Why God Exist!!!?

page: 26
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

edmc^2

I think you're confusing the material/physical universe with Space-Time Continuum or the "empty space" outside the (known) "boundaries" of the physical universe.


Of course you do. I think you just made that up.


That is, the material universe have/had a beginning (15 to 20 billion years ago - confirmed by the expansion, background radiation and other instrumentation in addition to modern mathematics). Thus ruling out the notion that it's eternal.

Thus indicating our present universe having a beginning that could be consistent with cyclic universe models and ruling out nothing.


As to what you said that the universe is eternal by virtue of the "cyclic universe" theory/hypothesis, it's in the same category as the "multiverse theory". Both are just ideas with nothing solid to back it up.

Yet the magic sky fairy does?


However, even if we assume that it is the case, you're just basically "kicking the can" to the next space time continuum with the same question of 'who or what started it'? Where did the energy/material came from?

From the previous version of the universe. Where did the energy/material for god come from.


In addition IF this "cyclic universe" theory/hypothesis is true, it implies a beginning and an end (Big-Bang/Big-Crunch). Thus begging us to ask the question - what was it then before the "Big-Bang" and after the "Big-Crunch"?

A singularity?


Was it the universe? If so, then, how so?

If not then what is it?

Was it "something else"?

I don't know. That's called honesty. Did you see how easy it was?


And one more thing - this "cyclic universe theory/hypothesis" is bordering in philosophy as it's akin to the (Hindu faith of) reincarnation.

that is...death and rebirth death and rebirth - big bang and big crunch big bang and big crunch ... and the wheel goes round and round where it stops nobody knows. What it will become of nobody knows...

Nonsense.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Yet the magic sky fairy does?


Not sure if you're serious or this is the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

If so, then you will not be able to grasp what I'm saying.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Yet the magic sky fairy does?


Not sure if you're serious or this is the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

If so, then you will not be able to grasp what I'm saying.





...and I am not sure if you are aware of logical fallacies, but this is a good example of one.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum

edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Yet the magic sky fairy does?


Not sure if you're serious or this is the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

If so, then you will not be able to grasp what I'm saying.





...and I am not sure if you are aware of logical fallacies, but this is a good example of one.


OK then let me entertain your argument.

Since you claim to be the authority on logical fallacies, which of the two arguments is not a logical fallacy?

"Out of something comes something"?

Or

"Out of nothing comes something"?

Please explain why it is not?



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum

edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Yet the magic sky fairy does?


Not sure if you're serious or this is the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

If so, then you will not be able to grasp what I'm saying.





...and I am not sure if you are aware of logical fallacies, but this is a good example of one.


Hey Cogito, Ergo Sum - if you're still lurking or around the vicinity of this post, paging your attention!

Paging Cogito, Ergo Sum!!!

Since you claim to be the authority on logical fallacies, I really would like to know which of the two arguments is not a logical fallacy?

"Out of something comes something"?

Or

"Out of nothing comes something"?

Please explain why it is not?




posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The creationist argument "something can't come from nothing, therefore God dunnit" is riddled with logical fallacies. Not that all surprising since as they can't play the evidence game they have to abuse the logic game instead.

1) There is a unstated major premise that the universe "came from nothing". This is not a scientific statement, it has no evidence for it, it is an unfounded assumption. It does not make logical sense to make assumptions about the pre-singularity (if there even was one) since we have absolutely no information to go on so any premise based on such assumptions is doomed to fail.

2) The premise "something can't come from nothing" itself is an arbitrary statement that is not in any way supported by empirical evidence. As with premise 1), this too is a false premise.

3) Even if we accept premise 1) and 2) (and, let's face it, there is absolutely no reason why we should), the conclusion "God dunnit" is a non sequitur as there is no logical connection between the (false) premises and the conclusion. You might as well say "I ate a bagel this morning therefore God created the universe". Both conclusions have about as much in common with their premises.

4) Even if we accept the (illogical) conclusion as well as the (false) premises, we have another logical fallacy: special pleading. The obvious debunking of this entire argument is "then how did God come from nothing?" to which creationists retort with a wry smile and knowing nod, "Ah, but God has always existed!". Notice how they exempt their conclusion from the very premises they construct to rule out a naturalistic explanation? One could easily say that the singularity has always existed, considering that time has no meaning without space and we know nothing about the singularity before the Big Bang. At least we have evidence for the universe existing so Occam's Razor can slice away such an untestable and superfluous assumption that a God exists.

So not only is this argument built on false premises but the conclusion has no logical connection to these premises. All in all it's a very naive and child like statement to tout as "proof" for any personal gods.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


You are right about only one thing. And that is that science dont know squat about the time beforte the singularity. Plank Time is their time limit.

To state that there is no proof that the singularity even existed is wrong. If you believe what science state about our expanding universe. It is proof that our universe was a lot more compressed earlier in time. "right" or is that wrong to for us to say?

What science have problems with is, what actually takes place within the singularity at its very beginning. Because there are no existing known laws of physics for scientists to fallow before plank time. But to state that what ever we say is false or unlogical is wrong, because you have know counter knowledge, because your source is lacking that knowledge.

There is no way you or anyone else can state that what we say is wrong. Because you have no counter proof. You cant even argue properly against our claim. To state that our clime is false is based on what proof?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why must God..like space and time.. BE? Rather perhaps.. It IS and Was..and ALWAYS WILL BE.

God is not a being.
Space is not a being.
They are.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 





..."something can't come from nothing" itself is an arbitrary statement that is not in any way supported by empirical evidence. As with premise 1), this too is a false premise....


Thus based on what you said, my LOGIC and my premise is THE correct argument then!

That the only true reality is "Something can only come form something" or to put in real terms "The Physical Universe is the result of SOMETHING (or SOMEONE in my case) already and always existing!


Hence "Out of something comes something"!

And since you're not able to refute this premise of mine, thus, I rest my case.

In addition, this also proves that the argument employed by those on the opposite side (of the argument), that "Out of nothing comes something" MUST then be a Logical Fallacy.

Thank you for confirming that!

So in light of this revelation, you're real argument then is this: Where did God come from?

To which I will say as stated in the OP:

The existence of INFINITE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM lends itself very logically to the conclusion that God can also exist without being created.

Otherwise, who or what created the infinite space-time continuum?

How can something always existing be created?

It can't, otherwise one will end up accepting the logical fallacy that "Out of nothing comes something" infinite.

Of course, you're entitled to believe your premise however illogical it is.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

WhoWhatWhenWhere2420
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why must God..like space and time.. BE? Rather perhaps.. It IS and Was..and ALWAYS WILL BE.

God is not a being.
Space is not a being.
They are.


Of course God is a Being by virtue of the fact that His attributes "are clearly perceived in all his creation" (Rom 1:20 - if you want to know where the quote came from).

while space-time is a "thing" - something (a concept of infinity).



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

edmc^2

WhoWhatWhenWhere2420
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why must God..like space and time.. BE? Rather perhaps.. It IS and Was..and ALWAYS WILL BE.

God is not a being.
Space is not a being.
They are.


Of course God is a Being by virtue of the fact that His attributes "are clearly perceived in all his creation" (Rom 1:20 - if you want to know where the quote came from).

while space-time is a "thing" - something (a concept of infinity).






Personaly i dont agree that God is a being. God is thee infinite. That God takes up all space there is. God is thee absolute.

The only likeness between us and God is our awareness. Our morals are not like the morals of God. Because Gods morals are absolute constant and never changing. Our morals changes as we progress in this material world.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Based on what we know now than what we know then, I say yes. Consider for example, the much maligned "fine tuned universe" argument. Although hotly contested and disregarded by some as "baloney", they still can't refute the fact that the fundamental parameters for fine tuning the universe exists! In fact according to incontrovertible findings, the fine tuning is so precise that a small adjustment to the parameters will badly result in the opposite of life.

I have to disagree. Our knowledge of the beginnings of the current universe and existence is severely lacking in order to make accurate probability table concerning its origins. Since we have nothing to use as a comparison there is nothing to make a initial assertion as to its origin. Saying something is so vastly complex with unknown beginnings has to be a certain way or came about a certain way when you can't even account to how it functions should show that we don't have enough info to be sure.
The fine tuned universe idea I have always liked. I don't personally disregard it as "baloney", but I don't support it either. The reasons for me not supporting it is the same as above, lack of information. Along with that is the idea that if this universe was "tuned" just a little differently would that discount life? We know of life on this planet, and in the scope of the size of the known universe I find it more than difficult to accept that life only works in this particular setting. I've seen both sides of the argument and find the same thing put forward with probabilities yet neither side has anything to base that probability on other than this small speck in space and time. That's not good enough for me.



Meaning, YOU set up all required instrumentation and rules and parameters for controlling the circumstances so that the outcome will satisfy the expectation. That is, measuring wind velocity, wind direction, height of the toss, amount of force applied to the toss, ground surface, distance, rate of fall/acceleration, background noise, etc, etc, even the flow of LA freeway traffic and types of car passing by.

Kind of lost me here a bit. I made no statement about setting anything up only that if the circumstances were right that it could happen. If you remove me from the coin flip then it would rely on another circumstance to exert force on the coin for the initial flip such as sticking to a car tire and being thrown off the ground. Your asking what circumstances I'm referring too it's simply cause/effect. Everything that happens, happens because of some other event. We are unable to measure every force that effects an event therefore there is a huge amount of info lacking to effectively state the outcome. While we can with some things show a trend due to many factors the discussion of existence falls outside what we are able to predict, judge, show a probability of, or anything of the sort. All we have is theories or beliefs that best fit what we see is the most logical explanation for what we have today.



It's not actually a passion (per se) on my part but the LOGIC of it all is what driving me to believe that it IS the truth. And contrary to what Ergo said - I'm not "burying my head in the sand" in order to believe and accept what I've been saying - otherwise it's blind faith or a fantasy land living "in a jewel on a dog necklace like in MIB" (like you said). No, it's a methodical, analytical and logical process! So to me - it makes sense to believe / accept / subscribe to / adhere to - that "something infinite / someone eternal created everything (else) rather than "nothing created everything (else).

I've not made personal implication towards you that you are wrong or living in a fantasy world. I'm only stating my stance and questioning yours. And yours does make sense in the way it's presented for the most part even though I disagree.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 





Our knowledge of the beginnings of the current universe and existence is severely lacking in order to make accurate probability table concerning its origins. Since we have nothing to use as a comparison there is nothing to make a initial assertion as to its origin. Saying something is so vastly complex with unknown beginnings has to be a certain way or came about a certain way when you can't even account to how it functions should show that we don't have enough info to be sure.

...

That's not good enough for me.


Yet with the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe, we're able to launched space probes into the farthest part of our solar system and peer into the farthest part of the universe. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to understand the fundamental forces that govern it. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to split atoms down to it sub-atomic levels.

So at what level of knowledge do we need to have in order to make an accurate prediction and conclusion as to the Origins of the universe?

If none of these is good enough, then what?

Sit on a fence and hope that more knowledge will present itself?

Unfortunately for mankind - time is running out. Thus it's now to make the decision as to the origin of these things for our very existence is at stake.

If all of these came from something or from someone eternal then there must be an underlying reason for its existence. Otherwise like the poets of old who used to say "let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die".



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Yet with the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe, we're able to launched space probes into the farthest part of our solar system and peer into the farthest part of the universe. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to understand the fundamental forces that govern it. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to split atoms down to it sub-atomic levels. So at what level of knowledge do we need to have in order to make an accurate prediction and conclusion as to the Origins of the universe? If none of these is good enough, then what? Sit on a fence and hope that more knowledge will present itself? Unfortunately for mankind - time is running out. Thus it's now to make the decision as to the origin of these things for our very existence is at stake. If all of these came from something or from someone eternal then there must be an underlying reason for its existence. Otherwise like the poets of old who used to say "let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die".

Our achievements pale in comparison to what would be involved in the beginning of a universe. We can't make an accurate prediction because we don't have the information to do so. I'm confused as to what's so difficult about that and what the urgency is for you. No one said you have to sit on a fence and wait for anything. You and I both hold beliefs as to its beginning and they differ. What mankind needs to do is continue its search and not be complacent. There is nothing wrong with having a belief on an unknown, as long as it doesn't hinder your open search for the answer. I think where you and I differ the most is I'm fine with a god(eternal thing) if that turns out what it is but I haven't seen anything solid to convince of that. At the same time I'm left wondering what the beginnings are because we do not know yet. I'm inclined to believe it was a natural event, if it was guided in some way its a way we have no clue about yet, but that way doesn't appear to me to be a "being".



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

drivers1492
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Yet with the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe, we're able to launched space probes into the farthest part of our solar system and peer into the farthest part of the universe. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to understand the fundamental forces that govern it. With the "severely lacking" knowledge we have about the universe we're able to split atoms down to it sub-atomic levels. So at what level of knowledge do we need to have in order to make an accurate prediction and conclusion as to the Origins of the universe? If none of these is good enough, then what? Sit on a fence and hope that more knowledge will present itself? Unfortunately for mankind - time is running out. Thus it's now to make the decision as to the origin of these things for our very existence is at stake. If all of these came from something or from someone eternal then there must be an underlying reason for its existence. Otherwise like the poets of old who used to say "let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die".

Our achievements pale in comparison to what would be involved in the beginning of a universe. We can't make an accurate prediction because we don't have the information to do so. I'm confused as to what's so difficult about that and what the urgency is for you. No one said you have to sit on a fence and wait for anything. You and I both hold beliefs as to its beginning and they differ. What mankind needs to do is continue its search and not be complacent. There is nothing wrong with having a belief on an unknown, as long as it doesn't hinder your open search for the answer. I think where you and I differ the most is I'm fine with a god(eternal thing) if that turns out what it is but I haven't seen anything solid to convince of that. At the same time I'm left wondering what the beginnings are because we do not know yet. I'm inclined to believe it was a natural event, if it was guided in some way its a way we have no clue about yet, but that way doesn't appear to me to be a "being".


While I agree with you that "Our achievements pale in comparison to what would be involved in the beginning of a universe", I would disagree that we don't have enough evidence to make accurate prediction of its beginnings.

Indeed, for me, I have more than enough evidence to conclude that the universe was created by "Someone Eternal" rather than "something infinite" or a result of a "natural event".

In my next thread, I'll provide the (additional) information to prove my contention.

But as for God, the evidence is more than enough for me to conclude the He exist for the simple fact that "nothing", absolutely nothing is ever produce by nothing - especially something as complex as the Universe and all that's in it.

So to me, the only logical conclusion is:

There MUST be an Always Existing source of "dynamic energy" "power" - God (Isa 40:26) for all matter to exist. Otherwise the illogical statement "out of nothing comes something" will be the only real alternative.

In addition, like I already said, natural events lack something that an Eternal Being posses - Organizational Intelligence.

That is, nature is NOT capable of Organizing things into meaningful "patterns" such as the movements of Galaxies, stars and Planets. Or for that matter capable of Organizing particles into meaningful "pattern". Thus from micro to macro - only Someone who posses such knowledge, intelligence and Power can do such a thing.

Furthermore, natural events - if they show meaningful patterns - will only follow meaningful paths already been established. And it will never follow a random path resulting in a well organized meaningful pattern.

Case in point:

The spiral pattern of a sunflower seed or the chamber of a nautilus - they follow a unique sequence of numbers already set in placed in what we call the Fibonacci Sequence. Try if you may to duplicate it even with the aid of a super computer, you only can come close to its accuracy.

Drift logs - we see them bundled by the sea shore, pushed in by the tides. They show some "kind" of pattern but no meaning. And however many times this natural event is repeated, IT will NEVER turn into a meaningful pattern. Unless of course "someone with intelligence" rearranges it.

So like I said, the ONLY true alternative to conclude that the Universe came to be is that "Someone Eternal" created it.

And that someone is God.

BTW - God has a name. We know him as Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah!

(Psa 83:18 KJV) "That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth."



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

edmc^2

jed001
reply to post by edmc^2
 


you are trying to crowbar information into an equation to get the answer you want, God was created by man not the other way around


To the contrary, the evidence points to the fact that a creator of the universe exists.

God is not an invention of man but the evidence points to it. It's only those who don't want to admit the evidence that are in denial.

Case in point:

Which one makes sense and logical?

"Out of nothing comes something"

Or

"out of something eternal or someone eternal comes something".

If you say the first one- explain how?

Simple as that.

No need to invent anything but Logic and commonsense.







what evidence; please give me some of the evidence you speak of. your logic falls apart quickly,

where did the something eternal come from?

you just said

"Out of nothing comes something" does not make sense ..... so where did "God" come from



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Why do YOU exist?

Answer that accurately and you will have the answers to everything else.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jed001
 





what evidence; please give me some of the evidence you speak of. your logic falls apart quickly, where did the something eternal come from? you just said "Out of nothing comes something" does not make sense ..... so where did "God" come from


I've answered this question many times over already and yet you still asked?

OK then for your sake here's a simple answer:

"..... so where did "God" come from if (like I said) "Out of nothing comes something" does not make sense?

The answer is - There MUST be an Always Existing source of "dynamic energy" "power" - God (Isa 40:26) for all matter to exist!!!

Now if you can simply answer this question, it will prove my point:

Do you believe or subscribe to the notion that SPACE-TIME is INFINITE?

You have three answers to chose from:

If your answer is Yes - then by necessity, IT MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED.

If your answer is No - then it has an end, a border - but what's beyond its border?

If you say we don't know - then your search will never end and anything I say will not matter.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary.
--Blaise Pascal



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by jed001
 





what evidence; please give me some of the evidence you speak of. your logic falls apart quickly, where did the something eternal come from? you just said "Out of nothing comes something" does not make sense ..... so where did "God" come from


I've answered this question many times over already and yet you still asked?

OK then for your sake here's a simple answer:

"..... so where did "God" come from if (like I said) "Out of nothing comes something" does not make sense?

The answer is - There MUST be an Always Existing source of "dynamic energy" "power" - God (Isa 40:26) for all matter to exist!!!

Now if you can simply answer this question, it will prove my point:

Do you believe or subscribe to the notion that SPACE-TIME is INFINITE?

You have three answers to chose from:

If your answer is Yes - then by necessity, IT MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED.

If your answer is No - then it has an end, a border - but what's beyond its border?

If you say we don't know - then your search will never end and anything I say will not matter.


my answer would be , i don't know yet. your assumption is ; if there is no answer that is were God begins















new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join