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

[tavarish]

Of course it does, it marks the beginning of the universe. Space-time began to exist according to Prof Hawking and most cosmologists and before space-time appeared the universe as we know was not. Present knowledge and understanding only permits cosmologists to track back their research of the big bang to a certain sec after it happened but this by no means imply that the universe did not begin to exist. The fact is it began to exist and Hawking states it clearly in the quote I provided, the universe is finite with an age, it isn't eternal.

1. There was no "before" space-time, as there is no point of reference before the Big Bang.
2. You said the universe has an age, which I do not dispute.
3. Hawking's quote was talking about the specific expansion of space-time, which can be traced back with remarkable accuracy. This I do not dispute.

What you don't seem to grasp is that you're making positive claims about things to which we have no answers. I'm not saying the universe is eternal in the sense that it always had the laws by which we operate today, but I'm making the point that there is no evidence to suggest that it did not exist in some form or another in a timeless, matter-less state.

lol nothing means nothing. Maybe you should layout your alternative definition of "nothing" here preferably in written form (I seriously do not have time to view videos).since space-time began whatever depends on it could not have preceded its appearance, of course this rules out energy/matter as constituents of the "nothing" you are referring to as both depend on space-time.

There's a reason why I posted the video, it's because the physicist can put it into terms that are understandable and accurate. There is a divide between the nothing that is taken in common language and the nothing that is discussed in cosmology and quantum physics. My video addresses this in great detail, I urge you to watch it .

A singularity is a space-time boundary, if one always existed space-time never began but always was and therefore we must conclude that Prof. Hawking's is lying since he tells us quite emphatically that space-time began.

Hawking's says the universe began to exist, that it has not always existed, but that it had a beginning t=0. In fact he says most cosmologists hold this view.

Why are you making assumptions about what can encompass such a singularity? Hawking himself says:

Before this time all four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

He's not lying, he says that a description of such a thing has yet to be done using the scientific method. Again, the universe began to exist in the state we understand, that is governed by physical laws, but this is not to say that the universe, in some form or another, did or did not exist "prior" to the expansion known as the Big Bang. Do you understand now?

They are all instantaneous and simultaneous, bending a ruler, pulling a spring all are examples of simultaneous causation, you must be as stubborn as a mule to reject that they are, any idiot will without doubt tell you that all the examples I provided are simultaneous.

what a laugh are you not serious, what utter claptrap ... inertia! the minute you apply sufficient force to a pillow it depresses, and the minute you release it elates, the cause and effect are simultaneous as such, the depression will only exist for as long as the finger is pressing into the pillow. A bend (cause) in the ruler is a result of you bending (effect) the ruler, this causes are simultaneous.

I'll break it down for you.

The speed of light is the fastest speed at which energy or information can travel.

Its value is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second

Here's the kicker - it's dependent on time, as is matter.

What you're proposing is that you exerting force on a pillow in order to compress it happens faster than the speed of light, as you're taking time out of the equation and literally equating the cause to the effect. It is conceivably simultaneous, but when approached from a different angle, the pillow acting in accordance with the force exerted on it is subject to TIME and PHYSICS, and is not instantaneous in the sense that time(cause)=time(effect).

We don't care about the state of the pillow before the depression, that is irrelevant frankly we are only concerned with the depression and its immediate cause.

I just demonstrated that the cause is not immediate, it still takes time for the laws of physics to work. It may look instantaneous, and here is where your confusion lies.

Now as for the KCA since you argue time is required for something to start (by the way Hawkins still has the nerve to say the universe is finite)

1. I said your examples required time, since they are subject to the laws of physics, not absolutely everything.
2. Hawking contends that the Universe is finite, but never did he say it necessarily required a cause or creator.

God created the universe at t=0, meanining god caused the universe at the same time it happened.

Evidence?

One last example of the causal principle is your reflection is a mirror which comes and goes as you move away and in front the mirror. there are plenty examples that I can list, and all the causes of this examples exist at the same time as their causes.

That's actually a better example of what I'm asserting. it takes time for the information to come to the mirror and reflect back. A very minute amount, but takes time nonetheless. This operates at the speed of light quite literally.

I think its safe enough to say that God caused the universe, since nothing can not cause something.

Quantum fluctuations are nothings that cause somethings all the time.

it's definitely not safe to say God created the universe because something can't come from nothing. That's a huge assumption, and one which you have yet to demonstrate in any context.

What the above demonstrate is that the physical universe depends on the causal principle, it doesn't in any shape or form suggest that the Causal Principle DEPENDS on the physical universe. If I'm wrong clearly explain how the causal principle depends on the physical universe like for example how the gravitational law depends on the physical universe to operate (matter).

I never said the causal principle was dependent on anything. I gave you an excerpt from a wiki article dealing with causality in physics.

Physics is a means of understanding how these cause/effect scenarios occur and how to predict their outcomes. However, to say causality necessarily isn't dependent on physical laws would be missing the point completely. Since you didn't bother to read the article, I'll spoonfeed a bit more:


In classical physics a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory this requirement is strengthened so as to limit causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"); nor can an event be a cause of any event outside the former event's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Another requirement, at least valid at the level of human experience, is that cause and effect be mediated across space and time (requirement of contiguity). This requirement has been very influential in the past, in the first place as a result of direct observation of causal processes (like pushing a cart), in the second place as a problematic aspect of Newton's theory of gravitation (attraction of the earth by the sun by means of action at a distance) replacing mechanistic proposals like Descartes' vortex theory; in the third place as an incentive to develop dynamic field theories (e.g. Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's general theory of relativity) restoring contiguity in the transmission of influences in a more successful way than did Descartes' theory.