i need some debate help..

[ShrinkingPinecone]

proof of god

this is basically the cosmological argument and i told my evangelical friend that energy is infinite so it couldnt have been created and he wants proof that matter/energy are "eternal" can anyone help?

(P.S. sorry i havent been on lately, bout to start school and i need to finish AP summer assignments.)

[Autumnlicious]

E=mc^2

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

The matter and energy in the universe is the same as when there was the big bang.

QED.

[Minimalist]

Why would a fundie listen to a Jew like Einstein?

[Autumnlicious]

Then Jesus is right out then...

[Minimalist]

"Only on his mother's side."

Archie Bunker c 1971.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

this is basically the cosmological argument and i told my evangelical friend that energy is infinite so it couldnt have been created and he wants proof that matter/energy are "eternal" can anyone help?

(P.S. sorry i havent been on lately, bout to start school and i need to finish AP summer assignments.)

It's the same nonsense that's been presented against evolution and science just repackaged in a moderately more intelligent manner (until about 2/3s the way through the video, but after 6 minutes, I had to stop watching because of all the BS.)

It should be easy. He jumps to huge conclusions based on simple analogies with no real evident backing.
We don't know what came before the universe nor the process prior to the universe that led to this point in time, though we have loads and loads and loads of information about everything from the first few fractions of a fraction of a moment onward with a fair amount of accuracy given the current data we've gathered and processed.

For starters, he begins by stating that either everything came from nothing or something always existed and created everything that has existed which is itself a fallacy that christians use because those aren't necessarily the only options. The universe as we understand it certainly began at the moment of the 'big bang' and the universe will end in the manner as we understand it in the sense that eventually all the stars will flicker out, the non-black holes in the universe will fade as protons and matter decays into energy and degenerate forms of matter, the black holes will eventually evaporate into the materials that formed it thanks to hawking radiation (which will then decay into degenerate matter and energy), and after that, there really isn't any way to know what will happen, but the time-space vacuum will continue for untold eons. There are quantum-based theories as to what'll happen at this point, possibily a big crunch, the big rip, another big bang, or something else. Either way, no one really knows what happened before the big bang or what'll happen during the dark era when there's almost nothing we know left and quantum mechanics rules the universe.
Either way, this is not proof of anything in the bible or whether matter is "eternal" or had to be "created" in any sense. It's a conclusion with no evidence to support it.

Every mention of his of a created being necessary for anything follows the above logic. He's jumping to conclusions with no evidence to support it.

I should also make an important mention that he mentions that god is omnipotent, immaterial, and omnipresent to help him support his theory when the bible clearly contradicts him by having god intervene on the lives of countless millions of victims over the course of that intellectual sand trap.

Further, he fails to provide any actual evidence of matter, time, or space being anything. A logical arguement is not evidence that time, space, and matter is not eternal. No one ever argued that these things are or ever were eternal or finite. This is because such arguements would imply knowledge that human beings currently lack.

He states that time, matter, and space are finite - which physics I believe has proven true - is certainly a valid statement. Later, though, he assumes that because these things are true, that they must have been created, which is wrong because the fact doesn't lead to the conclusion.

You can seriously see the gaps in logic and facts as I think the author's mind is doing to skip over the very obvious gaps in reason.

[Eilonnwy]

Your evangelical friend likely assumes that God is infinite, so why would he need proof of energy being infinite if he accepts God as being infinite?

In fact, by assuming the world had to be started by a finite First Cause that likely is infinite itself, they are adding an extra complicated step to explain the existence of the world. Occam's Razor would have you shave off unnecessary leaps in logic. So it's more consistent to assume that this universe in one form another has always existed. It's unnecessary to assume we have to go a step further and complicate matters with a god.

Which is more probable? A complex God that had no creator at all? Or simple stuff existing and natural physical processes causing it to evolve and change into what we have now? I go with the latter.

If you read irreligion by John Allen Paulos he dedicates a chapter to the first cause argument and says what I said, probably better. He also takes apart other common evangelical arguments. Worth a read, and it's short too, so quick read.

[ShrinkingPinecone]

thanks everyone, this all helped, he has resorted to irrational babble

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

thanks everyone, this all helped, he has resorted to irrational babble

Don't worry. That's normal for brainwashed people who try to cope with the horrors of reality and rationality. Good to hear it worked out well for you.

[solja247]

E=mc^2

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

The matter and energy in the universe is the same as when there was the big bang.

QED.

But what started the universe? We know this universe had a starting point and will have an ending point, so what started the universe?

Currently it is much logical to say God started the big bang, in fact, it is much more logical at the moment to believe in God or gods starting the universe and fine tuning so that life could exist (and that elements could be created). However, atheists are just saying, 'Well, you just wait theists we are going to find something that answers all this!'
Thats a big assumption.
Anyways, you are supposed to say I dont know how the universe started or how the energy/matter came into existence.

---

Your evangelical friend likely assumes that God is infinite, so why would he need proof of energy being infinite if he accepts God as being infinite?

In fact, by assuming the world had to be started by a finite First Cause that likely is infinite itself, they are adding an extra complicated step to explain the existence of the world. Occam's Razor would have you shave off unnecessary leaps in logic. So it's more consistent to assume that this universe in one form another has always existed. It's unnecessary to assume we have to go a step further and complicate matters with a god.

How so? I didnt see how you got to your conclusion?
How does adding a God or gods complicate things? Wouldnt it uncomplicate things?
Think about it, currently, anything that follows the laws of nature has a cause for its existence, only something outside the laws of nature does not need a reason for its existence.
So which one is more complicated God or something that goes against the laws of nature?