A Proof That God Exists

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1757 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
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?
I understand the concept. I disagree. Time is not a result of matter in motion. It is an independent coordinate like space is. We would not say that space is a result of matter in motion. The same holds for time.
Next:
2. There is no such a thing as something that causes itself to exist.
I would agree. For 'A' to be caused by 'B' means that 'A' happens after 'B' in time.
Something must exist to cause anything and if it already exists it does need to cause itself over.
OK, with the change you made below, I would agree with this also.
Now, have mercy on yourself and don't ask this question again.
But you are still ignoring my point. I agree that time did not cause itself. OK? But my claim is that time is uncaused. It didn't cause itself because NOTHING caused it.

Do you see the difference?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1758 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<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.
Well, I agree that they are co-existent. Whenever one exists, so does the other. That does not imply a causal link.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1759 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
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.
The Big Bang may or may not be the beginning of the universe in the large sense (the sense of universe meaning everything that can exist). But *if* it was the beginning (a distinct possibility), it was *uncaused*.
If something had a beginning, it is because it was caused since it could not have caused itself to exist. That's simply Logic.
No, if it caused itself it has a cause (itself). The options are that it was caused by something else or that it is *uncaused*. THAT is the logic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1760 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
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.
But time is still flowing while you hold the marble.
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.
Wrong. There was time. We just couldn't predict a future time when something specific happened.
Hence time is an accident of motion.
Wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1761 Jun 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
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
Those are not the only possibilities. The options are that it was caused or that it was uncaused.
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?
Once again, it didn't cause itself (an impossibility) and it was not caused by something else (also an impossibility if you think about it). So it was *uncaused*. You consistently confuse being uncaused with being self-caused. They are different things.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1762 Jun 16, 2013
I have yet to see one scrap of evidence for your god.
Shibolet wrote:
<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!
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1763 Jun 16, 2013
Did they take your brain away with your foreskin?
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
No sir! Beginning is not a time word.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1764 Jun 16, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did they take your brain away with your foreskin?
<quoted text>
I suspect he was taught early and often, to **never** engage his brains.

Likely a PET scan of his head would reveal empty nothingness inside his skull-- atrophy from lack of use.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1765 Jun 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand the concept. I disagree. Time is not a result of matter in motion. It is an independent coordinate like space is. We would not say that space is a result of matter in motion. The same holds for time.
<quoted text>
I would agree. For 'A' to be caused by 'B' means that 'A' happens after 'B' in time.
<quoted text>
OK, with the change you made below, I would agree with this also.
<quoted text>
But you are still ignoring my point. I agree that time did not cause itself. OK? But my claim is that time is uncaused. It didn't cause itself because NOTHING caused it.
Do you see the difference?
----------

Nothing causes only nothing. And something cannot cause itself to exist. If it exists it was caused but not by itself.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1766 Jun 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big Bang may or may not be the beginning of the universe in the large sense (the sense of universe meaning everything that can exist). But *if* it was the beginning (a distinct possibility), it was *uncaused*.
<quoted text>
No, if it caused itself it has a cause (itself). The options are that it was caused by something else or that it is *uncaused*. THAT is the logic.
------

How can something that was caused by something else be uncaused? This is a logical contradiction. I don't think you know anymore what you are talking about.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1767 Jun 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But time is still flowing while you hold the marble.
<quoted text>
Wrong. There was time. We just couldn't predict a future time when something specific happened.
<quoted text>
Wrong.
------

Sorry but you have caused me to be deeply disappointed with atheists. Your mind cannot penetrate the logic of reality.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1768 Jun 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are not the only possibilities. The options are that it was caused or that it was uncaused.
<quoted text>
Once again, it didn't cause itself (an impossibility) and it was not caused by something else (also an impossibility if you think about it). So it was *uncaused*. You consistently confuse being uncaused with being self-caused. They are different things.
-----

Something that exists without having been caused is part of the erroneous theory of Aristotle which was corrected in 1922. Could it be that you guys find hard to accept this logic because it was demonstrated by a theist? Hey that's like a natural law. You can't change it.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1769 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I have yet to see one scrap of evidence for your god.
<quoted text>
----

Probably because you cannot understand Logic.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1770 Jun 17, 2013
No.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Probably because you cannot understand Logic.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1771 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did they take your brain away with your foreskin?
<quoted text>
------

You wish you could have the brain of a Jew. You speak like this because you are jealous. Evidence? Check about the Nobel Prizes' winners since the day they started being granted. Jews, a nation of only 14 million of people have scored 75% while 25% is shared by the rest of Mankind. About seven billion people. Now, I hope you can see that by loosing our foreskin our brain was doubled.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1772 Jun 17, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Nothing causes only nothing. And something cannot cause itself to exist. If it exists it was caused but not by itself.
Why does something have to have a cause to exist?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1773 Jun 17, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
How can something that was caused by something else be uncaused? This is a logical contradiction. I don't think you know anymore what you are talking about.
I did not say that something caused by something else is uncaused. Read what I wrote again.

Once again, given some event of thing, here are the possibilities:

1. It is caused by other things.

2. It is self-caused.

3. It is uncaused.

I will agree with you that 2 is actually impossible. But this still allows 3.

Why does time have to have a cause? I agree that it is not caused by itself, but why is it caused at all?

My position is that causality requires time, so time itself cannot be caused. The notion of causality simply cannot apply to time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1774 Jun 17, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Sorry but you have caused me to be deeply disappointed with atheists. Your mind cannot penetrate the logic of reality.
I am feeling in a similar way about you. We *know* there are events that are uncaused by any typical definition of the word 'cause'. Most radioactive decays are uncaused.

My argument is that time must be uncaused. It is not self-caused. It just does not have a cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1775 Jun 17, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Something that exists without having been caused is part of the erroneous theory of Aristotle which was corrected in 1922.
LeMaitre did not discuss the possibility of a cause for the BB.
Could it be that you guys find hard to accept this logic because it was demonstrated by a theist? Hey that's like a natural law. You can't change it.
No, I simply think the 'logic' you use is wrong. You are *assuming* that everything must have a cause, when we know by observation that this is not the case.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1776 Jun 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does something have to have a cause to exist?
----

Because we are not talking about a magician taking off a rabbit out of his hat. Matter cannot exist without being caused.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Chimney1 48,485
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web