A Proof That God Exists
Imhotep

Parrish, FL

#531 Apr 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were late to the game, I see. I played Centipede in the arcades long before it came out on PCs. Wasted way too many quarters in those silly shops during the early 80's. I preferred Joust, though. And Eyes.
Yes I was late in the game I didn't even bother to learn computers until my early 30s

However I found it very easy sailed through college got my bachelor science degree in computer science and went right to work for IBM been there ever since
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#532 Apr 11, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I'll give it a look-see. Sounds like it'd be amusing for a bit.
:)
Here it is. It installs Shockwave though:

http://www.physics.org/explorelink.asp...

Kept me amused for one lunchtime at least.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#533 Apr 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
----------

If the BB exploded or banged as a result of the expansion of matter from the singularity which is very probable, time existed before the big bang and it did not begin with the BB. Try again.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#534 Apr 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
------

In motion; matter in motion. Time cannot exist in matter in the state of inertia. Time is an accident of motion.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#535 Apr 11, 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.
----

That's better John. Or should I say: Now, I understand it correct?

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#536 Apr 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
-------

Perhaps because you are looking for the evidence in yourself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#537 Apr 11, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
If the BB exploded or banged as a result of the expansion of matter from the singularity which is very probable, time existed before the big bang and it did not begin with the BB. Try again.
It is possible time existed before the BB. An infinite string of universal expansions and collapses is possible. This would negate any need for a "God".

Of course you could just simply place "God" beyond those goalposts yet again and say he's STILL responsible for the whole thing. But just goes to show how superfluous the whole concept is really.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#538 Apr 11, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
In motion; matter in motion. Time cannot exist in matter in the state of inertia. Time is an accident of motion.
Or perhaps motion is an accident of time. Or perhaps it's not accident at all. Kinda like H2O always forming water.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#539 Apr 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
---

To ask for proofs is the best excuse for atheists to hide their vulnerability.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#540 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
--------

See what I mean? Even in jokes you confess that you cannot think in
a spriritual manner. How could a Spirit have an arm with a vein for a blood test? You are not serious.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#541 Apr 11, 2013
Normal Flora wrote:
<quoted text>It is YOUR responsibility to learn the requisite math and physics that you would need to understand this. I am not your online tutor. Also, if you are unable or unwilling to Google or Bing for links to peer reviewed articles on cosmology, I am not going to be your research librarian. Promoting theism? Thanks for the snort-laugh.
-------

Playing hit and run aha! You guys never cease mazing me.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#542 Apr 11, 2013
Bollocks.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
---
To ask for proofs is the best excuse for atheists to hide their vulnerability.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#543 Apr 11, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
---
To ask for proofs is the best excuse for atheists to hide their vulnerability.
And to avoid backing yourself up is the best way for fundies to expose their vulnerability.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#544 Apr 11, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
See what I mean? Even in jokes you confess that you cannot think in
a spriritual manner. How could a Spirit have an arm with a vein for a blood test? You are not serious.
You've ALMOST grasped the point there, Shibs.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#545 Apr 11, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I will ask again, as you seem unable to answer the question....
Please explain how non-matter created matter. This is YOUR claim. As I mentioned before, atheism does NOT require acceptance of the BB.
-----

If Atheism does not require the BB how is it that all claim that it is what gave origin to the universe? If you don't, how did the universe come about? Did it cause itself into existence?

Now for your question above, have you ever heard about the concept
of "ex-nihilo?" Well, even if you have you could not walk in that realm. Atheists don't cultivate that attribute. Only the Primal Cause could have caused the first thing to happen by way of "ex-nihilo." Then expansion and evolution followed as a result.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#546 Apr 11, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
In order not to waste our time with idle repetitions let me just say to you that you do not have clue what you are talking about.
-----

As I can see, even Physics you do not understand. Show me that time
is produced in inertia. If matter does not move time cannot exist.
That's the bottom line about time and space. I think you are the one who does not have a clue of what you are verbally juggling.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#547 Apr 11, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
There wasn't any.
---
So, it caused itself into existence? How can something that did not exist have caused itself into existence? See the balderdash here? It is shouting.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#548 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It is possible time existed before the BB. An infinite string of universal expansions and collapses is possible. This would negate any need for a "God".
Of course you could just simply place "God" beyond those goalposts yet again and say he's STILL responsible for the whole thing. But just goes to show how superfluous the whole concept is really.(shrug)
-------

That's because you can't think esoterically. For you guys something
has to be physical or exhibit a body in order to exist. That's a pity!

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#549 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or perhaps motion is an accident of time. Or perhaps it's not accident at all. Kinda like H2O always forming water.
-----

The elements that form water are moving inside. I said that time is an accident of motion. You don't have to see something moving to figure time. Atoms the bricks of matter are constantly in motion. When I say that there is no time in inertia I mean absolute inertia. How much do you guys need to see the light?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#550 Apr 11, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
As I can see, even Physics you do not understand.
You're claiming science is wrong cuz an invisible magic Jewish wizard magically poofed everything into existence.

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
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 8 min Eagle 12 - 106
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 12 min Eagle 12 - 69
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 154
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 80,048
what science will NEVER be able to prove 2 hr Amused 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Amused 32,584
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep 20 The pope 258,485
More from around the web