Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

Originally Posted by MSizer

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Theres not one flaw in it or false in it. Yet the shoe is on the other foot with that statement in saying there is something before the ultimate cause. In otherwords you say there is no such thing as an ultimate cause

[MSizer]

Originally Posted by AK4

Theres not one flaw in it or false in it. ..

Yes there is. You're special pleading.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by AK4

Not at all. because if there is a law of randomness, then you still have whatever caused that law. Plus just becuase we dont know yet what causes these randomnesses does not not negate the cause and effect. We know that these random acts cause these thing to react, they dont just "happen" as what the word random would mean.

Wrong, Quantum physics posits no cause, nor does it relate to any supposed 'law of randomness".
Cause/effect is only completely valid in simple Newtonian physics.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by AK4

In a god concept, everything else requires a cause except for that god.

Special pleading.

Originally Posted by AK4

Ive still yet to see any science that disproves the big bang

And you won't find it, because the Big Bang did happen. But re-read what I wrote: science is currently silent about what existed before the Big Bang. Any claims you make about what existed before the Big Bang are purely speculation.

Originally Posted by AK4

I have already and summed it up in something cannot come from nothing. See below for why

No, you didn't. You made the claim, but you didn't explain it.

Originally Posted by AK4

Maybe they should rephrase it—how about “everything after the first cause requires a cause” and “there is nothing that can cause the first cause because if there was then that thing would usurp the previously known first cause”

Fine if you want to believe that, but "everything after the first cause requires a cause" is just an unsupported assertion on your part. It'd be more valid to say "everything we've seen requires a cause", but "everything after the first cause" and "everything we've seen" are not equivalent.

Originally Posted by AK4

What am I not answering?

You're answering in circles. You make claims like "the universe needs a starting point", and when asked why, you answer it with what amounts to a re-wording of "the universe needs a starting point."

Originally Posted by AK4

I think its you guys who aren’t answering or answer “we just don’t know if there could be something before a starting point. We think its possible to have something before a starting point”. See yall answer either I don’t know or its possible to have a starting point before a starting point. I answer that its impossible whether outside of the universe, space, time, or whatever that you cant have nothing before an ultimate starting point. Yall have yet to explain how its possible.

But that's not our job.

Here's the deal with the First Cause Argument: it tries to establish that God is necessary. It can only do this if its premises are correct and its conclusions are validly based on those premises. If it can't be demonstrated that the premises and conclusions are right, then the overall conclusion of the argument is not supported. This leaves you with "God may or may not be necessary". The thing you set out to prove is left unproven. You only get to "God is necessary" once you demonstrate that all the steps that lead to it are correct. If there's any doubt whatsoever, then the conclusion is thrown into doubt as well.

Do you see how it works?

Originally Posted by AK4

Really? There was a time when there was just God [the Father], then God starting creating. Actually to stay more scriptural, He started planning, then He started creating. So there was a time when it was just God, then God began creating, thus you can say before God created time or before God started doing anything there was a time when there was no time.

There is no such thing as "a time when there was no time". It's a logical impossibility.

And words like "starting", "when", "began" and "before" all have meanings based in the concept of time. Without time, they're meaningless.

Originally Posted by AK4

Oh so with you all encompassing love you can do everything and bring forth everything out of love? Is that love something you had always in you? Is it inherently in you? Or is the real truth of it that even that love you do have was given to you and not your own? So since it was given to you, you do require a creator-god and you have your first cause of your love.

Careful - those goalposts are heavy. You don't want to throw your back out moving them around like that.

Originally Posted by AK4

I don’t think you want me to go there. How about this, can you prove "Although there are many gods, but unto Us there is One God, the Father..." false? Back when Paul wrote this, how many “gods” were believed in around the world?

And this is all irrelevant. Even if the First Cause Argument were valid, it wouldn't lead you to "a creator-god exists", it would lead you to "all effects originate with uncaused causes". There's absolutely nothing in the argument that suggests that there can only be one uncaused cause.

Originally Posted by AK4

Lets see just off the top, big bang, background noise [which sealed the big bang theory], the escape of light, law of relativity, gravity, expanding universe, quantum theory/mechanics, hubbles law etc etc.

And you think that these things prove that nothing existed before the Big Bang? How do they prove this? Again, be specific.

[AK4]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Wrong, Quantum physics posits no cause, nor does it relate to any supposed 'law of randomness".
Cause/effect is only completely valid in simple Newtonian physics.

But it does require a cause because then you must ask where did the things that are seen come from and these things in quantum mechanics act or react upon each other. For example our whole solar system is dependant on each body in the system to "maintain" it. They all react/act upon each other and no matter how far you break down lets say the planet Jupiter and its gazillion molecules they all act/react within some kinda law. Quantum mechanics basically tells us how thing came to be as we see or observe them, it doesnt say that they came to be without a cause.

[AK4]

9/10ths Penguin

But that's not our job.

Here's the deal with the First Cause Argument: it tries to establish that God is necessary. It can only do this if its premises are correct and its conclusions are validly based on those premises. If it can't be demonstrated that the premises and conclusions are right, then the overall conclusion of the argument is not supported. This leaves you with "God may or may not be necessary". The thing you set out to prove is left unproven. You only get to "God is necessary" once you demonstrate that all the steps that lead to it are correct. If there's any doubt whatsoever, then the conclusion is thrown into doubt as well.

Do you see how it works?

Gotcha. And you guys premise doesnt stand then also because you guys say that everything came into being without a starting point, meaning it always existed or is eternal, thus God is not necessary. Everything had the ability to be and do what it needed from the get go. But wait there cannot be a "get go" because then you would have to explain why or how all the things got to be before the "get go" could happen. And so on and so. on never reaching a ultimate starting point or "get go".

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by AK4

Gotcha. And you guys premise doesnt stand then also because you guys say that everything came into being without a starting point, meaning it always existed or is eternal, thus God is not necessary.

No, we don't. We say that you haven't demonstrated that everything did come into being with a starting point.

If you're making the argument, then you're the one with the premises and you're the one with the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by AK4

Everything had the ability to be and do what it needed from the get go. But wait there cannot be a "get go" because then you would have to explain why or how all the things got to be before the "get go" could happen. And so on and so. on never reaching a ultimate starting point or "get go".

Again: there is no "before", "never" or "ultimate" without time.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by AK4

But it does require a cause because then you must ask where did the things that are seen come from and these things in quantum mechanics act or react upon each other. For example our whole solar system is dependant on each body in the system to "maintain" it. They all react/act upon each other and no matter how far you break down lets say the planet Jupiter and its gazillion molecules they all act/react within some kinda law. Quantum mechanics basically tells us how thing came to be as we see or observe them, it doesnt say that they came to be without a cause.

I repeat

1. Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics.
2. Time/space only exist in our universe. There is no 'before" time. First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. (A Brief History of Time)

So the proper answer to "What happened before the big bang? " is.....


Nothing.

[AK4]

9/10ths

Special pleading.

No that’s what it is really.

And you won't find it, because the Big Bang did happen. But re-read what I wrote: science is currently silent about what existed before the Big Bang. Any claims you make about what existed before the Big Bang are purely speculation.

Them being silent doesn’t equal into proof.

No, you didn't. You made the claim, but you didn't explain it.

How do you explain something so straight forward? You want me to explain were God came from? You cant. Why? Because He didn’t come from anything, He is everything. Again, straight forward, you cant say in a god concept that your ultimate supreme being comes from something. You have to say that all comes from Him otherwise if anything help make Him then that thing is superior over your God.

Fine if you want to believe that, but "everything after the first cause requires a cause" is just an unsupported assertion on your part. It'd be more valid to say "everything we've seen requires a cause", but "everything after the first cause" and "everything we've seen" are not equivalent.

Same difference. The bible teaches that we will see our God [the Father] eventually. Our God is Jesus and Jesus is to represent all that is God [the Father]. So in your own words “It'd be more valid to say "everything we've seen requires a cause", when we eventually see our God we will see that "everything we've seen requires a cause". Thank you I couldn’t have said it better myself.

You're answering in circles. You make claims like "the universe needs a starting point", and when asked why, you answer it with what amounts to a re-wording of "the universe needs a starting point."

Lets go beyond the universe, if there is more than just this universe, everything that has been created needs a starting point. Wheres the circle? Wheres you guys proof that anything created doesn’t need a starting point---oh that’s rewording again, here wheres you guys proof that something can come from nothing.

[quote]

There is no such thing as "a time when there was no time". It's a logical impossibility.

And words like "starting", "when", "began" and "before" all have meanings based in the concept of time. Without time, they're meaningless.

The bible speaks of a time before the ages/eons. I know you don’t belief the bible or should I say the scriptures but heres a chart and if interested check out the link
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:4I33A6RssCoJ:http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/E...&ct=clnk&gl=us

FACTS REVEALED CONCERNING THE EONS

THE EONS HAVE A BEGINNING

Literal Translation King James
Heb.1:2
God made the eons
God made the worlds
1Cor.2:7
before the eons
before the world
2 Tim.1:9
before times eonian
before the world began

THE EONS END, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY

Heb.9:26
the end of the eons
the end of the world
1Cor.10:11
the end of the eons
the ends of the world
Matt.24:3
the end of the eon
the end of the world

HOW MANY EONS ARE THERE?

Col.1:26
hid from the eons
Past
hid from ages
Luke 20:34
this eon
Present
this world
Eph.2:7
eons to come
Future
ages to come

A minimum of five eons indicated

THE PURPOSE OF THE EONS

Eph.3:8-11
Eph.1:9-11; Phil.2:9-11
Col.1:15-21
purpose of the eons
eternal purpose

Careful - those goalposts are heavy. You don't want to throw your back out moving them around like that.

lol

And this is all irrelevant. Even if the First Cause Argument were valid, it wouldn't lead you to "a creator-god exists", it would lead you to "all effects originate with uncaused causes". There's absolutely nothing in the argument that suggests that there can only be one uncaused cause.

How about "all effects originate with AN uncaused cause".

And you think that these things prove that nothing existed before the Big Bang? How do they prove this? Again, be specific.

No they prove that something did exist. If the big bang is the beginning then we believers look at what existed before that was/is God. You guys who think that the universe is eternal say that there was nothing before the big bang or there are you guys think that there is more beyond the big bang----I admit there might be more before it but the eternal universe theory is totally bunk. I can go with the latter but this still doesn’t take away a god concept. Cus the more you break it down the closer you still will get to the starting point of it all, thus you get to a God or ultimate starting point.

[AK4]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

I repeat

1. Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics.
2. Time/space only exist in our universe. There is no 'before" time. First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. (A Brief History of Time)

So the proper answer to "What happened before the big bang? " is.....


Nothing.

see post 972. The erroneous King James versions versus a literal translation of the word eons which means ages. Especially 2 Tim 1:9