A Proof That God Exists

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1737 Jun 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You shouldn't. I have actually watched the material in question. I doubt you ever will though, because you do not want to change in the event there is new evidence contrary to your position.
<quoted text>
------

Could you prove the origin of the universe within the time that you are in contact with me? Absolutely not! How can you demand of me to prove God in a day or two? To know God is of a lifetime task.
See now how you guys never cease amazing me? Embarrassing!

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1738 Jun 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"beginning" is a time word. What did you really want to ask?
<quoted text>
-----

No sir! Beginning is not a time word. A time word is motion and not beginning. And you have already forgotten what I have been asking here for more than many times? The question I am getting tired of asking is if the universe caused itself to exist, considering that it had a beginning with the BB and that an outside cause is denied.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1739 Jun 14, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even make an attempt to understand what pm is trying to teach you?
-----

Do you even make an attempt to understand what I have been asking all of you for countless time and never get an answer?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1740 Jun 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Polymath, sorry if I have to use the Christian dialectic that you are lost but in the confusions of your mind. Review here what you say: "Time could have a beginning; it was always there." "If time began at some point, there was no before." "Uncaused beginnings are common." How could something that had a beginning be uncaused?
"It did not cause itself. It means it had a cause." How can you blame me if I cannot understand such a juggling of verbal confusion?
Maybe if you took some time and actually read what I wrote you would be able to understand. Look at words like 'if'. They are relevant.

Causality is dependent on time.

If time has a beginning, it is uncaused.

There is a difference between 'causing itself' and 'not having a cause'.

There are *known* events that are uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1741 Jun 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
To speak thus, you must know it. Since you don't know you are bluffing. For evidence of what I am saying, go ahead and explain time and how it originated.
You are assuming a 'how', in other words, a 'cause'. But by its very nature, time cannot have a cause.
You don't know. See what I mean? In motionless matter there is no time.
No matter is motionless. Quantum effects prevent it.
As matter moves we have time. Now demonstrate that I am wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1742 Jun 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
No sir! Beginning is not a time word.
Of *course* it is.
A time word is motion and not beginning.
Wrong.
And you have already forgotten what I have been asking here for more than many times? The question I am getting tired of asking is if the universe caused itself to exist, considering that it had a beginning with the BB and that an outside cause is denied.
No, it did not cause itself. It is uncaused. Do you see the difference?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1743 Jun 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Do you even make an attempt to understand what I have been asking all of you for countless time and never get an answer?
We have given you answers. You have refused to attempt to understand them.

your first mistake is in your understanding of the concept of 'cause'. Causality requires time. Because of that, time itself has to be uncaused. Ponder that for a bit. It already shows your 'first cause' argument fails.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1744 Jun 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Do you even make an attempt to understand what I have been asking all of you for countless time and never get an answer?
How lame a response.

Sorry to inform you, but I grew up immersed in an extremely religious family. So, YES, I have been thoroughly exposed to your point of view. From childhood to the time I finally escaped the narrow minded church (Southern Baptist, not RCC) and its abuse of children's minds.

And again I ask YOU...do you even make an attempt to understand what pm tells you? It sure doesn't seem so because you continually fail to get his points.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1745 Jun 14, 2013
I would like to know how much time it took to create time... I mean just the time before time..... Lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1746 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
No sir! Beginning is not a time word.
The beginning of something is the first *time* it exists. So, yes,'beginning' is a time word.

Duh.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1747 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you took some time and actually read what I wrote you would be able to understand. Look at words like 'if'. They are relevant.
Causality is dependent on time.
If time has a beginning, it is uncaused.
There is a difference between 'causing itself' and 'not having a cause'.
There are *known* events that are uncaused.
-----

Sometimes I hate myself for being so patient with faithful people who behave like theists of talking serpents. But let me try again: 1. Time cannot have a beginning before matter is in motion as time is an accident of motion. Got it? Next:

2. There is no such a thing as something that causes itself to exist. Something must exist to cause anything and if it already exists it does need to cause itself over.

Now, have mercy on yourself and don't ask this question again.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1748 Jun 15, 2013
Correction: Please, add "not" to number 2 above. Here, I repeat:

2. There is no such a thing as something that causes itself to exist. Something must exist to cause anything and if it already exists it does NOT
need to cause itself over.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1749 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming a 'how', in other words, a 'cause'. But by its very nature, time cannot have a cause.
<quoted text>
No matter is motionless. Quantum effects prevent it.
<quoted text>
-----

Time is an accident of motion. Matter must exist for time to exist.
Remove matter and time is non-existent. Before matter time did not existed.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1750 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of *course* it is.
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
No, it did not cause itself. It is uncaused. Do you see the difference?
--------

Yes, the difference is that you are still dreaming with Aristotle's
theory that the universe was eternal without a beginning and without an end. That mistake was already fixed in 1922 by the theist George Lemaitre. Almost 100 years and you still refuse to wake up to smell the coffee! You have first to deny that the BB reports to the beginning of the universe. If something had a beginning, it is because it was caused since it could not have caused itself to exist. That's simply Logic.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1751 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have given you answers. You have refused to attempt to understand them.
your first mistake is in your understanding of the concept of 'cause'. Causality requires time. Because of that, time itself has to be uncaused. Ponder that for a bit. It already shows your 'first cause' argument fails.
------
If I put a marble on the top of a hill can you tell me how long does it take for that marble to reach the bottom of the hill? No, there is no way to know until I release that marble and let it go.
That's motion. As the marble reaches the bottom of the hill you know hbecause there was some time between the top and the bottom of the hill. Therefore, without motion there is no time. Hence time is an accident of motion.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1752 Jun 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
How lame a response.
Sorry to inform you, but I grew up immersed in an extremely religious family. So, YES, I have been thoroughly exposed to your point of view. From childhood to the time I finally escaped the narrow minded church (Southern Baptist, not RCC) and its abuse of children's minds.
And again I ask YOU...do you even make an attempt to understand what pm tells you? It sure doesn't seem so because you continually fail to get his points.
------

I do not understand verbal juggling that explains nothing.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1753 Jun 15, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
I would like to know how much time it took to create time... I mean just the time before time..... Lol
-----

The only way to know is when the matter is in motion.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1754 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The beginning of something is the first *time* it exists. So, yes,'beginning' is a time word.
Duh.
-------

Good! So the universe did have a beginning with the BB. If it had a beginning it was caused. Since it could not cause itself to exist
who, or what did it? If you know share it with me. If you don't why
don't you incorporate the concept of probability into your agenda?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1755 Jun 15, 2013
I'm sure this has already been addressed but... How do we then leap to a "god" (probably the christian one ;-)) being the answer? Why not a magic potato? Why not a supernatural appearance of an unconscious speck of dust? Why not time traveling Elvis Presley?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1756 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I do not understand verbal juggling that explains nothing.
So you are say that, YES, you make no attempt to understand pm. Thought so.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min ChristineM 255,535
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 20 min ChristineM 23,874
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 31 min Amused 14,967
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 38 min NightSerf 4,491
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min One way or another 35,436
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 47 min woodtick57 20,177
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 3 hr thetruth 42
More from around the web