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

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

... no explanation as to what happened to those in the population without the fusion.

Same thing that happens to a competitor out competed in an ecological niche - extinction.

True but Luskin didn't say anything about an extinction of a Homo (genus) species.

LOL. There has been plenty of extinctions in our genus. Tribe Hominini has truly had many offshoots. We are all that is left, however, of a rather large genus and tribe.

Irony that the most advanced species on this planet came from one of the most failure prone tribes.

OMG. Did you truly think I didn't know that there were many extinctions in the Homo 'genus'? I'm somewhat certain that I clarified Luskin's '10,000 years ago' detail. Are you trying to say that there was another Homo species 10,000 years ago? If i'm not mistaken, Homo neanderthalensis went extinct long before 10,000 years ago. You keep ignoring that i'm talking about LUSKIN and LUSKIN DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. yeah, maybe capitalizing everything helps.

[roundsquare]

I'm back!!! Excuse me for any discommode that may have ensued from my incapacity to reply to your points sooner, thing is I have been colossally busy these past few weeks, bogged down with assignments and tests to be precise, that it's been close to impossible to make the time to reply to any posts. Now that I have some time to spare I will have a look at your points right away.

[quote='roundsquare' pid='62597' dateline='1270477455']
at this point you have completely shown your total lack of understanding of the big bang. i can safely say that the kca is intact. so much for your rumbling. you have not attempted to refute a single point i raised. what you did was dismiss my points which isnt the same as refuting them. now its time for me to ask a few questions. 1. does the standard big bang theory not say energy was created? 2. is the spacetime singularity not defined as the boundary point of spacetime. 3. if the singularity is not a boundary point of spacetime what is it. 4. despite your irrelevant rambling is the depression in my example not an effect of the ball resting on the cushion? 5. if your answer to 4 is no what then is causing the depression. if your answer is yes then you admit that the effect which is the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause which is the ball.

You said:

1. No, it says no such thing. I'll also ask you what the "standard Big Bang Theory" is.

The standard big bang model or the lambda-CDM model holds that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe started expanding in all directions from an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense point known as a singularity. All of space-time and all it contains including energy/matter had its origin in this explosion (by explosion I mean the abrupt appearance of expanding space time, not the chaos seen in an atomic bomb explosion) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model. According to this model space-time began with the singularity, the model fails to address what happens prior to t=10^-43 s, because beyond that point all we are left with is speculation. But there is no doubt that the universe began to exist in scientists minds, since the universe began to exist it did not exist eternally:

Most cosmologists reject this alternative because of the severe problem of the second law of thermodynamics .Applied to the Universe as a whole, this law states that the cosmos is on a one-way slide towards a state of maximum disorder, or entropy. Irreversible changes, such as the gradual consumption of fuel by the Sun and stars, ensure that the Universe must eventually "run down" and exhaust its supplies of useful energy. It follows that the Universe cannot have been drawing on this finite stock of useful energy for all eternity.http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html

If the universe began to exist so did its content (energy, and matter) this is a conclusion that seems rather axiomatic. Energy exists in a vacuum, in space, no space-time no energy, its a self-evident conclusion.

The following quote from Prof. Hawking further demonstrate what I have been saying about the big bang:

Http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/arch...verse.html
For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I'm sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I'm much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win." —Stephen Hawking
How did the universe really begin?
Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10 -43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. 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.

Http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
Hawking on the beginning.
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

You said:

2. No, here's a definition:

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Of course that is its definition, but it is also a space-time boundary, because beyond it space-time discontinues.

according to the classical cosmological models, the universe began with the big bang, another space-time boundary, a singularity where all matter of the universe is compressed to infinitely high density.http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/navMeta/dictionary/s/index.html#singularity

You said:

4. Yes, the cause and effect example was indeed an example of cause and effect. However, it did not demonstrate how such a cause and effect was A) Instantaneous and B) relevant to the discussion, in which you're equating applicable qualities in physics to a concept that did not necessarily rely on these qualities. You also did not cite your evidence for such a claim, or any evidence, for that matter.

Again you have drifted away on immaterial points, and in so doing you have missed the point that I tried to make that simultaneous causation is a reality, but if you arr dissatisfied with the first example, I can give you a couple more examples of simultaneous causation which do not rely on gravity, and here they are: pulling a spring, bending a ruler, the sensation caused by a fly coming to rest on your face, etc. As to the pillow example gravity isn't required for the simultaneous causation to hold, example an astronaut in space can jab the pillow and cause a depression, devoid of gravity. So again time poses no problem for the KCA. God created the universe at the same time as it came into existence, at t=0.

You said:

5. I explained that the cause and effect example is an example of that alone - cause and effect that is dictated by the laws of physics. I don't agree that it's instantaneous and I contend that it is irrelevant, and it's a pretty plain apples to oranges comparison.

Cause and effect are not dictated by physical laws, what physical law dictates the causal principle? Please fix my ignorance. I will address you design arguments as I get time, right now I am still a bit busy to forward a proper response to each and every point you raise.

[tavarish]

The standard big bang model or the lambda-CDM model holds that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe started expanding in all directions from an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense point known as a singularity. All of space-time and all it contains including energy/matter had its origin in this explosion (by explosion I mean the abrupt appearance of expanding space time, not the chaos seen in an atomic bomb explosion) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model. According to this model space-time began with the singularity, the model fails to address what happens prior to t=10^-43 s, because beyond that point all we are left with is speculation. But there is no doubt that the universe began to exist in scientists minds, since the universe began to exist it did not exist eternally:

Most cosmologists reject this alternative because of the severe problem of the second law of thermodynamics .Applied to the Universe as a whole, this law states that the cosmos is on a one-way slide towards a state of maximum disorder, or entropy. Irreversible changes, such as the gradual consumption of fuel by the Sun and stars, ensure that the Universe must eventually "run down" and exhaust its supplies of useful energy. It follows that the Universe cannot have been drawing on this finite stock of useful energy for all eternity.http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html

1. The Big Bang does not describe the singularity, as our understanding of it breaks down with our methodology. It only describes the sudden expansion.
2. Nothing does not mean absolutely nothing in the way you're thinking. I find it quite ironic that the second reference listed in your wikipedia article is from physicist Lawrence Krauss, and linked to a video I myself posted on this site. I suggest you check it out, it addresses this exact topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[quote='roundsquare' pid='65840' dateline='1271850901']
If the universe began to exist so did its content (energy, and matter) this is a conclusion that seems rather axiomatic. Energy exists in a vacuum, in space, no space-time no energy, its a self-evident conclusion.

The following quote from Prof. Hawking further demonstrate what I have been saying about the big bang:

Http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/arch...verse.html
For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I'm sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I'm much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win." —Stephen Hawking
How did the universe really begin?
Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10 -43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. 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.

I bolded an important bit.

Again, there is nothing that says that the universe (in some form, perhaps a superdense singularity or something else) did/did not exist in a timeless state. We cannot make the call. That is exactly my point. Not to mention the universe is taken as the universe as we know it, with physical laws that dictate how things within it react to each other. What is to say that it could not have functioned as a universe completely unlike our own, with different laws, or no laws at all?

I highly suggest you watch the video, as the "nothing" you're talking about is completely different from absolutely nothing.

Here's another interesting vid, dealing with the sum energy of the universe and origins using the lambda-CDM model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw



[quote='roundsquare' pid='65840' dateline='1271850901']
Hawking on the beginning.
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

Yes, time had a beginning. I don't dispute that.

Of course that is its definition, but it is also a space-time boundary, because beyond it space-time discontinues.

according to the classical cosmological models, the universe began with the big bang, another space-time boundary, a singularity where all matter of the universe is compressed to infinitely high density.http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/navMeta/dictionary/s/index.html#singularity

Beyond an infinitely high density? I'll assume you know what infinity means.



[quote='roundsquare' pid='65840' dateline='1271850901']
Again you have drifted away on immaterial points, and in so doing you have missed the point that I tried to make that simultaneous causation is a reality, but if you arr dissatisfied with the first example, I can give you a couple more examples of simultaneous causation which do not rely on gravity, and here they are: pulling a spring, bending a ruler, the sensation caused by a fly coming to rest on your face, etc. As to the pillow example gravity isn't required for the simultaneous causation to hold, example an astronaut in space can jab the pillow and cause a depression, devoid of gravity. So again time poses no problem for the KCA. God created the universe at the same time as it came into existence, at t=0.

1. None of your examples are instantaneous, as they all function within TIME, as they are subject to physical laws in our universe. If I jab a pillow, it still takes time for the pillow to overcome inertia and start to depress. The depression is far from instantaneous, as you can sequence the events in such a way that you can verify them using the physical laws they are subject to. It also assumes that at one point in time, the pillow was not compressed, which can be demonstrated, something that is not possible with your kca assumption, as there was no time beforehand.
2. You again go on to the assertion that God created the universe as a huge assumption, without evidence or definition of such an entity.

Cause and effect are not dictated by physical laws, what physical law dictates the causal principle? Please fix my ignorance. I will address you design arguments as I get time, right now I am still a bit busy to forward a proper response to each and every point you raise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29

An exceprt:

In physics it is useful to interpret certain terms of a physical theory as causes and other terms as effects. Thus, in classical (Newtonian) mechanics a cause may be represented by a force acting on a body, and an effect by the acceleration which follows as quantitatively explained by Newton's second law. For different physical theories the notions of cause and effect may be different. For instance, in Aristotelian physics the effect is not said to be acceleration but to be velocity (one must push a cart twice as hard in order to have its velocity doubled[3]). In the general theory of relativity, too, acceleration is not an effect (since it is not a generally relativistic vector); the general relativistic effects comparable to those of Newtonian mechanics are the deviations from geodesic motion in curved spacetime[4]

[roundsquare]

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).

[Paul the Human]

*sighs in disappointment*

I keep reading this thread in hopes that someone will attempt to provide actual evidence that god exists, but all I ever see are the same old tired arguments. I'll never be saved at this rate.

[roundsquare]

i have to go away for now, not sure when i will return but please do feel free to thoughtfully address my all points. i will try my utmost best to get back to you soon.

---

its not my problem that the existing evidence doesnt convince you, it convinced me and billions of other people.

---

its not my problem that the existing evidence doesnt convince you, it convinced me and billions of other people.

[tavarish]

its not my problem that the existing evidence doesnt convince you, it convinced me and billions of other people.

In other news - the Earth is flat because the majority of people were convinced of it.

[Minimalist]

i have to go away for now, not sure when i will return but please do feel free to thoughtfully address my all points. i will try my utmost best to get back to you soon.

You won't be missed.

[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.

[Tiberius]

Einstein answered one of the questions about cause and effect years ago with his theories of gravity. Newton had previously thought that if the Sun suddenly vanished, we would feel the effect (i.e. the loss of orbit) immediately even though we wouldn't see the Sun disappear for another 8 minutes (due to the time it takes light to travel from the Sun to the Earth).

Einstein's theory of gravity rejected this idea, and it is now well established that the force of gravity travels at the speed of light too. If the sun suddenly vanished, we would still feel the effects of orbit (and the Earth would remain in an "orbit") for 8 minutes.