Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[tavarish]

TAVARISH Thanks for responding to my points, however by now your habit of misrepresenting my case has taken its toll. you outrightly declare that i have committed the following wrong assumption: that the big bang is an explosion of matter into existing space. this is a total misreading of my argument, infact i think i have been fairly consistent throughout in pointing out that spacetime had its beginning in the big bang, how then did you resolve that im guilty of making the above wrong assumption, in view of the foregoing i am compelled to conclude that you deliberately chose to malign my argument. ======'<><><''~~////=====<><>'''''

---

And you failed to realize I copied and pasted a point from the link I provided dealing with common misconceptions. I bolded the ones that were relevant to the conversation, but apparently you didn't get it. Next time I'll tell you that bold = more important.

in an earlier post you argued that energy could not have been created as it would defy the physical laws governing energy, my paragraph dealing with this matter is relevant because it argued that the laws have no relevance outside of spacetime and thus are not defied when energy is created at the big bang.

You have provided no evidence for the "creation" of energy, or the relevance of laws outside of spacetime. I understand your point, but it's meaningless without something verifiable to back it up. Not to mention how this leads to a God is beyond me.

also a singularity is by definition a region of space that defy laws of physics, hence the creation of energy at the big bang creates no problem. the next links summarise the big bang.

---

http://space-about.com/od/astronomybasic...iverse.htm and http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

1. Your first link had zero references.
2. None of your links made ANY reference to the creation of energy at the Big Bang. In fact, your second link (which referred to the Big Bang as an explosion, by the way) had this to say on the singularity:

At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

While it's not written completely accurately, it illustrates my point. We don't know what happened. How do you know that energy didn't exist in some other, timeless state? What is your evidence for asserting that energy was created?

---

SINGULARITY: this is merely the boundary points of spacetime, that is to say the singularity marks the edges of spacetime. this means that if there is no spacetime you have no singularity. since spacetime came to be, there was a moment when there was no singularity. to use an example, it is meaningless to address the borders of N. America without N. America, because the borders of N. America rely on the existence of N. America. By the same token you cant talk of a spacetime singularity without spacetime.

Evidence of your claim?

as for the time issue the link you provide seems to be saying that since time began with the singularity, we cant refer to a time before the singularity and as a result all talk of before is meaningless.

Exactly.

this shouldnt be a problem for the theist. the link you provide says the singularity happened at t=0. a response has been formulated saying that the cause of the big bang also operated at the same time, at t=0. it didnt have to operate at a time t=0<t, which cant be because there was no prior time. to rephrase the response the cause of the big bang caused the big bang at the same time it happened. you may ask how can a cause and effect be at the same time? even on a mundane level we regularly experience simultaneous causation.

Evidence for a cause needing to occur? Evidence for any of your claims thus far at all?

to use kants example, a heavy balls resting on a cushion being the cause of the depression in the cushion. here the effect, the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause, the ball resting on the cushion. so time poses no problem.

What the hell are you talking about? it still takes time for the cushion to depress based on the laws of physics. This example is still bound by the forces of gravity, inertia and law of conservation of energy.

It also implies that at one time, the balls were not resting on the cushion, as physical causality is bound by physical laws. You're trying to describe an entity with unknown physical constructs, and then justifying it by making an analogy to a physical model. That is the very definition of comparing apples to oranges.

we have to look always to causes because the causal principle has never been violated, being cannot come from non-being, somethiog cant come from nothing.

And yet you try to make the case with your God. Special Pleading, anyone?

Something cannot come from nothing, unless God did it. Then it's ok.

...yeah.

the singularity contained all matter, energy, space so before the singularity by definition there was nothing.

Nothing observable within our understanding of physics.

what may have existed cant be and material, spatial, because matter and space are products if you would of the big bang.

---

Did I say anything bout matter or space before the Big Bang? I said there's no way of knowing whether energy was eternal or existed in a timeless state beforehand. Your assertion that energy was necessarily CREATED has yet to be demonstrated.

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

1. Repeating it three times doesn't make it any more valid. This isn't the Wizard of Oz.
2. The KCA still fails on all the initial points I listed, as it fails to establish that the laws of causality were in effect prior to the Big Bang, and reaches a conclusion that is logically fallacious.
3. You have failed to demonstrate that your God exists, as you haven't defined him or his attributes. Only after verification of his necessary existence can you apply him to certain models of the universe, and none of this can be accomplished without evidence.

It seems you're latching on concepts that seem to back up your belief, but not providing any evidence for the truth of such claims.