A Proof That God Exists

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#428 Apr 10, 2013
John K wrote:
Time is just the distance between two events. So before time began there could not be any events. So no cause to create the effect.
I think I am getting the hang of this!
----

Wrong John. That definition is for space. Time is the element to measure that distance by means of the motion of matter.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#429 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And yours is less than poor. Where did the matter that caused
the BB come from. It could not have been always there and could not
have caused itself into existence.
There are actually three possibilities, depending on how the very early universe works.

1. Time began at the Big Bang. There was no 'before' the Big Bang, so no matter before and no causality of the Big Bang.

2. There was a previous, contracting universe before ours. This has some issues with the definition of a 'universe', but in this situation, there was matter before the Big Bang and causality continues infinitely into the future. The Big Bang theory, as presently seen, only applies after the 'bounce' between the contraction and the expansion phases.

3. There is a multi-verse from which our universe 'buds off' or exists as a small portion of the larger. Time in this context can either exist only within universes, or it can exist for the multi-verse as a whole. In the former case (time only inside of universes), the universe is uncaused (being a quantum effect). In the second case (time exists for the multi-verse), the universe could either be caused or uncaused depending on the particulars.

Once again, you have made a basic mistake. You say that something cannot cause itself (which is true). You deduce that something else must have caused it. But you neglect the possibility that it is simply not caused by *anything*(including itself).

Why must the universe have a cause? For that matter, why must all matter have a cause? You have consistently failed to address this question, which is vital to your argument. Also, how is it possible to have the cause of a physical thing be non-physical in spite of *all* evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#430 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Wrong John. That definition is for space. Time is the element to measure that distance by means of the motion of matter.
So the existence of time is dependent on the existence of matter. Since causlity requires the existence of time (causes are previous to effects), causality depends on the existence of matter. Hence, we cannot have a 'cause' for all matter.
John K

Akron, OH

#431 Apr 10, 2013
I did not say time is the distance between the locations of the events.(That would be space)

I said that time is the distance between the events.( as in the distance between "this moment right now" and "this new moment right now" ) The two events could have happened in the same physical space.

Time problems always seem to mess with folks heads.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#432 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Perhaps because you do not understand that humans enjoy the attribute of spirituality which the irrational animal doesn't. Give yourself the credit to be human and learn how to use that attribute too.
I understand the *claim* that humans have a spiritual attribute, but I have seen no evidence to support this claim. Rationality is not a 'spiritual attribute'. It is simply a way of reasoning done by the physical brain. ALL evidence demonstrates this.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#433 Apr 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
2. There was a previous, contracting universe before ours. This has some issues with the definition of a 'universe', but in this situation, there was matter before the Big Bang and causality continues infinitely into the future.
Oops, I meant to say it continues infinite into the *past*.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#434 Apr 10, 2013
John K wrote:
I did not say time is the distance between the locations of the events.(That would be space)
I said that time is the distance between the events.( as in the distance between "this moment right now" and "this new moment right now" ) The two events could have happened in the same physical space.
Time problems always seem to mess with folks heads.
And we have just barely scratched the surface of the *known* issues with time. For example, it is possible for one observer to see two events happen at the same time and another observer to see them happen at different times. it is even possible for one observer to see event A as being before event B and another to see B as before A. A detailed analysis requires the concept of a 'past light cone', but I bet this concept will be far above Sib's head.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#435 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
You want a visible proof to satisty the eyes of your flesh. Use your mind for a change.
We do use our minds. That is why we require a demonstration of your claim that non-physical things can cause physical ones. or even that there *are* non-physical things.

Yes, we want a proof. You have not even come close to proving any of your claims.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#436 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepting, even provisionally, a logical impossibility makes no sense.
If A causes B, the pre-existence of A is required.
Therefore, A cannot cause A, since A cannot both exist and not exist.
Law of Identity.
However B may be uncaused.

Which uh, you shouldn't have a problem with since after all, you think A is uncaused.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#437 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes one of us.
Oh, two at least.

What's the "scientific theory" of IDC, Buck?

Thought so.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#438 Apr 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "Law of Identity" you ignorant buffoon.
But isn't that what fundies are supposed to do? Bastdardize other people's concepts so they fit with their theological preconceptions or make up totally new BS on the spot and call it relevant to reality?

Infinite Force is trying to tell everyone that Goddidit with magic (and possibly aliens) because of the "Universal Law of Non-Contradiction!"

Unfortunately he contradicted himself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#439 Apr 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct-- buck is at best, a kind of sub-human, and lacks many of the normal human attributes.
His short list of attributes does not list "thinking" or "humor" anywhere.
But at the top of the list are "full of hate" and "dogmatic".... with "massively bloated ego" in there two.
It's difficult to determine which one of those is #1, though.
And don't forget big muscles.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#440 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Only for atheists who cannot think in a spiritual manner.
Atheism? Sorry bub, but that's just another way of admitting that you're arguing against science with Goddidit with magic. I couldn't care less about atheism. It is quite simply not relevant to the validity of science, or lack thereof.

There may or may not be a God. But since it doesn't throw its arm in every now and then so we can perform a blood test on it. This means that, scientifically speaking, there is no way to tell due to the complete and total utter lack of evidence. Same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn or Cosmic Sheep from Dimension Zog.

Now. You claim that all things that start "must" have a cause (ignoring for the time being that cause is subject to time and time is an inherent property of the universe). Okey-dokey then. Therefore by your "logic" I point out that all examples of intelligence require matter, therefore if you posit an intelligent cause then your intelligent agent MUST be material.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#441 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Perhaps because you do not understand that humans enjoy the attribute of spirituality which the irrational animal doesn't. Give yourself the credit to be human and learn how to use that attribute too.
And how did you determine that in an objective manner via the scientific method?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#442 Apr 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
You want a visible proof to satisty the eyes of your flesh. Use your mind for a change.
The eyes aren't necessary. We can't see air but it can still be detected via empirical means. Use your mind for a change.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#443 Apr 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Why must the universe have a cause? For that matter, why must all matter have a cause? You have consistently failed to address this question, which is vital to your argument. Also, how is it possible to have the cause of a physical thing be non-physical in spite of *all* evidence?
Because EVERYTHING must have a cause!

Except God.

Just because.

So there.

OKAY?!?

Good.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#444 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because EVERYTHING must have a cause!
Except God.
Just because.
So there.
OKAY?!?
Good.
Oh, OK. How silly of me. I see the invincible logic of the situation now.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#445 Apr 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And we have just barely scratched the surface of the *known* issues with time. For example, it is possible for one observer to see two events happen at the same time and another observer to see them happen at different times. it is even possible for one observer to see event A as being before event B and another to see B as before A. A detailed analysis requires the concept of a 'past light cone', but I bet this concept will be far above Sib's head.
I always found those thought-experiments to be fascinating.

Especially the ones proposed for spaceships orbiting closely around super-big black holes.

There was a discussion on the TV series featuring Stephen Hawking about the very issues of "A before B" and "B before A" depending on where the observers were in relation to both A and B.

Mind-twisting stuff, for sure.

And another example that reality itself is far weirder than the most lurid of the imaginary god-delusions.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#446 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But isn't that what fundies are supposed to do? Bastdardize other people's concepts so they fit with their theological preconceptions or make up totally new BS on the spot and call it relevant to reality?
Infinite Force is trying to tell everyone that Goddidit with magic (and possibly aliens) because of the "Universal Law of Non-Contradiction!"
Unfortunately he contradicted himself.
I just love it how Fundies keep fabricating these magical Laws Of The Universe And Everything.

As if they were ... a god or something....

... LMAO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#447 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't forget big muscles.
You mean the one between his ears?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr John 712
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr John 32,165
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr SoE 76,871
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 12 hr The FACTory 4,299
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 hr Aerobatty 258,475
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 20 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
More from around the web