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

[StuW]

this has clearly just over your head and through one ear and out the other so there is reasoning with you.

You whatnow?

You're dodging the question because we are talking about what is responsible for the existence of the laws of physics. You can't use the laws of physics to explain the origins of the universe as they only exist within the universe as part of the universe.

But that's exactly what YOU are doing by asserting cause and effect as a proof of your god!

God exists beyond time and brought time into existence so you can have events that run in a sequence.

Ok, we're getting into some pretty heady stuff here, but there are several theories that time itself isn't necessarily linear, it's just our perception of it as biological entities. At the moment it's mainly thought experiments, but it could explain things such as quantum entanglement. for further information Google quantum retrocausality.

[Sword of Christ]

S of C...

You seem to have a hang-up about cause and effect. Because, in your view, everything in our large scale universe must have a cause you think that this principle can be applied to the universe itself.

...Of course it must apply to the universe itself! The universe began to exist and something else that isn't the universe made it begin to exist. Otherwise you have something that happened for no reason, this is not remotely logical at all.

First of all, even if your premise is correct and there must have been a cause in order for this universe to come into existence, why does it follow that this cause was in any way intelligent

The same reason you think an intelligent being made your car. It may have been made by automated robots sure but who programmed the robots? It's the same deal with the universe you can see the complex function and design of it for yourself.

let alone a specific character from a specific religion.

Ok lets have a look at the options if we're looking for a belief centred upon one creator God.

1) Deism, this was a God who went to all the trouble of creating us but then left us and essentially doesn't care that we exist at all. This seems like complete waste of effort so I think it's reasonable to discount this. Particularly in the light of the human experience concerning God and the influence it has had on the world we can see around us.





2) We're looking ideally for a God that has a universal message for all humanity and not something confined within specific tribal or ethnic groups. Ethnic and national religions don't make any effort to convert you so there's no real reason for you to make the effort in considering them.

3) Of the universal religions that remain, the main ones being Christianity and Islam. Most of them would appear to consist of ritual and various things you must and must not do in order to get into heaven with various rules and regulations and prohibitions.






4) Christianity stands out as the religion that appears to have the least human made fabrication as what you see demanded of followers. This is because none of this is required as we are saved by the love and grace of God and not through our own works.






Also I'd argue that Christianity has had the most positive/significant impact on the world and miracle of the resurrection and the empty tomb while you can argue against it happening seems like the miracle that has the most going for it given the number of people involved. And also clearly no-one simply pointed out that Jesus was still where he was meant to be which would have stopped the movement dead in it's tracks before it got started.

It's just as likely that this universe is a result from a physics experiment in an alien universe or came into being due to the collision of two colliding branes in hyperspace, or etc. etc.

If you want to violate Occams Razor and of course all that would be due to physical laws that exist and produce an effect so you can just say all of what you describe had a cause if it's real.

Also, your premise that all things must have a cause is dodgy at best. In the wonderful world of quantum mechanics particles are popping into existence from seemingly nowhere and then annihilating themselves all the time, this is the whole premise behind evaporating black holes and Hawking radiation etc. Although I stand to be corrected.

Part of the laws of physics of the universe, they don't explain why universe exists they are merely part of the overall effect which has a specific cause.

Remember that when the universe was very small, prior to inflation, it operated under the quantum laws where the familiar laws of time & space, cause & effect, dimensions etc. all break down. Under the laws governing the very small it is just as likely for effect to precede cause and for the future to influence the past.

Our current scientific understanding breaks down at that scale but this doesn't prove anything, you can't draw any assumptions from what we don't know. I'm not saying "We don't know therefore God did it" either as that is a God of the gaps argument. I'm giving arguments for Gods existence based on what we do in know or can figure out.

You simply cannot take your everyday experiences of reality and then blanketly apply them to everything. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "The Cosmos does not have to conform to your expectations of it."

God is outside of our everyday experience of reality, though I believe we can and do experience him. But what I'm using here is basic logical deduction. Whatever is the most straightforward explanation is the one to go for even if it seems fantastical. It's fantastical that we're to begin with anyway so anything is possible. It doesn't have to be something "mundane".

So, to say that everything must have a cause, therefore God, and to stubbornly adhere to this view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems utterly bizarre!

Look you have two possible explanations for the universe, both explanations would describe the universe we see and observe through science equally just as well (God describes it far better imo but leave that aside) which of these explanations seems more interesting? It's God isn't it? So God is what you would rationally believe in if given the choice believe something. If you're wrong (unlikely of course but just say you were) you will literally never know so you lost nothing at all. Therefore everything considered a faith in God is far more rational than atheism. To adhere to the (false) philosophy of atheism when confronted by overwhelming logic of this magnitude would be utterly bizarre!

[discipulus]

This is a claim of knowledge. That everything has a cause. This you do not know.

You have committed what is termed an "informal logical fallacy" of the strawman type.

Premise one does not state that everything has a cause. You are attacking a premise the argument does not contain and thus are reasoning fallaciously.

[Darwinian]

---

S of C...

You seem to have a hang-up about cause and effect. Because, in your view, everything in our large scale universe must have a cause you think that this principle can be applied to the universe itself.

...Of course it must apply to the universe itself! The universe began to exist and something else that isn't the universe made it begin to exist. Otherwise you have something that happened for no reason, this is not remotely logical at all.

First of all, even if your premise is correct and there must have been a cause in order for this universe to come into existence, why does it follow that this cause was in any way intelligent

The same reason you think an intelligent being made your car. It may have been made by automated robots sure but who programmed the robots? It's the same deal with the universe you can see the complex function and design of it for yourself.

let alone a specific character from a specific religion.

Ok lets have a look at the options if we're looking for a belief centred upon one creator God.

1) Deism, this was a God who went to all the trouble of creating us but then left us and essentially doesn't care that we exist at all. This seems like complete waste of effort so I think it's reasonable to discount this. Particularly in the light of the human experience concerning God and the influence it has had on the world we can see around us.





2) We're looking ideally for a God that has a universal message for all humanity and not something confined within specific tribal or ethnic groups. Ethnic and national religions don't make any effort to convert you so there's no real reason for you to make the effort in considering them.

3) Of the universal religions that remain, the main ones being Christianity and Islam. Most of them would appear to consist of ritual and various things you must and must not do in order to get into heaven with various rules and regulations and prohibitions.






4) Christianity stands out as the religion that appears to have the least human made fabrication as what you see demanded of followers. This is because none of this is required as we are saved by the love and grace of God and not through our own works.






Also I'd argue that Christianity has had the most positive/significant impact on the world and miracle of the resurrection and the empty tomb while you can argue against it happening seems like the miracle that has the most going for it given the number of people involved. And also clearly no-one simply pointed out that Jesus was still where he was meant to be which would have stopped the movement dead in it's tracks before it got started.

It's just as likely that this universe is a result from a physics experiment in an alien universe or came into being due to the collision of two colliding branes in hyperspace, or etc. etc.

If you want to violate Occams Razor and of course all that would be due to physical laws that exist and produce an effect so you can just say all of what you describe had a cause if it's real.

Also, your premise that all things must have a cause is dodgy at best. In the wonderful world of quantum mechanics particles are popping into existence from seemingly nowhere and then annihilating themselves all the time, this is the whole premise behind evaporating black holes and Hawking radiation etc. Although I stand to be corrected.

Part of the laws of physics of the universe, they don't explain why universe exists they are merely part of the overall effect which has a specific cause.

Remember that when the universe was very small, prior to inflation, it operated under the quantum laws where the familiar laws of time & space, cause & effect, dimensions etc. all break down. Under the laws governing the very small it is just as likely for effect to precede cause and for the future to influence the past.

Our current scientific understanding breaks down at that scale but this doesn't prove anything, you can't draw any assumptions from what we don't know. I'm not saying "We don't know therefore God did it" either as that is a God of the gaps argument. I'm giving arguments for Gods existence based on what we do in know or can figure out.

You simply cannot take your everyday experiences of reality and then blanketly apply them to everything. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "The Cosmos does not have to conform to your expectations of it."

God is outside of our everyday experience of reality, though I believe we can and do experience him. But what I'm using here is basic logical deduction. Whatever is the most straightforward explanation is the one to go for even if it seems fantastical. It's fantastical that we're to begin with anyway so anything is possible. It doesn't have to be something "mundane".

So, to say that everything must have a cause, therefore God, and to stubbornly adhere to this view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems utterly bizarre!

Look you have two possible explanations for the universe, both explanations would describe the universe we see and observe through science equally just as well (God describes it far better imo but leave that aside) which of these explanations seems more interesting? It's God isn't it? So God is what you would rationally believe in if given the choice believe something. If you're wrong (unlikely of course but just say you were) you will literally never know so you lost nothing at all. Therefore everything considered a faith in God is far more rational than atheism. To adhere to the (false) philosophy of atheism when confronted by overwhelming logic of this magnitude would be utterly bizarre!

---

I give up. It's like trying to explain the colour red to the colour blind.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This is a claim of knowledge. That everything has a cause. This you do not know.

You have committed what is termed an "informal logical fallacy" of the strawman type.

Premise one does not state that everything has a cause. You are attacking a premise the argument does not contain and thus are reasoning fallaciously.

Ok, so everything that begins to exist has a cause, you don't know that. Everything I said still applies to this. Plus, what do you think of apophenia's analysis?

[StuW]

The same reason you think an intelligent being made your car. It may have been made by automated robots sure but who programmed the robots? It's the same deal with the universe you can see the complex function and design of it for yourself.

You're talking about intelligent design? If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, he should be able to design matter in an efficient form correct? Please explain why then we are mostly nothing? if we take away all that "space" inside the atoms, our whole body would be around 1/500th cm square, surely that extremely inefficient on the least intelligent scale imaginable?

*There are reasons why that statement would support the theist argument, but I'll leave that a mental exercise you.

---

Look you have two possible explanations for the universe

I know of about 5 published theories off the top of my head and that's not including BBT or Universal Creator...

[Zen Badger]

I can't believe he used the "empty Tomb" as evidence for Jesus.

How fucking lame is that?

The tomb is part of the story , not evidence in support of the story.

Bzzzt, fail, please try again.

[Sword of Christ]

But that's exactly what YOU are doing by asserting cause and effect as a proof of your god!

...The physical laws of the universe contained within the universe that make up the universe are the effect we're trying to explain the first place! You can't explain the physical laws you're trying to explain with the physical laws you're trying to explain! If the universe as a whole is an effect that began to exist then it has a cause that is not the universe/laws of physics! So no I'm not asserting the same thing at all, you're just not understanding the scenario being explained here.

Ok, we're getting into some pretty heady stuff here, but there are several theories that time itself isn't necessarily linear, it's just our perception of it as biological entities. At the moment it's mainly thought experiments, but it could explain things such as quantum entanglement. for further information Google quantum retrocausality.

Quantum physics is still part of the natural laws of the universe as the effect we're trying to explain! You can't use quantum entanglement as an explanation as that is merely part what has been caused and what we're trying to find a cause for in the first place!

[Cyberman]

I can't believe he used the "empty Tomb" as evidence for Jesus.

How fucking lame is that?

The tomb is part of the story , not evidence in support of the story.

Bzzzt, fail, please try again.

If he gets to use the "empty tomb" thing, can we use the "empty robe" as proof of the resurrection of Obi-Wan Kenobi?

[Sword of Christ]

I can't believe he used the "empty Tomb" as evidence for Jesus.

How fucking lame is that?

The tomb is part of the story , not evidence in support of the story.

Bzzzt, fail, please try again.

If Jesus hadn't risen they would be able to prove he hadn't if they still had the body. The Jews did claim that his followers stole the body as a conspiracy but I doubt his followers who clearly did love him would have snatched his body and then spread false stories about him. The alternative is to believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a horse with wings that no-one else ever saw happen if you think that's better/more credible? I did mention other good reasons to believe Christianity is true over the alternatives if God does exist but you're free to ignore everything else and cherry pick the one point you feel you can have a go at.