A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: craterman

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Argument from ignorance is claiming that since we don't know the answer to something scientifically or objectively that it means god exists. It's completely illogical. You don't seem to grasp that using fallacies is a detriment to an argument. He's not saying your are wrong about god. He's saying that you are being illogical, just like I did in the response that was ignored. Remember, you are the one making claims and arguments about god here, not us. We are just pointing out flaws in your argument.

a reply to: craterman

Say the big bang did occur. Something may have caused it. What? I don't know is really the only answer any of us have. I say God. You say you don't know. But somehow I am wrong?

Yes, you are wrong because if you say "I say God" that implies you have some evidence that it was a God. "I don't know" is a perfectly honest answer. Your answer is speculation and your own personal belief. It has no basis in fact.

originally posted by: craterman
Again, you keep asking for material evidence for a spiritual world. Why would there have to be any? Is there any evidence for what caused the big bang? Then it didn't happen? Your approach doesn't make any sense. Is this universe eternal? You have no idea, and if you can admit that fact, then you surly have no idea if there is a God. You keep asking for equations. Sad existence it must be.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes there is evidence for the Big Bang:

The Big Bang model is supported by three important observations:

The expansion of the Universe as deduced from the distance-redshift relationship for galaxies and described by the Hubble law. Extrapolating the observed expansion backwards in time, one reaches the conclusion that at some time in the distant past, all matter in the Universe must have been contained in a small region of space.

The abundances of the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium) are consistent with their creation in a Big Bang event and not via subsequent nucleosynthesis in stars. In particular, the abundances of helium (the total amount is much larger than could have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis) and deuterium (stars can only destroy deuterium) strongly suggest their synthesis in the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation. As a result of the expansion of the Universe, it was predicted that radiation from the Big Bang would have cooled to about 3 degrees Kelvin at the present epoch.

The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence extremely close to that a perfect blackbody, permeates the Universe at 2.725 Kelvin. This is completely consistent with a fireball event in which the radiation field was in thermal equilibrium, and is perhaps the most convincing evidence for the Big Bang.

astronomy.swin.edu.au...

And this is your big problem: You don't read and you don't study. You make assumptions which fit your personal world view, but that view is mainly based on ignorance. Your logic is flawed.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: edmc^2

But you can't prove "the" creator has always existed so your argument, while seemingly logical, is still invalid.

I don't know why, but why do YOU atheist keeps bringing up a creator when it's not even part of the question. For the sake of the atheist here, I didn't include the subject of a creator in order to understand how a materialistic viewpoint can answer the question.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

I gave you an answer three times now - yet no reply?

originally posted by: edmc^2
I don't know why, but why do YOU atheist keeps bringing up a creator when it's not even part of the question.

But you keep saying things that allude to a creator like:

What was there before the creation of the physical universe?

Nothing? or "Something" infinite?

Implying a creator and that "Something" looks like a nudge and a wink.

Then there is your history.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: edmc^2
I don't know why, but why do YOU atheist keeps bringing up a creator when it's not even part of the question.

But you keep saying things that allude to a creator like:

What was there before the creation of the physical universe?

Nothing? or "Something" infinite?

Implying a creator and that "Something" looks like a nudge and a wink.

Then there is your history.

Well, to make it more generic and not offend your senses, let's not use the word "creation" then, when describing the EXISTENCE/APPEARANCE of the universe. Maybe we can use phrases like -"pop into existence" or "poof into existence" or "appeared into existence" "willed itself into existence" "big banged itself into existence". Will any of these do?

If not, suggest one.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

I gave you an answer three times now - yet no reply?

Sorry Phantom - almost forgot.

Yes you did gave an answer and I think we're on the same page on that one. No cause, no beginning.

Now on to the next q:

How can "something" without a cause and a beginning exist?

For example, space (the immaterial) between galaxies (the material) and the space separating particles?

The space outside of the material universe?

a reply to: edmc^2

My senses are not offended but it makes no difference when you say something like:

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular).

You are talking about a creator. No ifs, ands, or buts.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

I gave you an answer three times now - yet no reply?

Sorry Phantom - almost forgot.

Yes you did gave an answer and I think we're on the same page on that one. No cause, no beginning.

Now on to the next q:

How can "something" without a cause and a beginning exist?

For example, space (the immaterial) between galaxies (the material) and the space separating particles?

The space outside of the material universe?

It depends on what type of "infinity" you're talking about. There's different interpretations of infinity in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Physics doesn't like infinities because it doesn't produce any usable formulas. Solutions have to approximate reality as best they can for all types of applications like architecture, engineering, etc.

Space actually isn't empty. The energy of the universe should equal its mass. There isn't a fixed calculation for dark energy or vacuum energy. So we're left hanging on that one.

We don't know if this universe is infinite or if there's anything beyond it. Even if there was something beyond this universe, we would never see it because of our expanding universe - we can never go faster than the speed of light so we could never catch up to the horizon.

So to answer your question - it has to remain open. There's not enough information to even speculate.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: edmc^2

My senses are not offended but it makes no difference when you say something like:

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular).

You are talking about a creator. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Sure. No if or buts because I was answering a question about a Creator.

For the sake of this discussion though, God is not included, since, like I said - I was looking for an answer from a materialistic point of view.

Now if you want to include God in the discussion, by all means, do so.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

I gave you an answer three times now - yet no reply?

Sorry Phantom - almost forgot.

Yes you did gave an answer and I think we're on the same page on that one. No cause, no beginning.

Now on to the next q:

How can "something" without a cause and a beginning exist?

For example, space (the immaterial) between galaxies (the material) and the space separating particles?

The space outside of the material universe?

It depends on what type of "infinity" you're talking about. There's different interpretations of infinity in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Physics doesn't like infinities because it doesn't produce any usable formulas. Solutions have to approximate reality as best they can for all types of applications like architecture, engineering, etc.

Space actually isn't empty. The energy of the universe should equal its mass. There isn't a fixed calculation for dark energy or vacuum energy. So we're left hanging on that one.

We don't know if this universe is infinite or if there's anything beyond it. Even if there was something beyond this universe, we would never see it because of our expanding universe - we can never go faster than the speed of light so we could never catch up to the horizon.

So to answer your question - it has to remain open. There's not enough information to even speculate.

Thanks for an honest reply.

But like you said -

Physics doesn't like infinities because it doesn't produce any usable formulas.

Maybe it's about time to consider it since the biggest part of the mystery or phenomena of the universe is the invisible side.

Until that is looked at, the formulas formulated by man will be just one dimensional - the visible.

But even if we figure it out - I agree, there's just no way of finding out.

... unless one is open to considering the alternative.

a reply to: edmc^2

Well, the answer “nobody knows" was already given so why do you keep asking?

Some also said that the universe might not have a beginning so that is yet another answer.

We know your history and know you would love to prove a create and I wish you luck with that but you are far from there.

a reply to: daskakik

Because people on one side of this debate (and I am speaking about this not just in ATS but anywhere) do not read what the other side writes. They assume that these other people are Godless, and without understanding

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: edmc^2

Well, the answer “nobody knows" was already given so why do you keep asking?

Some also said that the universe might not have a beginning so that is yet another answer.

We know your history and know you would love to prove a create and I wish you luck with that but you are far from there.

What? Am I hiding? I don't have a history? You mean my threads are hidden? This is news to me. This is unbelievable.

Nah, I wasn't hiding, but the question was pointed towards atheists to see how you will answer the question.

But as expected, "Nobody knows - end of discussion" seems to be the default answer for most if not all atheists.

And the fascinating thing is, they offer themselves to be the arbiter of the truth even though the obvious is staring straight at them.

The finite emanates from the infinite.

originally posted by: craterman
Again, you keep asking for material evidence for a spiritual world. Why would there have to be any? Is there any evidence for what caused the big bang? Then it didn't happen? Your approach doesn't make any sense. Is this universe eternal? You have no idea, and if you can admit that fact, then you surly have no idea if there is a God. You keep asking for equations. Sad existence it must be.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I have a lot of ideas, most of them open to correction and many of them already corrected. As far as the idea where I asked you to show your math, I stand by it. If you can't show your work, you can't prove you solved anything.

a reply to: edmc^2

Who said you were hiding?

I said that some of us know your posting history and your positions.

It isn't "Nobody knows - end of discussion". It is "What can you prove?" then "You can't prove anything - end of discussion".

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: edmc^2
sure - like randomly happened by chance.

That is the point, you don't know either so why even bother trying to pass off "One can't "randomly exist" if one "exists eternally", as some kind of valid argument.

you still don't see it, do you?

there's no need for something to randomly exist if it ALWAYS existed.

it's an oxymoron to say otherwise.

Now we are just arguing semantics. Something with no cause is the definition of random, as it has no pattern or reason. Eternity is a random causeless untestable property because it allows for all possibilities to be equally absolute but only hypothetically because observing the conclusion or the birth of eternity or even the tiniest fraction of it would be a paradox, since one thousandth of eternity is an eternity. Using an unconfirmed property that defies all means of measurement or observation to deflect the infinite regression problem isn't very clever.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Back at you: if God exists, it must have had a beginning. What caused God, and if God had a cause, wouldn't that mean God is not the creator?

As for the answer to your "unanswerable" question: causality is a mental construct.

I can easily answer that question - He ALWAYS EXISTED, hence the Creator (Singular). But like I said - the question has nothing to do with God, hence it's pointed to atheists. So let's remove God from the discussion for your sake.

No God, no creator OK?

Here's the question - what was there before the "big bang"?

Something with a beginning - a cause, or something without a cause?

I gave you an answer three times now - yet no reply?

Sorry Phantom - almost forgot.

Yes you did gave an answer and I think we're on the same page on that one. No cause, no beginning.

Now on to the next q:

How can "something" without a cause and a beginning exist?

For example, space (the immaterial) between galaxies (the material) and the space separating particles?

The space outside of the material universe?

It depends on what type of "infinity" you're talking about. There's different interpretations of infinity in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Physics doesn't like infinities because it doesn't produce any usable formulas. Solutions have to approximate reality as best they can for all types of applications like architecture, engineering, etc.

Space actually isn't empty. The energy of the universe should equal its mass. There isn't a fixed calculation for dark energy or vacuum energy. So we're left hanging on that one.

We don't know if this universe is infinite or if there's anything beyond it. Even if there was something beyond this universe, we would never see it because of our expanding universe - we can never go faster than the speed of light so we could never catch up to the horizon.

So to answer your question - it has to remain open. There's not enough information to even speculate.

Thanks for an honest reply.

But like you said -

Physics doesn't like infinities because it doesn't produce any usable formulas.

Maybe it's about time to consider it since the biggest part of the mystery or phenomena of the universe is the invisible side.

Until that is looked at, the formulas formulated by man will be just one dimensional - the visible.

But even if we figure it out - I agree, there's just no way of finding out.

... unless one is open to considering the alternative.

In mathematics there are ways to represent infinity. But that's a whole other discussion. Fractals could be considered infinite I guess because there are potentially an infinite number of iterations for a fractal.

As for physics, it's simply because a formula has to be usable. If your formulas gave you infinite numbers, you would never be able to build anything! Even in QM, infinite numbers need to be normalized so that they represent some form of reality. That's just the world we live in.

On the theoretical side, infinite results are found for black holes and the singularity. What it means I couldn't tell you. To say it gets complex and weird is an understatement.