The universe had a beginning.

[zephyrprime]

God suffers from every first cause argument that the universe does. The only way theists get around this is by simply declaring him immune from it.

This is of course true. However, even if all links in an inductive chain cannot be solved or proven, does that mean that a single link in that chain cannot be solved or proven? I don't think so. Even if you can't solve the entire chain, I think it's still possible to solve one chain.

For example:

Let's say that your cake has been eaten.

Question: Who ate my cake?
Answer: eskimospy
Next question in the chain: Why did eskimospy eat my cake?
Answer: unknown.

Implication -> since we don't know why eskimospy ate the cake, the cake therefore must never have been eaten by anyone even though it was eaten.

Of course this implication is false. Even if you don't know why the cake was eaten, you can still know who ate it without further insight into an infinite number of layer of cause and effect the final action is linked to.

 

[Retro Rob]

God suffers from every first cause argument that the universe does. The only way theists get around this is by simply declaring him immune from it.

Not really. If he exists and created time itself, then he doesn't need a cause since he existed outside of time. As far as I believe, God existed apart from time and material (things that can be caused) so he's not caused.

Secondly, theists can simply go to scrpture which says God is eternal. Eteral beings by definition have no beginning, and have no end.

The reductionists "who created the creator" ad-infinitum is rendered pointless to us, since our beliefs allow for God to be uncaused.

 

[thraashman]

Not really. If he exists and created time itself, then he doesn't need a cause since he existed outside of time. As far as I believe, God existed apart from time and material (things that can be caused) so he's not caused.

Secondly, theists can simply go to scrpture which says God is eternal. Eteral beings by definition have no beginning, and have no end.

The reductionists "who created the creator" ad-infinitum is rendered pointless to us, since our beliefs allow for God to be uncaused.

You realize you disagreed with him to then do EXACTLY what he claimed theists do, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

You realize you disagreed with him to then do EXACTLY what he claimed theists do, right?

That's why I said "not really". I was disgreeing with his language and usage of the word "immune", and secondly, he wasn't explicitly clear on how we remove God from having a beginning.

I just wanted to expound on it a bit.

 

[Paul98]

Let me know if one of these threads actually gets somewhere, or something new is introduced.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not really. If he exists and created time itself, then he doesn't need a cause since he existed outside of time. As far as I believe, God existed apart from time and material (things that can be caused) so he's not caused.

If you posit a god that is "outside of time" you have several problems:

1.) You must give meaning to the phrase "outside of time." "Outside" is a spatio-temporal relation.

2.) Anything which is unable to be mapped by spatio-temporal coordinates is incapable of acting, since action is a state-change. Where there is change, there is time. If you cannot differentiate between "before the action" and "after the action," you cannot say that an action happened.

Secondly, theists can simply go to scrpture which says God is eternal. Eteral beings by definition have no beginning, and have no end.

But then you're just making things up (or, at least, accepting what someone else has made up). I can define things all sorts of ways, but that has nothing to do with what actually exists in reality.

The reductionists "who created the creator" ad-infinitum is rendered pointless to us, since our beliefs allow for God to be uncaused.

Why is that something you will not accept as true for the universe?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let me know if one of these threads actually gets somewhere, or something new is introduced.

Check back next year for confirmation that you missed nothing of consequence.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. If he exists and created time itself, then he doesn't need a cause since he existed outside of time. As far as I believe, God existed apart from time and material (things that can be caused) so he's not caused.

Secondly, theists can simply go to scrpture which says God is eternal. Eteral beings by definition have no beginning, and have no end.

The reductionists "who created the creator" ad-infinitum is rendered pointless to us, since our beliefs allow for God to be uncaused.

I would simply say that i find it unconvincing when people say the universe must have had a creator because it operates by certain rules and then get around the contradiction by simply declaring their creator of choice exempt from those rules.

You can point to it in the Bible, but pointing to a book and proving its description of god through the authority that it was written by that same god is circular reasoning.

If you have faith in god and believe that's how the universe works I will celebrate your faith along with you. I think it's wonderful. Don't try to make rational or logical arguments about how god must exist though. First, they don't work. Second, aren't they irrelevant anyway? Do you need to prove god's existence for him to be meaningful to you?

 

[Retro Rob]

If you posit a god that is "outside of time" you have several problems:

1.) You must give meaning to the phrase "outside of time." "Outside" is a spatio-temporal relation.

2.) Anything which is unable to be mapped by spatio-temporal coordinates is incapable of acting, since action is a state-change. Where there is change, there is time. If you cannot differentiate between "before the action" and "after the action," you cannot say that an action happened.

I never said you have to accept that view -- I was simply explaining my rationale.

So, I don't have "several problems"...you do. I fully accept my rationale, problem free.

Call me what you will.

But then you're just making things up (or, at least, accepting what someone else has made up). I can define things all sorts of ways, but that has nothing to do with what actually exists in reality.

Be my guest...go make stuff up then.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I never said you have to accept that view -- I was simply explaining my rationale.

"Rationale" must be rational. If you can't establish that it is, then you don't have "rationale." You simply have a set of lies that you've told yourself.

So, I don't have "several problems"...you do. I fully accept my rationale, problem free.

Call me what you will.

How about ignorant? Unconvincing? Disingenuous? Irrational? Take your pick.

Be my guest...go make stuff up then.

No, thank you. I'm more interested in discovering the facts of the universe.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would simply say that i find it unconvincing when people say the universe must have had a creator because it operates by certain rules and then get around the contradiction by simply declaring their creator of choice exempt from those rules.

Obviously, I find it convincing. So what?

You can point to it in the Bible, but pointing to a book and proving its description of god through the authority that it was written by that same god is circular reasoning.

It's all about whether or not you believe the book reflects the mind of God, and if it does, it perfectly logical to believe how it descirbes what it describes.

It's really no different than reading book on evolution to support evolution.

Don't try to make rational or logical arguments about how god must exist though. First, they don't work. Second, aren't they irrelevant anyway? Do you need to prove god's existence for him to be meaningful to you?

Who don't they work for? They worked for me. Should I make irrational arguments or illogical arguments about how God exist?

 

[Retro Rob]

"

How about ignorant? Unconvincing? Disingenuous? Irrational? Take your pick.

lol

 

[ThinClient]

I'd like to see an answer to the question that if Christians are willing to accept that god did not have a creator and did not have a beginning, why do they then reject the idea that the universe itself may not have had a creator and may not have had a beginning? Both points of view are founded on absolutely no evidence, so what makes one more correct than the other?

 

[fskimospy]

Obviously, I find it convincing. So what?

Great!

It's all about whether or not you believe the book reflects the mind of God, and if it does, it perfectly logical to believe how it descirbes what it describes.

It's all perfectly logical so long as you assume a premise that there's no evidence for. Again, if that works for you that's great.

It's really no different than reading book on evolution to support evolution.

It is actually enormously different. Every statement in a (well-written) book on evolution relies on empirical findings. If you wanted to you could replicate that research yourself. You cannot do this with the Bible.

Who don't they work for? They worked for me. Should I make irrational arguments or illogical argumenets about how God exist?

Your arguments are illogical and irrational, which is why they don't work. (I meant they don't work within the scope of normal debate that has standards of evidence and logic) If they work for you in a personal sense that's great, but don't expect them to work on others.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to see an answer to the question that if Christians are willing to accept that god did not have a creator and did not have a beginning, why do they then reject the idea that the universe itself may not have had a creator and may not have had a beginning? Both points of view are founded on absolutely no evidence, so what makes one more correct than the other?

They unilaterally declare that god is not part of the universe, but exists apart from it in some way that cannot be measured or observed in any way.

Basically, it's Calvinball.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's all perfectly logical so long as you assume a premise that there's no evidence for. Again, if that works for you that's great.

Like what? You obviously know why people who believe, believe. Evidence is in creation, or at least, what we perceive is creation.

It is actually enormously different. Every statement in a (well-written) book on evolution relies on empirical findings. If you wanted to you could replicate that research yourself. You cannot do this with the Bible.

The only thing you won't never find evidence for, Biblically speaking, are miracles. Empirical findings include archaeological evidence verifying, not all mind you, but many events written in scripture among others things that are
beyond this topic, but the point is that I find the same sort of convincing data you do.

Your arguments are illogical and irrational, which is why they don't work. I meant they don't work within the scope of normal debate that has standards of evidence and logic) If they work for you in a personal sense that's great, but don't expect them to work on others.

This is fair, as I know I cannot debate. Never have, probably never will be able to.

 

[fskimospy]

The only thing you won't never find evidence for, Biblically speaking, are miracles. Empirical findings include archaeological evidence verifying, not all mind you, but many events written in scripture among others things that are
beyond this topic, but the point is that I find the same sort of convincing data you do.

I also find it unconvincing that the parts of a book about god with no evidence happen to be all the parts about god.

 

[Retro Rob]

I also find it unconvincing that the parts of a book about god with no evidence happen to be all the parts about god.

I hear you there. I would not expect to find physical evidence for things that, by definition, violate physical laws.

You would be left with either believing to not believing, since it impossible to prove those things didn't happen.

 

[Agent11]

God would say the OP is full of shit. Since there is no "god", I'll say he's full of shit...

What we are now is aftermath of a random event......

On top of that, our entire perceived universe is made up of electrical fields. Matter interacts as it does because of the charge of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

If we where able to go into another universe our matter may turn into a steaming pile of goo, a biothermic bomb, or even an unstable pile of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Perhaps every black hole is the singularity that gives birth to a universe, if so I wouldn't want to be the first to take that ride.

 

[ThinClient]

This is of course true. However, even if all links in an inductive chain cannot be solved or proven, does that mean that a single link in that chain cannot be solved or proven? I don't think so. Even if you can't solve the entire chain, I think it's still possible to solve one chain.

For example:

Let's say that your cake has been eaten.

Question: Who ate my cake?
Answer: eskimospy
Next question in the chain: Why did eskimospy eat my cake?
Answer: unknown.

Implication -> since we don't know why eskimospy ate the cake, the cake therefore must never have been eaten by anyone even though it was eaten.

Of course this implication is false. Even if you don't know why the cake was eaten, you can still know who ate it without further insight into an infinite number of layer of cause and effect the final action is linked to.

The why question is irrelevant because it is a subjective statement.

Watch this eloquent 2 minute vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

 

[ThinClient]

I hear you there. I would not expect to find physical evidence for things that, by definition, violate physical laws.

You would be left with either believing to not believing, since it impossible to prove those things didn't happen.

Since Christians like why questions so much, I have a few. Why would a god create man sick (carnal, sinful nature), command him to be well (but wait until 2000 years ago to offer redemption and do so in a revolting way), but leave zero evidence that he even exists?

Why would he create human brains with the capacity for doubt and reason and then leave them with reason to doubt?

 

[Agent11]

Sometimes I wonder if what people think of as god is actually inter dimensional aliens that poke by to see how we are doing every now and then.

I've never seen an inter dimensional alien though.

 

[PingviN]

Science can't (currently) explain something. Guess that means it must've been God.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Why not? Each and every single one of your posts have done just that. The universe is no different. You live in a vacuum.

My posts didn't come from nothing. It came from me.

Nothing = "not anything"

 

[Fern]

Since Christians like why questions so much, I have a few. Why would a god create man sick (carnal, sinful nature), command him to be well (but wait until 2000 years ago to offer redemption and do so in a revolting way), but leave zero evidence that he even exists?

Why would he create human brains with the capacity for doubt and reason and then leave them with reason to doubt?

For a person who claims to have been a pastor you pose a lot of questions that are plainly answered in the Bible.

Fern