Who Created God? Why Can't the Universe be inifinte

CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Who Created God? Why Can't the Universe be inifinte

I would like to respond to Brian's and Kelly's Question to Krik and Ray on

Who Created God? and Why can't the universe be inifinte?

1st lest deal with Who Created God?

God by definition means -- a spirit worshiped as having power over nature,- the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being, uncaused.

Now of course I know you don't believe in the God of the bible, but understand this, No one created God, because God is the Creator. as Ray and Kirk said there can't be an on-going of who made God then who made that God then who made that God.. it would go on forever Plus it's not logical. Check this out

This Argument that I'm about to present also deals with why the Universe can't not be infinte.........

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.

 

 

Cosmological Argument
  1. Things exist
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.

 

With that said we can that the universe cannot be infinte because it has a possibility of being destroyed - therefore the universe is created. it is not infinite. God also by definition is infinte, Uncaused. That what God is and means. Therefore you can't say that something had to create God because its God, God exists, God is uncaused, God creates.

you might want to say

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes which cannot be.

by definition, God is uncaused not the Universe

CHRISTALONE


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
How many times has this

How many times has this been refuted?

check this out: Cosmological Kalamity

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Your link lead to an 404

Your link lead to an 404 error


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
thanks try

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
CHRISTALONE wrote:I would

CHRISTALONE wrote:

I would like to respond to Brian's and Kelly's Question to Krik and Ray on

Who Created God? and Why can't the universe be inifinte?

1st lest deal with Who Created God?

God by definition means -- a spirit worshiped as having power over nature,- the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being, uncaused.

Your term, "god", is incoherent. Your use of the term "spirt' fails to provide an ontology. The traits 'creator of the universe" are secondary and do not provide an ontology.

As for being "uncaused", quantum tunneling is an uncaused event.... Since you are arguing for an uncaused cause, you have to accept quantum tunneling as the more parsimonious explanation.

 

I discusss possible, (i.e. scientific) ex nihilo accounts for the universe here:

Common Cosmological Misconceptions

Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source for our universe. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.

Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.

Some have argued that Tryon's model requires the existence o space (i.e. a vacuum) and therefore is not a true ex nihilo account. Alex Vilenkin states this problem could be solved by beginning with an initial state of no dimensional nothingness (true nothingness) that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.

 

Quote:

This Argument that I'm about to present also deals with why the Universe can't not be infinte.........

The Cosmological Argument

 

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion

Please look into the various refutations of this argument. If you can't find any, I will be glad to go through them with you. However, your real problem is that your cosmological argument can never get off the ground as your term, "god" has no ontological status. As things stand, your term is meaningless and your argument can only read "I don't know what created the universe"

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Is there actual proof that

Is there actual proof that vacuum fluctation caused the big bang? because in theory it could happen again. Also, isn't there theories that vacuum fluctations are a result of the Big Bang, not the cause.

 

[edit:spelling]


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Is there actual proof that vacuum fluctation caused the big bang?

You mean, empirical evidence? Not that I know of!

Quote:
 

because in theory it could happen again.

To me, what matters is this: if a person wants to argue for an uncaused cause, they have to accept that there's quite a leap from 'uncaused cause' to "Yahweh, the tribal wargod of ancient jews"

Most people using the cosmological argument accept that.

So, they accept that having laid the ground for an uncaused cause, they still have a responsibility to make a link between the UC and GOD

Well then, this is where vacuum fluctuations and quantum tunneling come in. These are "uncaused causes". They do not violate what we know of physics.  "god" does violate physics (In fact, the term doesn't even have an ontological status) Ergo, by occam's razor, a person putting forth a cosmological argument must show why he is rejecting a workable, parsimonious explanation in lieu of an unworkable, completely non-parsimonious non-explanation.

 

Quote:
Also, isn't there theories that vacuum fluctations are a result of the Big Bang, not the cause.

 

Well, ... everything is the result of the big bang, isn't it?

Not sure what you mean here. Basically, all I am saying is that all you need for a vacuum fluctuation is a vacuum.... and if you think a 'vacuum' is still something that needs an explanation, then quantum tunneling is your 'answer'

Does this mean that Tryon and Viliken have given us the answer as to the origin of the universe? No one is saying that, all that is being said is that their explanations do not violate what we know of physics, and that they 'work'...  whereas "goddidit' has never been shown to even be a coherent explanation. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Hrtbrkn4you
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Ontologically sound

The ontological status for the term "God" is sound given the evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible as Absolute Truth; where God and who He is, is detailed very clearly.

27% of the Bible is predictive prophecy, with historical and archeological verification available for half of these predictive prophecies which have already been fulfilled. There is no solid evidence proving even one of these predictive prophecies was ever wrong, or not fulfilled exactly as prophesied.

This is only one of many verifiable proofs that the claims made in the Bible are not the words of men, but the inspired words of God. Seeing as how no man in history has ever made more than a handfull of predictive prophecies with a 100% accurate track record. Not even any of the other so called "holy books" can provide that kind of proof for a divine origin.

Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hrtbrkn4you wrote:The

Hrtbrkn4you wrote:
The ontological status for the term "God" is sound given the evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible as Absolute Truth; where God and who He is, is detailed very clearly.

This is not providing an ontology for the term 'god' it is merely asserting that the bible provides one. If you think the bible provides one, cite it.

However, I advise you read this first:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

You'll see that what you think is defined "clearly' is actually problematic.

The term "god' is ontologically bankrupt, unless you are substituting something anthropomorphic for it:



St. Augustine wrote:

"What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it."
 

 

 

Quote:

27% of the Bible is predictive prophecy, with historical and archeological verification available for half of these predictive prophecies which have already been fulfilled.

This does not speak to the matter of ontology.

 

Quote:

There is no solid evidence proving even one of these predictive prophecies was ever wrong, or not fulfilled exactly as prophesied

Again, this has nothing to do with ontology.

Oh, and it's false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html

However, if you want to talk about prophecies, please start your own thread, OK?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Is there actual proof that vacuum fluctation caused the big bang?

 

You mean, empirical evidence? Not that I know of!

 

Yeah, me neither a nobel prize is in order for whoever presents some.

Quote:
Quote:

because in theory it could happen again.

To me, what matters is this: if a person wants to argue for an uncaused cause, they have to accept that there's quite a leap from 'uncaused cause' to "Yahweh, the tribal wargod of ancient jews"

Most people using the cosmological argument accept that.

So, they accept that having laid the ground for an uncaused cause, they still have a responsibility to make a link between the UC and GOD

Well then, this is where vacuum fluctuations and quantum tunneling come in. These are "uncaused causes". They do not violate what we know of physics.  "god" does violate physics (In fact, the term doesn't even have an ontological status) Ergo, by occam's razor, a person putting forth a cosmological argument must show why he is rejecting a workable, parsimonious explanation in lieu of an unworkable, completely non-parsimonious non-explanation.

When you say God violates physics are you referring to God creating the universe out of nothing and God was just there and didn't require a creator?

Quote:
Quote:

Also, isn't there theories that vacuum fluctations are a result of the Big Bang, not the cause.

 

Well, ... everything is the result of the big bang, isn't it?

Not sure what you mean here. Basically, all I am saying is that all you need for a vacuum fluctuation is a vacuum.... and if you think a 'vacuum' is still something that needs an explanation, then quantum tunneling is your 'answer'

Does this mean that Tryon and Viliken have given us the answer as to the origin of the universe? No one is saying that, all that is being said is that their explanations do not violate what we know of physics, and that they 'work'...  whereas "goddidit' has never been shown to even be a coherent explanation. 

Kind of like the chicken and the egg question.

For example, there is also a theory that fluctuations are interference from another universe. Now we're back to square one.

Of course there are so many damn theories out there that one can say anything.

Are you right? Yep! Am I right? Yep! Is Suzie right? Yep!


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Good stuff fellas I'm not

Good stuff fellas

I'm not a know it all type of guy so pardon me for my simplicity

Lets just be reasonable and realize that nothing comes from nothing. 

 I'm tell you like this I believe God exists because I don't know one human being who can create a cloud,sun, moon, stars, frog or another human being

I don't know how to make a person live or keep a person from dieing. If there is only us then how come we can't control us. How come we humans can't determine if we die or not ( in the physical sense)

This very life screams out there must be something greater than you and I.

If Humans are just all to this whole thing life then we should be able to keep ourselves from dieing but we can't we should be able to create dirt or whatever we want. but we can't

There Has to be a GOD!!


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Good stuff fellas I'm not

Good stuff fellas

I'm not a know it all type of guy so pardon me for my simplicity

Lets just be reasonable and realize that nothing comes from nothing. 

 I'm tell you like this I believe God exists because I don't know one human being who can create a cloud,sun, moon, stars, frog or another human being

I don't know how to make a person live or keep a person from dieing. If there is only us then how come we can't control us. How come we humans can't determine if we die or not ( in the physical sense)

This very life screams out there must be something greater than you and I.

If Humans are just all to this whole thing life then we should be able to keep ourselves from dieing but we can't we should be able to create dirt or whatever we want. but we can't

There Has to be a GOD!!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Lets just be reasonable and

Lets just be reasonable and realize that nothing comes from nothing.

Actually, there is nothing in the laws of physics that does not permit ex nihilo creation. When it comes to cosmological theories on genesis, I go with todangst, meaning that I favor multiverse, string theory and hyperexpansion universal genesis

 I'm tell you like this I believe God exists because I don't know one human being who can create a cloud,sun, moon, stars, frog or another human being

That's a nonsequiter. It is exacly the same as saying this: Human being cannot create heavy elements out of smaller ones. Therefore God exists. Right? Wrong. Nucleosynthesis is done by stars. This is a false dichotomy. We know that natural processes create clouds (cooling of gas clouds and condensation of water within the diffusing partciles, and natural processes create the sun (gravitational contractions of rotating gas disks), we know that natural processes created the moon (it's a chunk of Mars that was flung off by an asteroid). We know that natural processes create frogs (We can track the evolution of frogs back to common Eukaryotic ancestors) and human beings (whose evolution we can trace back to somewhere around the Ordovician era).

I don't know how to make a person live or keep a person from dieing. If there is only us then how come we can't control us. How come we humans can't determine if we die or not ( in the physical sense)

Non sequiter. Humans are natural entities, whose existence is governed by natural laws. As natural beings we cannot transcend those laws, because those laws are imprinted on reality itself.

This very life screams out there must be something greater than you and I.

 Yes. It's called the Universe.

If Humans are just all to this whole thing life then we should be able to keep ourselves from dieing but we can't

 That doesn't make any sense. See above. There is no physical law saying that we cannot acheive immortality, we just dont have advanced enough technology or understanding.

 we should be able to create dirt or whatever we want. but we can't

We cannot create matter. That is an axiom of reality which cannot be broken. What on Earth are you talking about??? 

 There Has to be a GOD!!

What leads you to this absurd conclusion? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
And to reiterate todangst's

And to reiterate todangst's point, the Cosmological argument commits the deus ex machina fallacy: Offering an intractable solution to an intractable problem. Arguing the laws of logic to ontologically establish and entity which supposedly transcends said laws. That is absurd. To further establish the ontological incoherency of God, you may want to take a look at more of what todangst wrote on supernaturalism, and what I wrote here: Both of us are theological noncognitivists, which from our point of view would make your fallacy even more glaring.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod--  How did I

deludedgod--

 How did I come to a conclusion that there is a God.  

I came to that conculsion based on creation and faith. I know thats not good for you but thats how.

since we are under these natural laws and we can't break them, our inablity or power to break them and things we don't understand like how the sun sits in the sky without falling should all the more help us see that there is a God.

 

Can u answer a question for me

What happens to us when we die?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Very irrational points.

Very irrational points. Using the word "creation" is biased toward belief. Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. natural "laws" aren't like legal laws, they are simply explanations for how the world works.

When we die we cease to exist and our experiences end (in other words oblivion) - no way to experience anything without a brain or nervous system!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
What happens to us when we

Remove due to double post (PS Firefox and open source suck)


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
How is creation biased 

How is creation biased  creation simply means the act of creating.   

And if Human beings or so great how come we can't overcome these natural laws.

When we die we cease to exist and our experiences end (in other words oblivion) - no way to experience anything without a brain or nervous system!

Where, What, or How do you come to this conclusion? What do you base this reasoning on.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
What happens to us when we

What happens to us when we die?

 

Well obviously no one knows for 100% certainty, however we can look at what we do know

 a) When a person's brain is injured or suffers damage from disease they personality is seriously changed to the point of not being aware of anything in the most seriosu cases

Everything a person thinks,feels , knows, all emotions deteriate (generally considered by most  religous people to be their soul

b) On death the brain decays to nothing

 c) Combining points a and b, it looks likely you as a person becomes nothing

d) Before we were born we had no brain or mind and I was not aware of anything, full the purpose of this discussion I was 'dead' 

 This is not total proof of no afterlife but if there is one I certainly don't want to continue for ever in the state of someone who dies of alzhiemers

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Talking about having

Talking about having experiences with no brain or nervous system is like talking about digestion with no stomach or intestines.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Well obviously no one knows

Well obviously no one knows for 100% certainty, however we can look at what we do know

 

Thats my point You guys don't know for sure but we as believers know for sure, Nothing is worst than uncertainty- The bible clearly tells us what happens to us after we die,

If you are in Christ you go to be with Him

but if you are not then you have condemend yourself to God's Holy Wrath.

You can know if you want too and are willing to humble yourselves.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
News Flash! The Bible is

News Flash!

The Bible is bullshit!


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Think about this.....  The

Think about this..... 

The "law" of physics cannot explain the origin of the laws of physics

 

Many believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a ‘fact’ and, therefore, it must be accepted. In recent years a great many people, having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." -- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

 

To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself." - Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Michael Crichton. Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why would the laws of

Why would the laws of physics need an origin? Do the laws of mathematics or logic? Henry Morris was an asshat Young Earth Creationist and Christian Apologist.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
its a law it has to be

its a law it has to be thought of or created or made up IT"S A LAW.  every law in this world someone thought of it. There isn't one law that hasn't been thought of by someone..

Therefore the law of physics had to been thought of by someone and that someone is God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's really fucking

That's really fucking stupid. Like I said a legal law is made up. A scientific law is simply an explanation of how things work. 2 totally different things.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
It explains how it works

It explains how it works thats all it does it doesn't reveal the orgin

The law of gravity says what goes up must come down.  who makes the law of gravity like that.

The answer simply is God.

The Law of gravity didn't happen by chance just like the any other law that is proven didn' t happen by chance


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You really are stupid.

You really are stupid. Nobody made it. There is a big difference between a man-made legal law, and a natural law which is simply how humans describe the way nature works. So what if it doesn't explain the origin? Buy a clue. The way you describe things would be like saying cell theory is wrong because most people aren't in jail, and comparing cells in the body to prison cells.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
OKay - Im done. you calling

OKay - Im done. you calling me names that means i am making you upset and thats not my intention,   thanks for the convo


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
No, I'm pointing out you

No, I'm pointing out you don't get equivocation. And you are either ignorantly or purposely confusing the issue.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
oh ok, i will look

oh ok, i will look equivocation up to get a better understanding of the point you are trying to get across, cause you are right I am ignorant when it comes to that.

all I was sayin was that God is the orgin of everything

peace


CHRISTALONE
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
oh ok, i will look

oh ok, i will look equivocation up to get a better understanding of the point you are trying to get across, cause you are right I am ignorant when it comes to that.

all I was sayin was that God is the orgin of everything

peace


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How can something that

How can something that doesn't exist be the origin of anything, let alone everything?


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
CHRISTALONE wrote: its a

CHRISTALONE wrote:

its a law it has to be thought of or created or made up IT"S A LAW. every law in this world someone thought of it. There isn't one law that hasn't been thought of by someone..

Therefore the law of physics had to been thought of by someone and that someone is God.

Oh look, a watch man argument. Law is explaining a natural way of happening in our universe. These happenings do not change, and have existed forever.

 

 

CHRISTALONE wrote:

It explains how it works thats all it does it doesn't reveal the orgin

The law of gravity says what goes up must come down. who makes the law of gravity like that.

The answer simply is God.

The Law of gravity didn't happen by chance just like the any other law that is proven didn' t happen by chance

 

No gravity, no universe. Nothing would attract, nothing could become a black hole or singularity to start the big bang, and no universe would exist. This always existed, matter attracts matter. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod--  How did I

deludedgod--

 How did I come to a conclusion that there is a God.  

I came to that conculsion based on creation and faith. I know thats not good for you but thats how.

That last comment was actually a sarcastic pointer that all of your previous points were pathetic. It was not meant to be answered. And no, that is not good enough for me.

And you dodged every single comment I made in both posts except that one-liner sarcasm.

 since we are under these natural laws and we can't break them, our inablity or power to break them and things we don't understand like how the sun sits in the sky without falling should all the more help us see that there is a God.

We know why the sun sits in teh sky without falling. This is utterly ridiculous. The sun cannot fall because there is no directional point of reference in empty space. 

Please, sir. This is basic topology. The universe is composed of a sheet called space-time. This sheet is hyperbolic, and entities with mass exert force on the sheet via gravity. Any entity with mass has gravity, but the larger it is, the more gravity is has according to the inverse square law. The sun is extremely large, therefore has powerful gravity, which causes a large dip in teh space-time continuum. This gravity attracts other celestial bodies called Earth. All of these entities are anchored by the fabric of space-time.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
It explains how it works

It explains how it works thats all it does it doesn't reveal the orgin

The law of gravity says what goes up must come down. who makes the law of gravity like that.

The answer simply is God.

The Law of gravity didn't happen by chance just like the any other law that is proven didn' t happen by chance

Jeez. Dont you know anything about physics? Laws are multiple sides of the same coin in the same way that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin. The universe is governed by a set of laws, but these laws can eventually be tied together into a unification known as TOE. This is furhter complicated by the possible existence of multiple universes with slightly different constants. Furthermore, this is complicated even more without the resolution of the quantum paradoxes, because in quantum mechanics, all things have a probability state, which means that these laws can be broken, and seemingly axiomatic statements like True/False are not necessarily correct. It could be True/False/Neither/Both/All of the above, according to quantum law. 

Laws are axiomatic reflections of existence. They do not need a creator. Did you read the link I posted you? 

Come on, now you are just embaressing yourself. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism