What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists?

[Akureyri]

Its expanding. That makes the universe finite in both time and space.

How does the present state of the universe provide proof that the universe hasn't always existed?

 

[Joshua260]

What you provided were reasons you believe the universe had a definite beginning. But that's not what I asked. I asked how you can know for sure it hasn't existed forever?

I didn't make any claims that the universe has existed forever. So there is no claim of mine which could be a result of faith.


What belief do you think I possess which is based solely on faith?

The belief you seem to have that the universe has always existed in the face of scientific evidence which suggests that the universe had a definite beginning.

Let's set the record straight then. Do you believe the universe has always existed...yes or no?

 

[Akureyri]

The belief you seem to have that the universe has always existed in the face of scientific evidence which suggests that the universe had a definite beginning.

Let's set the record straight then. Do you believe the universe has always existed...yes or no?

No, I don't hold that belief. Nor do I hold the belief that the universe was created. Do you hold the belief that the universe has not always existed? If so, how can you be sure that the universe hasn't always existed?

 

[Joshua260]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Do you believe the universe has always existed...yes or no?​

No, I don't hold that belief. Nor do I hold the belief that the universe was created.

I had to re-edit this post because I just realized you answered differently than I first thought.

Before we move on, I need to ask a few more questions to understand your POV and avoid further confusion.

Do you hold a belief that the universe had a beginning...yes or no?

Do you hold a belief that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor...yes or no?

Do you hold a belief that the earth is several million years old...yes or no?

 

[Akureyri]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Do you believe the universe has always existed...yes or no?​

I had to re-edit this post because I just realized you answered differently than I first thought.

Before we move on, I need to ask a few more questions to understand your POV and avoid further confusion.

Do you hold a belief that the universe had a beginning...yes or no?

No.

Do you hold a belief that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor...yes or no?

No.

Do you hold a belief that the earth is several million years old...yes or no?

At least several million years old - YES. Precisely several million years old - NO.

--------------------------------------------

Do you hold the belief that the universe has not always existed? If so, how can you be sure that the universe hasn't always existed?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

How did you guys even get into this debate?

 

[Hentenza]

How does the present state of the universe provide proof that the universe hasn't always existed?

Because an expanding universe had a beginning. In science is called the big bang theory.

 

[Joshua260]

Let's review. I asked you:

1) "Do you hold a belief that the universe had a beginning...yes or no?" and you said "No".

2) "Do you hold a belief that the earth is several million years old...yes or no?" and you said "At least several million years old - YES."

For some reason, you believe that the earth is at least several million years old, and I would guess that your belief is based upon some scientific evidence. However, you do NOT believe that the universe had a beginning even though there is exactly the same type of evidence to support that assertion. Both beliefs are based of off some type of physical reading that indirectly implies 1) the age of the earth or 2) that the universe had a beginning. Without employing your aloof answer of "I was there", please explain why you choose to believe one set of scientific evidences and not the other, even though both evidences are of the same type? It looks purely like a personal preference.

 

[Akureyri]

Let's review. I asked you:

1) "Do you hold a belief that the universe had a beginning...yes or no?" and you said "No".

That doesn't mean I do believe it had no beginning. All it means is I don't hold the belief that it did have a beginning.

2) "Do you hold a belief that the earth is several million years old...yes or no?" and you said "At least several million years old - YES."

For some reason, you believe that the earth is at least several million years old, and I would guess that your belief is based upon some scientific evidence. However, you do NOT believe that the universe had a beginning even though there is exactly the same type of evidence to support that assertion. Both beliefs are based of off some type of physical reading that indirectly implies 1) the age of the earth or 2) that the universe had a beginning. Without employing your aloof answer of "I was there", please explain why you choose to believe one set of scientific evidences and not the other, even though both evidences are of the same type? It looks purely like a personal preference.

Whether or not the earth is at least several million years old and whether or not the universe had a beginning are two totally separate matters.

 

[Akureyri]

Because an expanding universe had a beginning. In science is called the big bang theory.

How do you know that a universe without a beginning can't expand?

 

[Joshua260]

That doesn't mean I do believe it had no beginning. All it means is I don't hold the belief that it did have a beginning.


Whether or not the earth is at least several million years old and whether or not the universe had a beginning are two totally separate matters.

edit: I decided to update this response because I didn't like the tone of my own original post.

The subject doesn't matter. The point is that the same type of evidence is used to support both conclusions. For the age of the earth, one might be using C14 decay and for the beginning of the universe, one might be using the red-shift or background radiation. Neither one of those is a direct reading of the event, like a doctor taking a patient's temperature or one checking their car's tire pressure. Instead, they are direct readings of how much C14 is in a rock and the elongated wavelengths of specific light, and both are used to imply something else. So one has to wonder why some people choose to believe one implication (the age of the earth) and not the other (that the universe had a beginning) and my suggestion is that they may not want to believe one of those implications. In this case, if the universe had a beginning, then that could lead to imply the existence of God and that conclusion would be repulsive to people who would not want to admit that they have a sinful nature. As the saying goes "people believe what they want to believe", and people of all faiths, or none, are subject to this possible act of self-deception. I confess to you that as a Christian, I still have to constantly examine my own actions (like my original post ) to see if they are "not what they should be"...so I don't exclude myself from having those same tendencies. This is why we Christians need to examine our own faith and learn why we believe what we do. I happen to believe that yes, even though I want Christianity to be true, we have good reasons to believe as we do and that's why many of us refer to our faith as a "reasonable faith". When I let the evidence "speak for itself", rather than imposing my own desires on it, I think the evidence supports the belief in the Christian God. Therefore, I recommend you to reasonablefaith.org.

 

[MLEN]

Christians: What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists?

None. Even if the whole world suddenly disappears, nothing could change my belief that God exists. I've seen him work in too many miraculous ways in the lives of myself and others to deny his existence.

 

[Radagast]

Christians: What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists?

No conditions would change my mind.

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still be at least a Platonist theist -- it's the only way mathematics makes sense, for one thing.

How do you know if the universe had always existed, there never would have been a "sweet spot" - at which life could thrive - sometime before the universe turned into a heat dead universe?

Really, that is rather silly.

If the universe has always existed, that "sweet spot" came and went an infinitely long time ago -- because having "always existed" means that the laws of physics would have been running for an infinite period of time.