Cosmological argument for God

This_person

Well-Known Member
there was no gotcha, the implication is still there. where did god get the stuff to create the universe and where was he when he created it.
This is a valid question for us both. Where DID the stuff come from when there was not stuff, no time, no universe.

Again, by raising the question, you acknowledge that the source is beyond the universe to answer - acknowledging therefore that there is something other than the universe as a source of the universe.

Once that settles in as an obvious to you, you can see the arguments against God evaporate. I'm not saying it's proof there is a God - it's not proof there is a God. I'm saying any and all of the arguments against a God's existence must go away as entirely without foundation.
besides, you are being obtuse, if there was a big bang, then there was obviously something before it. just because you start your clock at the big bang doesn't mean that nothing existed before hand, time, or matter, or energy.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what the Big Bang theory is. You know, the theory with scientific evidence supporting it :lol:
and a theory about time being woven into the fabric of the universe is just that, a theory.
Again, one with evidence supporting (not proving, supporting) it. (see: Theory of Relativity, or the bulk of stuff from Hawkings)

Actually, the concept of time woven into space (which did not exist until the universe did, which did not exist until the Big Bang) has gobs more supporting evidence than humans, pine trees, and mosquitos all coming from momma sponge. :killingme
 

tommyjones

New Member
This is a valid question for us both. Where DID the stuff come from when there was not stuff, no time, no universe.

Again, by raising the question, you acknowledge that the source is beyond the universe to answer - only beyond current human abilityacknowledging therefore that there is something other than the universe as a source of the universe.

Once that settles in as an obvious to you, you can see the arguments against God evaporate. I'm not saying it's proof there is a God - it's not proof there is a God. I'm saying any and all of the arguments against a God's existence must go away as entirely without foundation.Actually, that's EXACTLY what the Big Bang theory is. You know, the theory with scientific evidence supporting it :lol:Again, one with evidence supporting (not proving, supporting) it. (see: Theory of Relativity, or the bulk of stuff from Hawkings)

Actually, the concept of time woven into space (which did not exist until the universe did, which did not exist until the Big Bang) has gobs more supporting evidence than humans, pine trees, and mosquitos all coming from momma sponge. :killingme

as for your time interwoven with space theory. i certainly haven't seen nearly the same evidence for that as i have for evolution. Now maybe it is there, but i certainly haven't seen it. Considering time was created by humans we can easily chnge where we start counting. in other words, what you are using as zero might not really be so. Its much like the date, we call it 2008, even though we all know it was arbitraily determined by men, and that time existed before this.

you continue to make the unreasonable jump from "we dont know" to "that means god did it". there is no basis for this jump.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
as for your time interwoven with space theory. i certainly haven't seen nearly the same evidence for that as i have for evolution. Now maybe it is there, but i certainly haven't seen it.
Here's a quick explaination of it from Wiki. If you're looking for a little more depth, try Cornell
Considering time was created by humans we can easily chnge where we start counting. in other words, what you are using as zero might not really be so. Its much like the date, we call it 2008, even though we all know it was arbitraily determined by men, and that time existed before this.
You're describing how we measure time, not time itself.
you continue to make the unreasonable jump from "we dont know" to "that means god did it". there is no basis for this jump.
You must have jumped over this statement by me:
I'm not saying it's proof there is a God - it's not proof there is a God. I'm saying any and all of the arguments against a God's existence must go away as entirely without foundation.
Again, you're arguing against a preconceived notion of what you think I'm saying, not what I am actually saying. What I'm actually saying is that for both sides of the argument the source of the universe, energy, matter, etc., implies something beyond the universe.
 

tommyjones

New Member
Here's a quick explaination of it from Wiki. If you're looking for a little more depth, try CornellYou're describing how we measure time, not time itself.You must have jumped over this statement by me:Again, you're arguing against a preconceived notion of what you think I'm saying, not what I am actually saying. What I'm actually saying is that for both sides of the argument the source of the universe, energy, matter, etc., implies something beyond the universe.

you said there was prof, all i se is a bunch of talk about a theory. not a single piece of evidence, not hardly equivalent to the fossil evidence we have for evolution.

the time space continum is something that may help to simplify man made formulas, but that certainly isn't evidence that it is true.
 

foodcritic

New Member
as for your time interwoven with space theory. i certainly haven't seen nearly the same evidence for that as i have for evolution. Now maybe it is there, but i certainly haven't seen it. Considering time was created by humans we can easily chnge where we start counting. in other words, what you are using as zero might not really be so. Its much like the date, we call it 2008, even though we all know it was arbitraily determined by men, and that time existed before this.

you continue to make the unreasonable jump from "we dont know" to "that means god did it". there is no basis for this jump.

Maybe this is why he is always late for work....:lmao:
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
To you, of course it doesn't. To Christians it makes perfect sense. So why persist?

I think this is where you are confused.

I, for one, believe there must be a supreme being, a God for no better choice of a word. However I believe Christianity and Organized religion as a whole are a mockery.

I believe in Evolution, I believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old, closer to a trillion years old, but there had to be a "higher power" involved somewhere. What started the ball rolling?

I believe most everything in the Bible is beyond unbelievable, and are nothing more then fables built around the knowledge man had 2000 years ago. I find it hard to believe, with our knowledge, and our minds, we still believe the stories in the Bible to be fact, yet nothing like it can happen in today's world. (if you say it did they put you in a padded room).


So I believe in "God", I don't believe in the cults that we today call religion.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
you said there was prof, all i se is a bunch of talk about a theory. not a single piece of evidence, not hardly equivalent to the fossil evidence we have for evolution.

the time space continum is something that may help to simplify man made formulas, but that certainly isn't evidence that it is true.
You're a skeptic, that's good! That attitude is what keeps science moving all the time.

I did NOT say there was proof, I said there was evidence supporting the theory. Like the fossil "evidence" we have that helps us surmise a species has changed over time, every time an atom splits in a nuclear reactor and we can predict with great certainty the amount of energy that will produce we have "evidence" supporting E=MC^2, which supports the space-time concept.

Even if you don't accept the current scientific belief in an interwoven space and time there is absolutely no way of getting around the idea that the basic building blocks of energy and mass of the universe must have come from something outside the universe.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
And while i respect your belief, after seeing some of the "passing" you've done on base i can understand your need for a God :lmao:

I don't THINK I've ever passed anyone ON base.... have I??


Do like to 'drag a knee' going out towards the back gate though.
 

tommyjones

New Member
You're a skeptic, that's good! That attitude is what keeps science moving all the time.

I did NOT say there was proof, I said there was evidence supporting the theory. Like the fossil "evidence" we have that helps us surmise a species has changed over time, every time an atom splits in a nuclear reactor and we can predict with great certainty the amount of energy that will produce we have "evidence" supporting E=MC^2, which supports the space-time concept.

Even if you don't accept the current scientific belief in an interwoven space and time there is absolutely no way of getting around the idea that the basic building blocks of energy and mass of the universe must have come from something outside the universe.

what about that pesky law of conservation of energy?


just because we have found an equaton that represents or predicts a reaction does not mean that the equations accurately describes the reality of what is happening in the reaction.

accurately predicting an outcome and fully undertanding all of the the intregal workings are two completely different things.
 

foodcritic

New Member
I think this is where you are confused.

I, for one, believe there must be a supreme being, a God for no better choice of a word. However I believe Christianity and Organized religion as a whole are a mockery.

I believe in Evolution, I believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old, closer to a trillion years old, but there had to be a "higher power" involved somewhere. What started the ball rolling?

I believe most everything in the Bible is beyond unbelievable, and are nothing more then fables built around the knowledge man had 2000 years ago. I find it hard to believe, with our knowledge, and our minds, we still believe the stories in the Bible to be fact, yet nothing like it can happen in today's world. (if you say it did they put you in a padded room).


So I believe in "God", I don't believe in the cults that we today call religion.

Then you would have to admit, based on your opinion that there IS a supreme being, ogranized religion MAY be in fact the path to know that being. Your certainly can't rule that out can you? It is possible. I would argue beyond probable based on the evidence. To call the Bible a book of fables shows how little your know about history and archeology. You may not believe it's God's revealed word but that is a TOTALY diffrent argument. To say fables...that is ignorant.

No, I am not in a padded room....yet :whistle:
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Then you would have to admit, based on your opinion that there IS a supreme being, ogranized religion MAY be in fact the path to know that being. Your certainly can't rule that out can you? It is possible. I would argue beyond probable based on the evidence. To call the Bible a book of fables shows how little your know about history and archeology. You may not believe it's God's revealed word but that is a TOTALY diffrent argument. To say fables...that is ignorant.

No, I am not in a padded room....yet :whistle:

TO say 'fables' is an opinion, not ignorant. You should try to be more tolerant.

Reliogion, mostly, is a money making propsition.. A legal way to make a LOT of money and not have to pay taxes OR answer to anyone.

Kind of like organized crime, but you aren't going to go to jail for taking some octegenarians money.
 

foodcritic

New Member
TO say 'fables' is an opinion, not ignorant. You should try to be more tolerant.

Reliogion, mostly, is a money making propsition.. A legal way to make a LOT of money and not have to pay taxes OR answer to anyone.

Kind of like organized crime, but you aren't going to go to jail for taking some octegenarians money.

Fables imply fictional stories.....The is Bible full of very historical accounts and many...shall we say "miracles" or unconfirmable accounts.

If you want to call your opinion of the bible as all fables that's fine. It's still incorrect and either intentionally deceptive or ignorant.

Since you believe is some unquantifiable deity I think it's quite possible making lots of money may IN FACT be what that deity considers virtue??

Unless you can explain more about this creator? Why should we assume anything.:duel:


OH and that nasty little PC word you used "TOLERANT" I am not so.

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions"
G.K. Chesterton
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
what about that pesky law of conservation of energy?
What about it? :confused: You mean, the fact that it doesn't work in the first 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang? Or, that energy, as understood in this universe, didn't exist until the universe did?
just because we have found an equaton that represents or predicts a reaction does not mean that the equations accurately describes the reality of what is happening in the reaction.

accurately predicting an outcome and fully undertanding all of the the intregal workings are two completely different things.
So, this is sort of like saying "just because we find some skeleton parts here and there that fit our predictions of animals evolving does not mean that the skeletons accurately describe whether evolution exists, right?

Accurately predicting a skeletal find somewhere, and fully understanding why it exists are two completely different things, wouldn't you say?


Besides, I still haven't said that it proved anything. Just that it was evidence in support of something.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
as for your time interwoven with space theory. i certainly haven't seen nearly the same evidence for that as i have for evolution. Now maybe it is there, but i certainly haven't seen it. Considering time was created by humans we can easily chnge where we start counting. in other words, what you are using as zero might not really be so. Its much like the date, we call it 2008, even though we all know it was arbitraily determined by men, and that time existed before this.

you continue to make the unreasonable jump from "we dont know" to "that means god did it". there is no basis for this jump.

Maybe this is why he is always late for work....:lmao:
Actually we see this occur twice a year for no better reason than determining when we want sunrise and sunset.
 

Jam4eva

New Member
The cosmological argument rests on premises that one is not forced to accept. For instance, suppose Time is nothing more than a human invention used to measure something only human's perceive. If that is the case (and it certainly could be), then Beginning and End don't really mean anything where Truth is concerned (if you even accept the premise that Truth exists). That is, to say that the universe had a beginning may not really mean anything at all outside the human mind, and the whole argument therefore falls prey to those who say that the whole concept of God is simply a construct of the human imagination. Like Archimedes, every argument needs a pou sto or "place to stand"--a first principle, unproven and unproveable. It is from there you stand and argue. "Time exists" seems to me like pretty shaky ground from which to prove the existence of God.

Even if you "prove" God's existence, then what? Does it logically follow that he loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? Or maybe he has eight arms and pisses hot butter.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The cosmological argument rests on premises that one is not forced to accept. For instance, suppose Time is nothing more than a human invention used to measure something only human's perceive. If that is the case (and it certainly could be), then Beginning and End don't really mean anything where Truth is concerned (if you even accept the premise that Truth exists). That is, to say that the universe had a beginning may not really mean anything at all outside the human mind, and the whole argument therefore falls prey to those who say that the whole concept of God is simply a construct of the human imagination. Like Archimedes, every argument needs a pou sto or "place to stand"--a first principle, unproven and unproveable. It is from there you stand and argue. "Time exists" seems to me like pretty shaky ground from which to prove the existence of God.

Even if you "prove" God's existence, then what? Does it logically follow that he loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? Or maybe he has eight arms and pisses hot butter.
You really loved philosophy class, because there were no wrong answers, right?
 

glitch

Devil's Advocate
I posted the Moral argument for God's existence and no one tried to refute it other than attacks on the bible. I like this argument as well. I will sumarize and provide a link.



The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary
by Bill Ramey
The cosmological argument for God's existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended--and attacked--by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. Most of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments.

The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary

Pretty sure they've already mathematically explained and defined two different types of infinity. Bounded and unbounded infinity.

Bounded Infinity:

Notes about the an idea of a bounded infinity (BI). Something that has infinite forms within the bound part of another space. An extremely simple BI is a line. It is constrained to a particular part of a nD space (n>1) but has infinite points within that line.
(Bounded infinities)

Unbounded Infinity:

That's your more traditional, 1..2..3..4..etc, until...well, forever.

Do with this what you will. :howdy:
 

glitch

Devil's Advocate
What about it? :confused: You mean, the fact that it doesn't work in the first 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang? Or, that energy, as understood in this universe, didn't exist until the universe did?So, this is sort of like saying "just because we find some skeleton parts here and there that fit our predictions of animals evolving does not mean that the skeletons accurately describe whether evolution exists, right?

Accurately predicting a skeletal find somewhere, and fully understanding why it exists are two completely different things, wouldn't you say?


Besides, I still haven't said that it proved anything. Just that it was evidence in support of something.

Feel the need to note that while bones may not 'prove' evolution, since we can reproduce it in a micro lab I can understand why the scientific community at large has accepted it as fact. :eyebrow:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Feel the need to note that while bones may not 'prove' evolution, since we can reproduce it in a micro lab I can understand why the scientific community at large has accepted it as fact. :eyebrow:
Again, I'll as you to show me that lab experiment that shows the potential for humans to evolve from sponges. And, fish, too. And, since they're on land, banana trees too. All from the same sponge.

When you show me that lab report, I'll believe that there is any more evidence of evolution that intelligent design. Until then, I'll continue to believe they are both faith based, not science based. And, until then, I'll be right about that.
 

Jam4eva

New Member
You really loved philosophy class, because there were no wrong answers, right?

Wrong, I loved it because there were no right answers. :lmao:

My point is that science can never be used to prove the existence of God because one cannot prove "science," which is to say that science is merely a way of explaining human perceptions of the Universe. It does not "prove" the Truth of those perceptions.

Seems to me better for an apologist to start with "God exists and (for example in the case of Christians) has revealed himself to mankind through the Scriptures of the Old and New . . . blah, blah, blah" and then begin to explain the Universe from that "place to stand."

If a Christian is consistent with what I think is part of the Christian system of beliefs, i.e. "In the beginning was the Word," "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," etc., then Christian apologetics should have nothing to do with proving the existence of God. It is simply a matter of getting out the "word."

For those who enjoy proving the existence of God as a form of mental masturbation, have fun. It's a good exercise to keep the cobwebs out--much like working a crossword puzzle. However, unlike a crossword, you'll never solve it.
 
Top