Does God Exist?
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Even Hawkings concede the point of singularity, that time has a beginning. Again Kalam states that what began to exist must have a cause. There is again no logical flaw in this premise. Neither is there one in the case of the finite universe requiring a cause. What has been established is that the universe did not always exist. Logic then demands that something must have caused it to exist, even if it is timeless and outside of this universe, an idea that you are apparently not comfortable with. Whether we can ascertain anything outside our universe is irrelevant to the argument about causation. You would be confusing the proof with the logic of the argument.
Even, if for the sake of argument, you wish to argue that the cause of the universe is many creators, we can invoke Occam's Razor and dispense with the many when all we need is just ONE being or entity capable of creating the universe. Is God the same as a blue potato? What properties do you wish to endow your blue potato with? How you know it is blue? Blue is a property of matter, and thus fails the immaterial attribute you mentioned earlier. Again remember, whatever this cause is, it must at least be timeless, immaterial, all powerful (to be able to bring the universe to existence), and personal (to be able to exercise the choice to create the universe).
Hawkings has conceded that time has begun to exist, no doubt. There are 3 possibilities if the universe has a beginning in time. Either time begins with the universe, time began for a finite time before the universe, or time existed for an infinite period before the universe. Kalam rejects the last 2 possiblities so we'll just go with the first one. If the act of God creating the universe coincided with time in the beginning of the universe, then that act must have began to exist. This means the act must have had a cause (God). The cause (God) must have also began to exist, and so an infinite regress threatens.
Suppose, then, that God starts time before the universe. Perhaps he has a countdown: "5, 4, 3, 2, 1... kaboom!" In this case, the beginning of time would be an event in the mind of God - the start of the countdown. But here again, if God's act of starting the countdown is the beginning of time, that act begins to exist, and the temporal cosmological argument requires that that act also have a cause. Once again the infinite regress abyss yawns. Furthermore, as the British philosopher Le Poidevin pointed out, the 3rd premise of Kalam will be false if time was eternal or if time existed as a close loop with each moment preceding and following each moment.
Kalam claims that the cause of the universe is outside "the universe" Hence, it is of upmost importance that we verify how causality works outside of the universe. How then, can it be said that the universe MUST be caused if one does not know if causality even exists outside of the universe! The assumption of Kalam is that since what we observe in this universe follows the line of cause and effect, therefore the universe must also follow the principle of cause and effect. Which is like I pointed out, a fallacy of composition.
Occams Razor is a very interesting concept. I'm glad you brought that up. You see, Occams Razor does nothing to demonstrate what is true, it only demonstrates what is simple. Furthermore, if Occams Razor were to be employed, would the American physicist Lawrence Krauss be correct in asserting that the universe began out of virutal particles (a view quite a number of physicists hold - Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson). Blue is immaterial, blue is a concept. Blue is simply something affected by photon diffraction on a line spectrum. Photons themselves have no rest mass; so cannot be considered material.
-
Originally posted by motoway:
I dont have a problem with god.
I have a problem with religion.
OK, then go for a relationship with God.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
I have seen this before! Thanks for sharing! :D
-
.
-
Originally posted by White Dust:
Hawkings has conceded that time has begun to exist, no doubt. There are 3 possibilities if the universe has a beginning in time. Either time begins with the universe, time began for a finite time before the universe, or time existed for an infinite period before the universe. Kalam rejects the last 2 possiblities so we'll just go with the first one. If the act of God creating the universe coincided with time in the beginning of the universe, then that act must have began to exist. This means the act must have had a cause (God). The cause (God) must have also began to exist, and so an infinite regress threatens.
Suppose, then, that God starts time before the universe. Perhaps he has a countdown: "5, 4, 3, 2, 1... kaboom!" In this case, the beginning of time would be an event in the mind of God - the start of the countdown. But here again, if God's act of starting the countdown is the beginning of time, that act begins to exist, and the temporal cosmological argument requires that that act also have a cause. Once again the infinite regress abyss yawns. Furthermore, as the British philosopher Le Poidevin pointed out, the 3rd premise of Kalam will be false if time was eternal or if time existed as a close loop with each moment preceding and following each moment.
Kalam claims that the cause of the universe is outside "the universe" Hence, it is of upmost importance that we verify how causality works outside of the universe. How then, can it be said that the universe MUST be caused if one does not know if causality even exists outside of the universe! The assumption of Kalam is that since what we observe in this universe follows the line of cause and effect, therefore the universe must also follow the principle of cause and effect. Which is like I pointed out, a fallacy of composition.
Occams Razor is a very interesting concept. I'm glad you brought that up. You see, Occams Razor does nothing to demonstrate what is true, it only demonstrates what is simple. Furthermore, if Occams Razor were to be employed, would the American physicist Lawrence Krauss be correct in asserting that the universe began out of virutal particles (a view quite a number of physicists hold - Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson). Blue is immaterial, blue is a concept. Blue is simply something affected by photon diffraction on a line spectrum. Photons themselves have no rest mass; so cannot be considered material.
If you ask me, I think it is pointless to argue what was prior to "In the beginning God...". It's just academic. But we all agree that there was a beginning. The clock started ticking. If it started then something must have caused it to start. Now, we already said that whatever created the universe must be timeless, so why do you now suggest that it is not and thus requires a cause? We can either go infinite regress which explains nothing or we start with a necessary being God. There is nothing illogical about an uncaused cause.
Let's again not confuse the proof with the logic of the argument. Like it or not, there is no way we can transcend our confines to observe anything outside the universe. This is our limitation. But this does not in anyway proves that there is no cause that is outside of the universe. Cause and effect is a universal law, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to apply it to the universe. Remember, your issue is more of how to verify the cause, not that there is no cause. Agnosticism about the cause is not the same as denial of the cause.
Occam's Razor is a method of reasoning, not a proof of anything. It is invoked to remove UNNECESSARY entities to explain something. The simpler the explanation it should be PREFERRED over those that multipliy entities unneccessarily. There is no need to burden ourselves with extra entities when a simpler one is available.
-
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
My school wants to send me to psychiatrist. But they r the crazy ones. How can u ppl believe that there's an invisible man up there in the sky who will torture u if u dun worship him? Many ppl have fly through the sky n they see no god.
Why did your school wants you to see a shrink?
FYI we do not believe there is an invisible man in the sky. You sure we are talking about the same thing? And no where does the Bible says that we will be tortured for not worshipping God. A criminal is punished not because he does not kowtow or praise the government, but because he has broken the law.
-
.
-
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
And your point is?
That your understanding of Christianity is simply not there. I think if you wish to criticise anything you first should know exactly what it is you are criticising.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
From your postings you did not show you have proper knowledge of God or the Bible or the Christian faith, so why should I not be suspicious of your claims? Unless you wish to tell me that you were only a Christian for a few weeks and that you were not properly taught in the faith, even though you were sincere about it.
You are not my choice of christian to share with you . To me you are a nasty christian whom I don't think it is wise for me to share. I have shared with the very few pleasant and non judgemental christians and you don't belong to this category. You sound destructive than being spirit filled to love souls to win souls for God. All you are doing is building walls against non believers. I have seen too many of your kind around in churches, work places, and social setting
-
.
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
My school wants to send me to psychiatrist. But they r the crazy ones. How can u ppl believe that there's an invisible man up there in the sky who will torture u if u dun worship him? Many ppl have fly through the sky n they see no god.
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
please meet up and argue with each other. dont waste internet space!!
-
Originally posted by dragg:
please meet up and argue with each other. dont waste internet space!!
why now then you make noise and tell people to meet up and argue????? If you don't like to read then don't read, nobody forcing you to read.
bo liao
you think we will do as you command???????!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahaha!
-
Inb4thelock.jpg
-
Non-constructive post deleted. House-keeping to maintain thread continuity.
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
You are not my choice of christian to share with you . To me you are a nasty christian whom I don't think it is wise for me to share. I have shared with the very few pleasant and non judgemental christians and you don't belong to this category. You sound destructive than being spirit filled to love souls to win souls for God. All you are doing is building walls against non believers. I have seen too many of your kind around in churches, work places, and social setting
Feel better after letting it out at me?
It's OK really. I'm not asking you to share your life story with me or pour out your bitterness and hurts to me. I'm probably not the right guy for you anyway.
But if you have any arguments related to this thread please be at liberty to share. -
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
Like as if u urself have any understanding of Christianity. If u have, u wouldnt b here, trolling and starting threads that r generally the same thing. U can say whatever u want and quote whatever u want from the bible but it won't change a thing. All. U. Christians. R. Screwed. Up.
I have been a Christian long enough to say that I do have a pretty good understanding of Christianity which is more than adequate to point out where your misunderstanding is. But what has that got to do with being here and posting? Yes, Christians admit that we are screwed up, which is why we need a Saviour. And so do you.
-
There's no immaculate conception, just human conception.
-
