. Okay, my cause is supernatural. A supernatual cause is not effected by time, it is outside of time. So, a supernatural cause could have created the universe, because it doesn't require time. Whereas anything natural that you say created the universe couldn't have because it requires time. Meaning the universe couldn't have created itself. This is why atheists have to talk in circles because we aren't bound by there sarcastic rebuttles of "everything requires a cause but your God! Please!".

I don't know of anyone's definition of supernatural requiring an eternal nature.

Well, now you know one person right?

Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.

I was waiting for this one. When I say nothing, I mean absolute nothingness, not space void nothingness or quantum vacuum nothingness, because those aren't nothingness, they are a sea of rushing energy!! When the energy flucuates, they create elctrons I think it was. But those electrons didn't come from nothing, did they? They came from the energy, and that begs the question of where did the energy come from?

I have yet to see anyone bother with either primary words, but argue a great deal about other words.

This is really hard. YOU TRY DEFINING EXISTENCE WITHOUT USING THE WORD EXISTENCE!!! ('scuse the cyber yelling) Okay, existence is something that "is part of" "has a place" in either the physical or metaphysical realm.

God is the Christian God. But that's not what you are looking for. In this argument I have been careful to avoid saying God becaues this argument only proves a supernatural, and I've already defined that.

Hope all this helps!! OObi

 

[michabo]

Time. Time began to exist.

Whether or not I agree with you, this example won't help you. We haven't observed time begin to exist, and have no idea whether or not it has a cause. So when you say that everything which begins to exist has a cause, you have offered no way to determine this.

Further, since time is an essential component of causality, it is an open question whether it makes sense to talk of a cause for time, as this presupposes something before time.



So, would you like to address the issue of whether or not time requires a cause and drop your initial sylogism argument, or can you come up with anything else which has a begining? After all, it seems to me that the purpose of your sylogism is to conclude that time and the universe has a cause. It would hardly do for you to start with that conclusion...

And it's OObi (with two, count 'em, 1, 2, capital O's)

My apologies. There is a long-time posted 'Obbi Quiet' and I keep reading his spelling into your nick. I will try not to make that mistake in the future.

But those electrons didn't come from nothing, did they? They came from the energy, and that begs the question of where did the energy come from?

Actually, no. If you're talking about VPs (which I assume you are, talking about vacuum fluctuations), then there is no energy which brought the VPs into existence. If we define "nothing" to be "any matter or energy", then yes, these VPs did come from nothing.

And FYI, they also had no cause.

And FYI, they are the only things that we can observe which can truly be said to have a beginning.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]This is really hard. YOU TRY DEFINING EXISTENCE WITHOUT USING THE WORD EXISTENCE!!! [FONT=&quot]

Existence is having the property of affect. If something has affect on anything, then that something exists. If it has no affect whatsoever, then it doesn't exist.

Time is the measurement of relative movement of things. For time to exist, at least 3 things must exist. Two moving relative to each other and another moving relative to one of the first two. The measurement is the comparison of how far on moves from an object relative to the movement of the other. No object or no movement = no time.

The cause of something is the unique set of circumstances that bring that something into being.

Therefore, if anything can have the effect of creating, it is a cause. But to effect is inherently an affect. Thus anything that creates is a part of existence. God has to be a part of existence to have affect.

Science can never observe that anything came from nothing simply because they can never know that they simply couldn't see what it was coming from. The idea that if science can't see it, then it doesn't exist, is typically and arrogantly immature. If anything "comes" then whatever sent it has affect and therefore existed.

The VP first come as electric fields which are either a compression (positive) or an expansion (negative) of the fabric of space (or ether as Socrates called it) from there, all else gets created. The question that they are still trying to answer is what caused the original compressions.

But in reality, nothing has to create the original compressions because of the type of material space is made of. The fabric of space will automatically begin to "jiggle" simply because of geometry. It can not ever find a state where it is balanced such that every part has equal affect on every other part. This begins subtle waves = creation.

The concept of a singularity was debunked long ago. Gravity is created by the spin of the matter. This means because of what the matter is made of, that gravity doesn’t actually exist near the center of a single particle of matter.

A black hole is merely an extremely large but single bit of matter. The harmony of its spin is what gives it gravity (and a typically spiraling pull pattern). Near the center of the matter, there is no gravity field. The entire object is a harmonic spin of electric waves chasing themselves around in a 3D envelop.

[/FONT]

 

[michabo]

[FONT=&quot]Time is the measurement of relative movement of things. For time to exist, at least 3 things must exist. Two moving relative to each other and another moving relative to one of the first two. The measurement is the comparison of how far on moves from an object relative to the movement of the other. No object or no movement = no time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
This is philosophy and not accepted science, and even as philosophy it is very dated. I know it was around in Newton's time, but thought that it was debunked early last century. Time is a dimension, just like length and width, and not just a relationship between objects. It can be measured and affected. Everything is constantly moving through time, even if there are no (perceptible) changes.

The VP first come as electric fields which are either a compression (positive) or an expansion (negative) of the fabric of space (or ether as Socrates called it) from there, all else gets created. The question that they are still trying to answer is what caused the original compressions.

None of this is even close to being true. VPs aren't electric fields, and they aren't a "compression" of anything. Space isn't the ether.

A black hole is merely an extremely large but single bit of matter. The harmony of its spin is what gives it gravity (and a typically spiraling pull pattern). Near the center of the matter, there is no gravity field. The entire object is a harmonic spin of electric waves chasing themselves around in a 3D envelop.

[/FONT]
Nevermind. Looks like you are too far gone.

I guess I should expect this in the philosophy forum.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
This is philosophy and not accepted science, and even as philosophy it is very dated. I know it was around in Newton's time, but thought that it was debunked early last century. Time is a dimension, just like length and width, and not just a relationship between objects. It can be measured and affected. Everything is constantly moving through time, even if there are no (perceptible) changes.

Didn't you learn anything from Einstein?
What you just stated is philosophy. Declaring that something is a dimension changes nothing at all and explains nothing other than how you are going to treat the measurement. You can declare anything a dimension and have as many as you like. Declaring dimensions is "how you are going to think about something" = philosophy.

An explanation, as I gave, is just that. An explanation is not a philosophy but an association between what you are investigating and what you already know.

Einstein already mathematically displayed that time, like all other measurements that man has made are all relative to each other. This meant that each can be explained in terms of all of the others.

Declaring something as a dimension merely says that you are going to think of it as an infinite line for the sake of your calculations. It is merely creating a method for handling simultaneous equations. If you could more easily measure wealth or love, then you can declare those dimensions also. It would merely make your equations easier. It would explain nothing.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

None of this is even close to being true. VPs aren't electric fields, and they aren't a "compression" of anything. Space isn't the ether.

Prove or even explain any of what you just stated without circular definitions nor adding new names for things "unknown".

That is what explanation is about. It is what communication is about.
For someone who is so anti-faith, you sure put a lot of faith in things merely because someone told you that "Science" said it. Even though you clearly have no understanding of what they said. They gave you new words. They said that someone really smart proved something. They gave you a hint that it all ties together.

But did you verify exactly how what they said fits together into a complete logical picture? Obviously you have not. That is called faith in prophets - the prophets of the religion of Science. Which inherently is not real Science. Neither do you give explanation such as to communicate or teach what they would have you teach. You merely declare "this is fact...that is fact.. Science says.." even though it is clear that you have no understanding of anything you are saying.

You betray your own masters without even knowing it. And accuse ME of being lost ...sheeesh!
At least go to the trouble of learning the difference between what is philosophy versus explanation and the difference between FAITH and understanding.

Understanding is NOT merely accepting what someone else TOLD YOU as you have done. Until you put ALL of the pieces together, you have incomplete understanding at best and more probably MIS-understanding entirely.

[FONT=&quot]You are the perfect example of what you point at as your enemy.[/FONT]

 

[michabo]

Didn't you learn anything from Einstein?
What you just stated is philosophy. Declaring that something is a dimension changes nothing at all and explains nothing other than how you are going to treat the measurement.

You said:

[FONT=&quot]No object or no movement = no time.
[/FONT]​

If you want to cite Einstein, then you would know how absurd this is. It was he that pointed out that we are constantly in motion through time. To be more precise, the magnitude of the 4-vector representing our motion in time and space is always equal to 'c', the speed of light. This means that we are always in motion. This means that there is always time, just as there is always length. Everything that you're saying seems to be based on some philosophical musing of the 1700s.

Einstein already mathematically displayed that time, like all other measurements that man has made are all relative to each other. This meant that each can be explained in terms of all of the others.

No. It means that the measurements of time and space are relative to one's motion. As relative motion changes, so too do our measurements of time (and the spacial dimensions).

Seriously, look this stuff up.

Prove or even explain any of what you just stated without circular definitions nor adding new names for things "unknown".

Prove what? You want a full treaties on VPs or you want me to prove that what you said is nonsensical?

Why don't you start by reading up on the Casimir Effect and Quantum Field Theory and what happens when the value of a field goes to zero.

For someone who is so anti-faith, you sure put a lot of faith in things merely because someone told you that "Science" said it. Even though you clearly have no understanding of what they said.

Project much?

If you want to attack me for misunderstanding something, then please educate me. I enjoy learning. So far, you've been talking about electric field theories of physics which are very far into the loony fringe, the kind of thing that gets peddled by people who believe magnets can heal you and diluted water still stores the healing energy of substances.

There are no reputable physicists that would agree with anything you've said, and no peer reviewed papers which would substantiate your claims. But hey, there's always the Nobel for the first person to prove it right.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If you want to attack me for misunderstanding something, then please educate me. I enjoy learning.

I agree completely so go for it. But "education" is NOT appending new words to bits of the things that you failed to explain before.

Education is NOT quoting the reputable as prophets of truth needing no explanation of what they have proposed.

Education is NOT saying "You obviously are too lost in fantasy. I know what is true and I have no idea what you are talking about."

Education is NOT merely stating that you are right and someone else is wrong.

Educating IS explanation in the language of the reader as to how one thing he knows or believes is related to another that he believes, to the point of being able to introduce any new relationship that would constitute a new fact or belief or word.


I have said NOTHING that disagrees with Science. But hey…
[FONT=&quot]
GO for it hotshot.[/FONT]

 

[tcampen]

The biginning of the universe is known as Genesis. (I'm sure you don't believe this, but you see now how far that statement got with me) Science is the study of observations. Was anyone around to observe the big bang? No. So, any observations that we think might come from the big bang, are all speculation. Sure, we see red shift, but to link that to the big bang we must first assume that the big bang happened. Otherwise we have nothing to link it to. At this point we can't be sure of anything, because what if we're wrong? And the big bang didn't happen? Saying that in the point of singularity and in planck (I think that's how you spell it) time the laws that govern the universe weren't valid, you are just trying to run away from the obvious. "We can bring time back to the point of singularity. But before that we don't know because our equations get all mixed up and that doesn't mean that it is wrong, it just means that if was... uh... different back then, and we'll just never know."

However you choose to characterize the Big Bang, it still has far more objective support than the Genesis story. We can get back to within the tiniest fraction of a second before the Big Bang, but not the singularity, because we don't know what the law of physics were at that state.

However, quantum fluctuations shows energy particles just "popping" in and out of existance from nothing. This could provide some insight into the singularity.

So.... can you post it instead of just trying to cast doubt?

Anyone can say that! "Your God is too simple! So it can't be right!" Instead of just saying stuff, provide some insight to back it up. It really helps to further the conversation.

Seems to work that way for me.

Here, I found a great explanation here...
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

All this argument proves is a supernatural cause! .....A supernatual cause is not effected by time, it is outside of time. So, a supernatural cause could have created the universe, because it doesn't require time. Whereas anything natural that you say created the universe couldn't have because it requires time. Meaning the universe couldn't have created itself. This is why atheists have to talk in circles because we aren't bound by there sarcastic rebuttles of "everything requires a cause but your God! Please!".

Nothing proves a supernatural anything, because as you have demonstrated, the supernatural is beyond our natural world. When relying on the supernatural, one can say whatever they like. There are no limits, to restrictions, no rules - other than those one arbitrarily assigns. Anything goes. Nature doesn't work that way. So when we rely on natural explanations for our natural world, we must adhear to those limits of the natural world. It's not a matter of atheistic vs. theistic. It's a matter of understanding the qualitative difference of the natural and the supernatural.

When I say nothing, I mean absolute nothingness, not space void nothingness or quantum vacuum nothingness, because those aren't nothingness, they are a sea of rushing energy!! When the energy flucuates, they create elctrons I think it was. But those electrons didn't come from nothing, did they? They came from the energy, and that begs the question of where did the energy come from?

Actually, what you are saying isn't really known. Quantum fluctuations may really come from nothing. Unlike any supernatural explanation, this energy from nothing has been observed, tested and repeated in the lab. Please share with us where your supernatural explanation has gone through any such objective testing.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

However, quantum fluctuations shows energy particles just "popping" in and out of existance from nothing.

The blindly faithful Christian who sees something that clearly indicates that this faith must be in error says, "The Bible can't be wrong. I must twist what I see into something that justifies my faith in my Bible."

The quantum physicist who sees something that clearly indicates that his faith in prior theories must be in error says, "Quantum physics can't be wrong. I must twist what I see into something that justifies my faith in my quantum theories."

Have they decided recently that indeed you CAN create and destroy energy? If so, doesn't that complicate the other laws - the very laws from which the notion of quantum physics sprang?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Have they decided recently that indeed you CAN create and destroy energy? If so, doesn't that complicate the other laws - the very laws from which the notion of quantum physics sprang?

Quantum fluctuations rely on something closer to energy 'borrowing.'

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Quantum fluctuations rely on something closer to energy 'borrowing.'

I well understand what they are observing. I was just making an observation myself.

 

[OObi]

Whether or not I agree with you, this example won't help you. We haven't observed time begin to exist, and have no idea whether or not it has a cause. So when you say that everything which begins to exist has a cause, you have offered no way to determine this.

No, we can't observe it. But when can logically conclude it. You just don't want to recognize that crossing an infinte is impossible, so the universe can't be infinitely old. Sorry to point to finger, but that is what it is. Your persuppositions that God can't exist are holding you back from the truth. No one is going to hold it against you if you are wrong, I was wrong once. I see the truth now... you need to examine the fairly.

Further, since time is an essential component of causality, it is an open question whether it makes sense to talk of a cause for time, as this presupposes something before time.

This may seem right at first, but I've (or rather people before me that were a whole bunch smarter then I)shown how we need to rethink this concept. I think it was Sherlock Holmes that said "after we eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth." It is impossible to have our universe go back infintely. So, even though taking that step of accepting the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause, is very hard, it is one that we have to do.

So, would you like to address the issue of whether or not time requires a cause and drop your initial sylogism argument, or can you come up with anything else which has a begining? After all, it seems to me that the purpose of your sylogism is to conclude that time and the universe has a cause. It would hardly do for you to start with that conclusion...

Okay, because I don't want to keep repeating myself I'm going to make this very fence-busting. Answer therse please:

1. Can an infinte amount be crossed?

2. Was there an infinte amount of time before this present time?

My apologies. There is a long-time posted 'Obbi Quiet' and I keep reading his spelling into your nick. I will try not to make that mistake in the future.

lol. I was just kidding man.

Actually, no. If you're talking about VPs (which I assume you are, talking about vacuum fluctuations), then there is no energy which brought the VPs into existence. If we define "nothing" to be "any matter or energy", then yes, these VPs did come from nothing.

This is a quote from Quentin Smith, an atheist that has made an effort to dispute this argument.

on virtual particles "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50)."

Smith, Q. (1986), "World Ensemble Explanations," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67:73-86. (I'm pretty sure this is the right reference)

But yeah... even this guy admits that virtual particles don't have anything to do with acausality.

The energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Existence is having the property of affect. If something has affect on anything, then that something exists. If it has no affect whatsoever, then it doesn't exist.

Time is the measurement of relative movement of things. For time to exist, at least 3 things must exist. Two moving relative to each other and another moving relative to one of the first two. The measurement is the comparison of how far on moves from an object relative to the movement of the other. No object or no movement = no time.

The cause of something is the unique set of circumstances that bring that something into being.

Therefore, if anything can have the effect of creating, it is a cause. But to effect is inherently an affect. Thus anything that creates is a part of existence. God has to be a part of existence to have affect.

Science can never observe that anything came from nothing simply because they can never know that they simply couldn't see what it was coming from. The idea that if science can't see it, then it doesn't exist, is typically and arrogantly immature. If anything "comes" then whatever sent it has affect and therefore existed.

The VP first come as electric fields which are either a compression (positive) or an expansion (negative) of the fabric of space (or ether as Socrates called it) from there, all else gets created. The question that they are still trying to answer is what caused the original compressions.

Okay, so we agree, God exists.

But in reality, nothing has to create the original compressions because of the type of material space is made of. The fabric of space will automatically begin to "jiggle" simply because of geometry. It can not ever find a state where it is balanced such that every part has equal affect on every other part. This begins subtle waves = creation.

So... the parts were just there or what?

Nevermind. Looks like you are too far gone.

I guess I should expect this in the philosophy forum.

lol. Ahhh... funny stuff, funny stuff.

However you choose to characterize the Big Bang, it still has far more objective support than the Genesis story. We can get back to within the tiniest fraction of a second before the Big Bang, but not the singularity, because we don't know what the law of physics were at that state.

However, quantum fluctuations shows energy particles just "popping" in and out of existance from nothing. This could provide some insight into the singularity.

???????????????????? (I swear that I have covered all this stuff already?? Oh well, right?)

Saying the laws changed during singularity is the same as saying "since our equations get all mixed up here, we must conclude that we are not wrong, but that everything was different back then!"

As for the vp's, read the posts above, though I don't know how far they might get. It seems they are heating up. You could at least grab popcorn it nothing else, I'd be glad to observe with you the conclusion of "MICHABO V. RELUCTANTPROPHET!! SMACKDOWN!!!"

Nothing proves a supernatural anything, because as you have demonstrated, the supernatural is beyond our natural world. When relying on the supernatural, one can say whatever they like. There are no limits, to restrictions, no rules - other than those one arbitrarily assigns. Anything goes. Nature doesn't work that way. So when we rely on natural explanations for our natural world, we must adhear to those limits of the natural world. It's not a matter of atheistic vs. theistic. It's a matter of understanding the qualitative difference of the natural and the supernatural.

With some people that might be true... like the pantheists (ah! the pantheists..) but not with myself. I could speculate as to what that supernatural power maybe, and I plan to once we have established it is indeed there, but right now I won't. All I've done is shown the supernatural characteristics that implied by this argument.

This argument shows that there needs to be a supernatural creator that exists outside of time. Granted that is the only thing this argument implies, it still does apply at least that. This part I'm not speculating about, I've used logic to conclude that.

The blindly faithful Christian who sees something that clearly indicates that this faith must be in error says, "The Bible can't be wrong. I must twist what I see into something that justifies my faith in my Bible."

I most certainly do not! I am rather proud of being as unbiased if not more then anyone I've ever met! Sometimes I get mad at all the regulations and laws I have to follow and try to find error in my thinking. I will not twist fact to make myself feel prideful. If I was proved wrong it would only mean a life full of whatever I want. That is something I look forward to in Heaven, but as for now, I serve Messiah.