God Exists

[brokenreflector]

Could be him or any number of other theists who have been stomped here over and over and over 

Nothing new with this one 

Claiming I'm an old member of this forum.

Another good argument. 

---

Could be him or any number of other theists who have been stomped here over and over and over 

Nothing new with this one 

---

Claiming things are facts is an even better argument. 

No stating a fact is just that .

Stating a fact is just that but you're stating a claim is fact and that's that. 

[Peebothuhlu]

Oof. Looks like I've wasted my time here. I thought there would be a better defense of atheism.

Well, that was easy.

Wait? What?

Defending Atheism? I thought this thread was about your claims, not ours?



Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Could be him or any number of other theists who have been stomped here over and over and over 

Nothing new with this one 

Claiming I'm an old member of this forum.

Another good argument. 

---

Could be him or any number of other theists who have been stomped here over and over and over 

Nothing new with this one 

---

No stating a fact is just that .

Stating a fact is just that but you're stating a claim is fact and that's that. 

Nope i'm stating a fact not a claim and you ciould be an old member of the forum as you repeat the exact same argument as countless before you 

---

Any way already bored of you 

Bye bye 

[no one]

So, this bozo waltzes in, spews some nonsense as truth, then has the brazenness to chastise what is claimed as fact.

Another asshat.

[Fake Messiah]

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things?

Why don't you ask yourself this question: what was before God? Who created God?

There are many flavors of atheism

Yeah, there are atheists like you who is an atheist when it comes to Allah, Zeus, Krishna and all other 20 million gods, but believes in Jesus. I am just one god more on the list of unbelieving in gods.

But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests.

Then why didn't this contemporary scientist working in Fermilab mention God even once when talking about What happened before the Big Bang?

[brokenreflector]

Peebo-Thuhlu

My reply would be "I do not know."

You do not know of the plausible and general explanations for the origins of reality? You have never thought of what it could be? Is this because of a lack of curiosity or imagination? Surely, you've read some philosophy or cosmology?

So... this is an assertion.

Yes. I strongly believe and state that not anything cannot produce something, just like I strongly believe and state that 2 + 2 = 4 or that there are no married bachelors. To say not anything can produce something is logically incoherent and for you to entertain the idea simply because you want to avoid God is sad.

As far as my limited understanind of cosmology is those who study such things are actually saying that "We can 'See' to a certain point in time and space. Anything before that is still 'Guess work' and being intensly scrutinized." At no point to they actually say 'Nothing'.

If not anything did not produce something, then you need to go to the second explanation that I outlined in my original post.

This is an interesting idea... what is it based upon, however? Just your 'Instinct' and.or 'feelings'?

No, it's based on what the definition of eternal means.

Ther might be more than just those two, perhaps?

There isn't. But I'm all ears. Can you think of another explanation?

There is also the actual fact that we actually have evidece (A functional hypothesis) within our reality of litterally something (Matter in the form of particles) comming into existance where previously no particles existed before.

A quantum vacuum isn't not anything. If you believe the quantum vacuum is past-eternal, then refer to the issues I brought up in the second explanation.

We also have actual, direct evidence of 'Things' happening with no preceeding cause for their effect.

Oh, so you don't believe in the law of cause and effect? There exists effects that are uncaused? Or are you saying there's a backwards causality? If you believe the former, then it will be impossible for science to completely describe the natural world. You're essentially saying you believe in bubbles of magic that science will never be able to explain. Maybe God is in one of these magical bubbles? As for the latter, there's still a cause and an effect, so don't see an issue.

[chimp3]

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations:

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

The second explanation gets rid of the problem of nonbeing producing being and there doesn't seem to be any glaring issue with it. Issues arise only if you're an atheist. Put simply, atheists do not believe that God exists. There are many flavors of atheism and ways that people spin the word, but this is what it really comes down to. If an atheist chooses to accept the second explanation, then they're forced to believe that something eternal exists, but it's not God. Typically, atheists who choose this second explanation will believe that the universe or multiverse is eternal. But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

What a WangDangDoodle of funny shit you post!

[brokenreflector]

Why don't you ask yourself this question: what was before God? Who created God?

Why would the question be asked if God is by definition a being that cannot fail to exist (i.e. necessary, eternal)?

If God were by definition a contingent being or past-finite being, then the question would make sense.

Yeah, there are atheists like you who is an atheist when it comes to Allah, Zeus, Krishna and all other 20 million gods, but believes in Jesus. I am just one god more on the list of unbelieving in gods.

I don't see how this is worth mentioning. You can call me an atheist if you want. It might make things confusing to readers though. What about the arguments in my original post?

Then why didn't this contemporary scientist working in Fermilab mention God even once when talking about What happened before the Big Bang?

Because he's doing science and science is a methodology for observing, recording, predicting, and describing natural phenomena. God isn't a natural phenomena. Even if God truly existed and even if this scientist believed in God, it wouldn't make sense for him to mention God in a purely scientific context.

[Peebothuhlu]

Peebo-Thuhlu

My reply would be "I do not know."

You do not know of the plausible and general explanations for the origins of reality? You have never thought of what it could be? Is this because of a lack of curiosity or imagination? Surely, you've read some philosophy or cosmology?

So... this is an assertion.

Yes. I strongly believe and state that not anything cannot produce something, just like I strongly believe and state that 2 + 2 = 4 or that there are no married bachelors. To say not anything can produce something is logically incoherent and for you to entertain the idea simply because you want to avoid God is sad.

As far as my limited understanind of cosmology is those who study such things are actually saying that "We can 'See' to a certain point in time and space. Anything before that is still 'Guess work' and being intensly scrutinized." At no point to they actually say 'Nothing'.

If not anything did not produce something, then you need to go to the second explanation that I outlined in my original post.

This is an interesting idea... what is it based upon, however? Just your 'Instinct' and.or 'feelings'?

No, it's based on what the definition of eternal means.

Ther might be more than just those two, perhaps?

There isn't. But I'm all ears. Can you think of another explanation?

There is also the actual fact that we actually have evidece (A functional hypothesis) within our reality of litterally something (Matter in the form of particles) comming into existance where previously no particles existed before.

A quantum vacuum isn't not anything. If you believe the quantum vacuum is past-eternal, then refer to the issues I brought up in the second explanation.

We also have actual, direct evidence of 'Things' happening with no preceeding cause for their effect.

Oh, so you don't believe in the law of cause and effect? There exists effects that are uncaused? Or are you saying there's a backwards causality? If you believe the former, then it will be impossible for science to completely describe the natural world. You're essentially saying you believe in bubbles of magic that science will never be able to explain. Maybe God is in one of these magical bubbles? As for the latter, there's still a cause and an effect, so don't see an issue.

Oooo... so much to unpack.

Oh, I can dream about unicorns and rainbows all day as the 'Reason' everythig exists. However, my honesty dictates I admit to my level of ignorance.

It's great that you 'Believe' that 'Nothing' can not produce 'Something'. So.. realty doesn't actually care what people think. Reality is constantly being shown to be stranger than we generally imagine.

It is you who is positing 'Nothing' Astronomers, Cosmologists, Physicists etc are not actually positing 'Nothing' as a 'before' everything.

Krauss is simply trying to educate the regualr Joe as to how the current science stands.

Nope. You are positing that there are only 'Two' options. I am disagreeig with your limitiations.

As for the quantum vacume? I was using it as an explanatnion/example of how even within our reality things do NOT work the way our reason would seem to indicate. It's not that I don't believe in something..... I'm just showing you example of reality being weireder than our 'Rationality' espouses.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[brokenreflector]

Oh, I can dream about unicorns and rainbows all day as the 'Reason' everythig exists.

That doesn't surprise me. On the other hand, I've reasoned that unicorns do not exist and that rainbows do.

It's great that you 'Believe' that 'Nothing' can not produce 'Something'.

I'm 99% sure that you believe that it's impossible for not anything to produce something as well, but you wouldn't admit it.

So.. realty doesn't actually care what people think.

Interestingly, "reality" is a complete list of all that exists which would exclude "not anything."

Astronomers, Cosmologists, Physicists etc are not actually positing 'Nothing' as a 'before' everything.

Actually, Dr. Krauss frequently claims the universe came from nothing, but that's because he's dishonest. When pressed on this issue he describes "nothing" as a quantum field. But a quantum field is something.

Nope. You are positing that there are only 'Two' options. I am disagreeig with your limitiations.

Yes, there's only two options just like X can only exist or not exist. Will you now argue with me that there's a third option for the ontology of X?

---

Claiming I'm an old member of this forum.

Another good argument. 

---

Stating a fact is just that but you're stating a claim is fact and that's that. 

Nope i'm stating a fact not a claim and you ciould be an old member of the forum as you repeat the exact same argument as countless before you 

---

Any way already bored of you 

Bye bye 

I was bored with you before you were born.