davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So you haven't disproved anything.
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
I did as much as it's possible to disprove anything. If you assume the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, that is to say, space-time, then it's unintelligible to postulate anything before it. Because everything that exists exists in space and time. What's the flaw in my reasoning?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So are you saying that cause and effect didn't exist before the big bang? are you also suggesting that the universe is eternal...?
If you assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, then yes, cause and effect didn't exist, along with everything else.
The universe could be eternal.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What do you mean didn't exist? Would you not agree that the big bang is an "effect"? can you explain how exactly the big bang "came about" without a cause?
Proof?
The Big Bang can't be an effect, since it would be the beginning of time. Causes require time in which to occur.
That is just one of the options. Not being able to observe eternity, it's just speculation. But there is no physical law prohibiting an eternal universe.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So what set off the big bang?
considering we know that the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning, wouldn't you agree?
Well, no one has come forth to dialog with me, so I will just post something that will be instructive to posters who are willing to dialog with me on "Everything with a beginning has a cause," and also, "The universe has a beginning."
Here is my message for this morning to all people readers or posters here.
1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
My critical observations on your posts (guys with irrelevant posting are not replied to, period):
A. Do you own thinking and speaking, don't bring in a link, If you have nothing from your own thinking and speaking, on facts and logic, then don't post. If you accept an idea from a link, then appropriate it as your own; if you care to, then just say that you got it from some source and NO NEED to give any link, because if the borrowing by you speaks facts and logic that is good enough for anyone intelligent to appreciate.
B. If you feel that as I said above in disclaimer that I am into converting you, don't stay here or don't post here, better, you go away from this (or my) thread.
C. Before you send your post examine whether you are going to send some product from your thinking on facts and logic, and not any fictions from whatever source, starting with yourself.
D. Just keep to ideas, don't try to examine or criticize my person: I am into ideas founded on facts and logic, you do likewise.
Okay, let us all keep to No. 1 idea, Everything with a beginning has a cause.
I know for certain on examination of the concepts in that idea that it is completely a valid idea, there is nothing in it of concepts contradictory to the rest of the concepts in the idea; if you see anything in it contradictory to the rest of the concepts in it, then point out the contradictory matter.
If you know of any example from objective reality of something with a beginning that does not have a cause, bring it up for the examination by everyone here, examination founded on facts and logic.
This is the way to do examination on facts and logic: first get your idea correctly and it must be a valid idea, then go forth in objective reality to look for instances where the idea is realized; if you reject the idea, namely, everything with a beginning has a cause, simply produce an instance from objective reality where something with a beginning has no cause.
Here is my example of something with a beginning that has a cause: The baby has a beginning, it has a cause in its parents.
If you don't accept that everything with a beginning has a cause, the best thing you can do to show readers and posters here that you are correct, is to produce an instance from objective reality of something with a beginning that does not have a cause.
But it must be in our universe where we reside in, and please abstain from theoretical speculations which are not in our immediate environment but purely in the minds of speculative folks.
So, dear readers here, when you read a post coming after this post from yours truly, and it is against the idea that everything with a beginning has a cause, but the reader does not produce any example from objective reality of a thing with a beginning but without a cause, in the first 50 words of his post, stop reading, it is a waste of your time and trouble.
By the way, if you want to dialog with me, put at the top of your post this inscription all in capital case:
PACHOMIUS, I WANT TO DIALOG WITH YOU, so that I will not miss your acceptance of my invitation.
Here is my message for this morning to all people readers or posters here.
- Disclaimer: I am not here to convert you guys to be theists, if you feel that way then please do not stay here. If my thinking and speaking from facts and logic is to convert you, then please go away from this thread. Please don't give yourself any importance in this regard, if I want to convert fellow humans I need not come here. My purpose here is purely academic, namely, to get folks in particular atheists to engage in thinking and speaking on facts and logic on their idea that God does not exist. So, if you feel that I am into converting you to be theists, please just go away from this (or my) thread.
1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
My critical observations on your posts (guys with irrelevant posting are not replied to, period):
A. Do you own thinking and speaking, don't bring in a link, If you have nothing from your own thinking and speaking, on facts and logic, then don't post. If you accept an idea from a link, then appropriate it as your own; if you care to, then just say that you got it from some source and NO NEED to give any link, because if the borrowing by you speaks facts and logic that is good enough for anyone intelligent to appreciate.
B. If you feel that as I said above in disclaimer that I am into converting you, don't stay here or don't post here, better, you go away from this (or my) thread.
C. Before you send your post examine whether you are going to send some product from your thinking on facts and logic, and not any fictions from whatever source, starting with yourself.
D. Just keep to ideas, don't try to examine or criticize my person: I am into ideas founded on facts and logic, you do likewise.
Okay, let us all keep to No. 1 idea, Everything with a beginning has a cause.
I know for certain on examination of the concepts in that idea that it is completely a valid idea, there is nothing in it of concepts contradictory to the rest of the concepts in the idea; if you see anything in it contradictory to the rest of the concepts in it, then point out the contradictory matter.
If you know of any example from objective reality of something with a beginning that does not have a cause, bring it up for the examination by everyone here, examination founded on facts and logic.
This is the way to do examination on facts and logic: first get your idea correctly and it must be a valid idea, then go forth in objective reality to look for instances where the idea is realized; if you reject the idea, namely, everything with a beginning has a cause, simply produce an instance from objective reality where something with a beginning has no cause.
Here is my example of something with a beginning that has a cause: The baby has a beginning, it has a cause in its parents.
If you don't accept that everything with a beginning has a cause, the best thing you can do to show readers and posters here that you are correct, is to produce an instance from objective reality of something with a beginning that does not have a cause.
But it must be in our universe where we reside in, and please abstain from theoretical speculations which are not in our immediate environment but purely in the minds of speculative folks.
So, dear readers here, when you read a post coming after this post from yours truly, and it is against the idea that everything with a beginning has a cause, but the reader does not produce any example from objective reality of a thing with a beginning but without a cause, in the first 50 words of his post, stop reading, it is a waste of your time and trouble.
By the way, if you want to dialog with me, put at the top of your post this inscription all in capital case:
PACHOMIUS, I WANT TO DIALOG WITH YOU, so that I will not miss your acceptance of my invitation.
Maybe nothing.
No. All we can say with some certainty is that it used to be very small.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
okay, well you believe that and i'll stick to cause and effect.
hmmm interesting thought, but it doesn't make much sense to me, still interesting though.
Which you know about through your common experience with the world. But how can that apply to such a special condition? We already know that at the quantum level, things behave very differently than they do on our macro scale.
So much for "thinking on facts and logic" when your posts are so clearly contradictory.
Once again, Pachomius, just get on with it!!
And you don't see the logical fallacy in that?
So much for "thinking on facts and logic".
So you provide examples, and limit us to examples, from within our universe, but then you wish to use the rules that you say apply to those things but to the universe as an entity in itself, and within the environment of the "totality of existence" (of which the universe is just a part) but where you can not possibly know the nature of the relationships between things? (Does time exist? Does logic exist as we understand it? Etc).
And you don't see the logical fallacy in that?
So much for "thinking on facts and logic".
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
They don't behave differently enough to change most scientists belief in the big bang. But it is good to see someone else thinking outside the box!
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
The Big Bang deals only with the expansion, not the initial event.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
hmmm well very misleading name... the big BANG suggests the beginning...
Thanks everyone for your posts.
Before anything else, I like to limit our discussion to the immediate environment were we exist and live and do everything we do, like having a baby, eating, getting dinner ready, etc.
So, please let us just leave all the theoretical speculations aside because we don't exist and live and do everything in that realm.
Those realms like the realm of virtual particles, they have to do with science theories, and the folks there are ever reminding us that their ideas are only provisional, and as soon as better ideas come up they will have to produce better theories, so in effect they are telling that they don't have the last word -- everything is provisional with them.
Now in our immediate environment where we exist and live and do everything and die and get buried, there is enough of science that is genuine science even though for some scientists it is not supposed to have any such things like causation, as in the case of parents are the cause of their children, and children have beginning.
Okay, let us concentrate in our environment, on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause; do you accept that to be in our environment binding at all time and in all space, and also outside of our time and space insofar as the outside world or realm relates to our environment, we can also infer on how it relates to our environment in term of causation.
So, let us just concentrate on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause, and the example is the following: the baby has a regaining it has a cause in its parents.
Now, I will indulge in a luxury by telling you this story about an argument between a theist and an atheist on everything with a beginning has a cause, with the theist in the affirmative side and the atheist on the negative side, insisting that there are things with beginning that do not have a cause.
Phase 1
Theist: I say everything with a beginning has a cause.
Atheist: And I say there is something with a beginning but without a cause.
Phase 2
Theist: I say, here is an example of something with a beginning that has a cause:
The baby has a beginning; it has a cause in its parents.
Atheist: And I say, I cannot give any example of something with a beginning but without a cause.
Phase 3
Theist: I say, you have no proof even from example at all, for you cannot produce an example for your position that there is something with a beginning but without a cause.
Atheist: I say I cannot name any example, therefore I win the argument because you have not succeeded in getting an example from me of something with a beginning but without a cause, that is my ignorance so I win the argument with my argument from ignorance, my ignorance.
Phase 4
Theist: I say, you are convinced that you win the argument owing to your ignorance of producing an example of something with a beginning but without a cause. That is not winning an argument from your ignorance, because to win an argument from ignorance, the ignorance must be from your opponent, not from yourself
Atheist: I say, no matter, that is my understanding of winning an argument from ignorance, namely, I win the argument from my own ignorance.
Phase 5
Theist: I ask you, Where did you get your education?
Atheist: I tell you, I got my education from atheists, we atheists don't hold anything to be straight or crooked, for us everything is the way we want to understand it, no matter the facts and logic whatever.
See you guys again tomorrow.
Before anything else, I like to limit our discussion to the immediate environment were we exist and live and do everything we do, like having a baby, eating, getting dinner ready, etc.
So, please let us just leave all the theoretical speculations aside because we don't exist and live and do everything in that realm.
Those realms like the realm of virtual particles, they have to do with science theories, and the folks there are ever reminding us that their ideas are only provisional, and as soon as better ideas come up they will have to produce better theories, so in effect they are telling that they don't have the last word -- everything is provisional with them.
Now in our immediate environment where we exist and live and do everything and die and get buried, there is enough of science that is genuine science even though for some scientists it is not supposed to have any such things like causation, as in the case of parents are the cause of their children, and children have beginning.
Okay, let us concentrate in our environment, on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause; do you accept that to be in our environment binding at all time and in all space, and also outside of our time and space insofar as the outside world or realm relates to our environment, we can also infer on how it relates to our environment in term of causation.
So, let us just concentrate on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause, and the example is the following: the baby has a regaining it has a cause in its parents.
Now, I will indulge in a luxury by telling you this story about an argument between a theist and an atheist on everything with a beginning has a cause, with the theist in the affirmative side and the atheist on the negative side, insisting that there are things with beginning that do not have a cause.
Phase 1
Theist: I say everything with a beginning has a cause.
Atheist: And I say there is something with a beginning but without a cause.
Phase 2
Theist: I say, here is an example of something with a beginning that has a cause:
The baby has a beginning; it has a cause in its parents.
Atheist: And I say, I cannot give any example of something with a beginning but without a cause.
Phase 3
Theist: I say, you have no proof even from example at all, for you cannot produce an example for your position that there is something with a beginning but without a cause.
Atheist: I say I cannot name any example, therefore I win the argument because you have not succeeded in getting an example from me of something with a beginning but without a cause, that is my ignorance so I win the argument with my argument from ignorance, my ignorance.
Phase 4
Theist: I say, you are convinced that you win the argument owing to your ignorance of producing an example of something with a beginning but without a cause. That is not winning an argument from your ignorance, because to win an argument from ignorance, the ignorance must be from your opponent, not from yourself
Atheist: I say, no matter, that is my understanding of winning an argument from ignorance, namely, I win the argument from my own ignorance.
Phase 5
Theist: I ask you, Where did you get your education?
Atheist: I tell you, I got my education from atheists, we atheists don't hold anything to be straight or crooked, for us everything is the way we want to understand it, no matter the facts and logic whatever.
See you guys again tomorrow.
