the U. (a creation) requires a necessary reality. Why God? best fit the description and the preponderance of evidence when examining: the U., origin-of-life, human beings, and biblical scripture (says where the the U. came from, and it's eventually non-existence).

'Scripture' says merely that "God" magicked the Universe - actually the Earth and the heavens - into being from nothingness. It fits no evidence outside the story. It says nothing about where it came from, so why should we take anything in the story seriously about where it's supposed to end up?

"Why God?" Because you want so desperately to make belief in "God" at least plausible, you've got the cart before the horse and presupposed that character's existence before awkwardly cramming it into the observed Universe. Unfortunately, by so doing, you have to alter, ignore and otherwise ridicule anything that, rather inconveniently, doesn't fit that picture. Reality, for instance.

As an oppressed Atheist in the US, I find that conclusion to be decidedly inconvenient.
0:55

Dale, is that you?

(January 31, 2014 at 11:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the U. (a creation) requires a necessary reality. Why God? best fit the description and the preponderance of evidence when examining: the U., origin-of-life, human beings, and biblical scripture (says where the the U. came from, and it's eventually non-existence).

If you say so. It just wasn't your god. Or your scripture. Kali predates your sheep herders buttfucking themselves by thousands of years.

(January 31, 2014 at 11:45 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the U. (a creation) requires a necessary reality. Why God? best fit the description and the preponderance of evidence when examining: the U., origin-of-life, human beings, and biblical scripture (says where the the U. came from, and it's eventually non-existence).

So, where did God come from?

There are several things wrong here

(January 16, 1970 at 10:26 pm)snowtracks Wrote: according to the prevailing scientific model of cosmology, the space-time-matter-energy U. had a distinct and singular beginning about 13.75 billion years ago;

No.

* Even if you ignore inflation, the resulting singularity is in a regime where classical general relativity is not valid.

* If you include inflation or any of the few alternative proposals, there is no singularity (and don't come tell me that this is unproven metaphysics - YOU are the one trying to derive theological conclusions from early cosmology)

* Even if there were a true hard starting point of the timeline of the universe, this does not mean that it "depends on something for its existence". You intuitions of cause and effect don't even hold in our universe at the fundamental level, let alone when there is no time and space in which something can happen.

* Even if all the above conclusions, which are all based on wrong premises or contain meaningless statements, were correct, this would not mean that this thing which you conclude must exist as the condition of existence, has any properties in common with what you consider a deity.

Quote:therefore it is a contingent reality (dependents upon something for it's existence, why? because it had a beginning); God is the logically necessary being that explains why all the contingent realities of the universe have existence.

That last sentence, it sounds like word salad, but I'm going to bite. You have not shown in you argument that it is anything resembling God that follows as a necessity. You have not demonstrated what a "contingent reality" is supposed to mean outside of the framework of space and time. You don't call it "cause and effect" for good reason becauae these concepts are obviously not applicable, yet your concept of contingency relies on just the same intuition gained within our world of what cause and effect are, and applies it in a realm where the intuition is even less valid.

(February 1, 2014 at 4:02 am)Alex K Wrote: There are several things wrong here

(January 16, 1970 at 10:26 pm)snowtracks Wrote: according to the prevailing scientific model of cosmology, the space-time-matter-energy U. had a distinct and singular beginning about 13.75 billion years ago;

No.

* Even if you ignore inflation, the resulting singularity is in a regime where classical general relativity is not valid.

* If you include inflation or any of the few alternative proposals, there is no singularity (and don't come tell me that this is unproven metaphysics - YOU are the one trying to derive theological conclusions from early cosmology)

* Even if there were a true hard starting point of the timeline of the universe, this does not mean that it "depends on something for its existence". You intuitions of cause and effect don't even hold in our universe at the fundamental level, let alone when there is no time and space in which something can happen.

* Even if all the above conclusions, which are all based on wrong premises or contain meaningless statements, were correct, this would not mean that this thing which you conclude must exist as the condition of existence, has any properties in common with what you consider a deity.

Quote:therefore it is a contingent reality (dependents upon something for it's existence, why? because it had a beginning); God is the logically necessary being that explains why all the contingent realities of the universe have existence.

That last sentence, it sounds like word salad, but I'm going to bite. You have not shown in you argument that it is anything resembling God that follows as a necessity. You have not demonstrated what a "contingent reality" is supposed to mean outside of the framework of space and time. You don't call it "cause and effect" for good reason becauae these concepts are obviously not applicable, yet your concept of contingency relies on just the same intuition gained within our world of what cause and effect are, and applies it in a realm where the intuition is even less valid.

inflation is after singulaity not before in the big bang model.
no human being has ever witness an effect without a cause.

(February 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm)snowtracks Wrote: ...no human being has ever witness an effect without a cause.

This is true. But what else is required in the causal chain?

1) Cause

2) entity being acted upon

3) effect


I assume you are happy with God being the first one, and you are arguing that The Universe is the third, but you are missing a very important variable in what constitutes a complete causal chain. That middle entity upon which causal power is exerted to bring about its effect.

No human has ever witnessed things "coming into being from absolute nothingness" either. In fact, there's no clear way to approach "nothingness" as a coherent concept. Zero is right there next to infinity. All instances of things that come into existence, do so from the existence of prior effects.

Carpenter

Wood***

Table

----

Sperm

Egg***

Embryo


----

All causality that humans witness follows this 3 part causal chain. You insisted that the first part be upheld in this discussion, and so you must adhere to the others as well if we are to take you seriously at all. At this point, you are forced to revise your position, reject Christianity and have been logically reduced to only 2 options.

1) God acted upon himself
2) God acted upon a separate and pre-existing entity

Christianity can not survive the implications of either of the above conclusions, and given your statement above, you cannot avoid them without special pleading, and relinquishing all credibility as a person of rational thought. So, which is it?

(February 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm)snowtracks Wrote: inflation is after singulaity not before in the big bang model.
no human being has ever witness an effect without a cause.

I guess that puts it on par with God. No human that isn't part of the mythology of the past or totally bonkers in the present claims to have ever witnessed your genie.