Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Foxaèr]

If something begins to exist then something caused it to exist.

What caused your god to begin to exist?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Do you understand now? Your argument might as well just show that "stuff exists, and used to be other stuff" QED. You are missing your point by a LONG shot.

It's just a simple deduction of logic. If something begins to exist then something caused it to exist. If something didn't cause it to exist then it wouldn't have begun to exist. We know everything that exists, that didn't always exist, must have been made by something else that exists. The universe we know for a fact had a beginning with the BB therefore it is something that began to exist. This is just factually what we know.

Chicken
Egg
omelette


Baseball player
Ball, Bat, Park
Homerun

Daddy and Mommy
Sperm and seed
Baby

Carpenter
Wood
Table

God
(blank)
Universe

Do you understand? Ignoring it won't make it go away.

[Jackalope]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

Science / physics quiz time!

What causes virtual particles to exist?

Prior to one unit of Planck time after the big bang, what do we know about the state of the universe?

[discipulus]

Secondly, I have already told you, that given the evidence in favor of abiogenesis producing amino acids which are the building blocks of life, and the lack of evidence in favor of a magical appearance from dust, I find the former to be much more believable. That being said, I don't have enough knowledge to say that one or the other are absolutely true.

You understand that people can hold things as true in any number of varying degrees of certainty, right?

...and I believe we all identify ourselves with a certain channel of information that presents itself in consciousness. I believe that consciousness exists in the mind. I believe the mind to be material because there is no evidence for an alternative. In the light of all of this...When the physical material body dies (brain included), the identity we prescribe to the consciousness it contains dies too. This seems believable given the evidence.

I am not asking you if you are absolutely certain about your views. Nor am I asking you to comment on whether or not you think your views are absolutely true.

All I am asking is what do you believe is the more plausible explanation for our origination.

You attribute it to abiogenesis or life arising from non-living organic compounds whose molecules contained carbon.

Life from non living matter.....

Ok, now moving on let me ask you to confirm that you believe that what most people have traditionally referred to as the "mind" is simply a word that refers to the various chemical reactions that occur within the brain and that the concept is reducible in purely materialistic terms.

Is this correct?

[Sword of Christ]

Carpenter
Wood
Table

God
Creation of the physical laws
Universe

God creates the physical laws but isn't himself part of the physical laws he created. Likewise the carpenter doesn't exist as the wood he carved into a table.

Science / physics quiz time!

What causes virtual particles to exist?

Prior to one unit of Planck time after the big bang, what do we know about the state of the universe?

God created whatever laws of physics you're talking about from nothing. Science and what we know of the universe is limited to studying the physical laws God made and is therefore irrelevant to this.

[discipulus]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

Science / physics quiz time!

What causes virtual particles to exist?

Prior to one unit of Planck time after the big bang, what do we know about the state of the universe?

If you would like to debate the Kalam with me, I would be glad to.

[pocaracas]

Do you understand now? Your argument might as well just show that "stuff exists, and used to be other stuff" QED. You are missing your point by a LONG shot.

It's just a simple deduction of logic. If something begins to exist then something caused it to exist. If something didn't cause it to exist then it wouldn't have begun to exist. We know everything that exists, that didn't always exist, must have been made by something else that exists. The universe we know for a fact had a beginning with the BB therefore it is something that began to exist. This is just factually what we know.

ok, let's try this.

What is the meaning of "Object A exists before time exists" ?

Cause and effect cannot be applied so linearly to the Universe's origin.
Some claim that space and time began with the big bang. There is no "before" the big bang.

Now, for something completely different.

Some 50 thousand years ago, when mankind first thought about the wonders of the cosmos and arrived at "the only logical answer" of goddidit... what did these people know of the Universe that would have them arrive at such a conclusion?
As far as I'm aware, they had no notion of the expansion of the Universe, hence no idea of a big bang, and so knew nothing of the beginning of the Universe. How did they do it?

[discipulus]

Homo sapiens originated from a common ancestor we share with other primates.

How did this common ancestor originate and from what/who?

[StuW]

If the universe wasn't fined tuned then my car was made by a tornado running through a junkyard, it just happened to come together the way it did, created by the physical laws of nature it was. Before you bring up evolution that was entirely dependent on the laws of nature being what they were to begin with and that is what I'm referring to.

Ever heard of anthropomorphism? If the universe was any other way, you probably wouldn't be here to be making these nonsensical assertions.. that does NOT imply a creator, just that this is how it is and very likely the only way it can be!

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ok, now moving on let me ask you to confirm that you believe that what most people have traditionally referred to as the "mind" is simply a word that refers to the various chemical reactions that occur within the brain and that the concept is reducible in purely materialistic terms.

Is this correct?

What you've just done is attempted to switch the burden of proof. If I tell you there's a new kind of gravity, it's not on you to prove that yours is the only one.

If all we know is material, then it follows that the brain, a physical entity, is completely bound by the laws of nature, and therein material itself.