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

[AK4]

I know. But you need them to provide proof if you want your argument to be valid.

This works both ways.

I agree that it's a difficult or impossible task. However, you took it on when you decided to present the First Cause Argument.

Again if all consists in Him and from Him, then He is the First Cause. The bible plainly states this

Assumes facts not in evidence. We're talking about the First Cause Argument, not the Bible. Once you establish that the Bible is true, maybe we can revisit it. Until then, bringing the Bible into the argument just brings in more unsupported assertions, which does nothing to get you closer to showing that the argument is correct.

Ive be debating from the biblical point of view this whole time. I just haven’t been backing everything I say up with scriptures because I know you guys don’t believe them anyway. But everything I say is coming from that prospective. And why is the bible not considered evidence when it is all about explaining God? How can you take away what is supposed to explain what God is when we are trying to prove what God is? That’s not right. Your assumption that the bible is untrue is just as valid as me thinking that it is true.

No, again. It's not about us having to prove that something can come from nothing; it's about you having to prove that something can't come from nothing, while simultaneously proving that God can.

What does the OP say. It is for you guys to prove He doesn’t exist. Now since you guys cannot prove that something can come from nothing----basically yall lose. You guys are trying to put the shoe back on us to prove Him when the OP says for yall to disprove Him.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence. In any case, it's irrelevant. A time "before the ages/eons" would still be actually time, in which case it's not "a time before time".

That was my point. Whenever there is a change is something you therefore have “time” and that’s why there is no such thing as eternal and therefore there will always be a time before a time. There was a time before there this time when there was no earth. Is this not a true statement? Okay well now we established there is always a time before a certain time and the more and more you break it down the closer you get to an ultimate starting point

Nope. More like "all effects originate with at least one uncaused cause."

No mine was correct because yours assumes multiple “uncaused causes”[ or multiple gods], Mine directly sticks with the one true God or uncaused cause.

Okay, then the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. How does this change the problem?

You take it as it cant be God but something like another universe, I don’t rule this out myself but until we know for sure, what I take to be before the BB is God

No more bunk than the eternal God concept, IMO.

So its more believable that a universe can sustain itself forever compared a being that has all power to be able to sustain not only Himself but also everything in Him like the universe [or if you will multiple universes]? Wow!

You keep on saying this, but you don't give any support for it besides your assertion.

Maybe if I start quoting scriptures….nah what would be the point

 

[AK4]

Biblical translations have nothing to do with time/space.
Your cause/effect argument is erroneous for many reasons.

• Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause)
• Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
• The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .
• Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe.
• Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time.

Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause) ----Youve still yet to explain how something that is the very first of anything can have a cause
Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .

Confusion of causality and determinism is particularly acute in quantum mechanics, this theory being acausal (in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects) but deterministic in the mathematical sense.
In modern physics, the notion of causality had to be clarified. The insights of the theory of special relativity confirmed the assumption of causality, but they made the meaning of the word "simultaneous" observer-dependent[6]. Consequently, the relativistic principle of causality says that the cause must precede its effect according to all inertial observers. This is equivalent to the statement that the cause and its effect are separated by a timelike interval, and the effect belongs to the future of its cause. Special relativity has shown that it is not only impossible to influence the past, it is also impossible to influence distant objects with signals that travel faster than the speed of light.
In the theory of general relativity, the concept of causality is generalized in the most straightforward way: the effect must belong to the future light cone of its cause, even if the spacetime is curved. New subtleties must be taken into account when we investigate causality in quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory in particular. In quantum field theory, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. A careful analysis of the phenomena is needed, and the exact outcome depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics chosen: this is especially the case of the experiments involving quantum entanglement that require Bell's Theorem for their implications to be fully understood.
Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories. For example, the notion that events can be ordered into causes and effects is necessary to prevent causality paradoxes such as the grandfather paradox, which asks what happens if a time-traveler kills his own grandfather before he ever meets the time-traveler's grandmother. See also Chronology protection conjecture.

Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe. ---so is quantum mechanics
Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time---this is a contradictory statement. If time/space didnt always exist, when they first started to exist, THIS would then become the first moment in time.

 

[AK4]

Simply put AK conservation of Mass-Energy in the 19th century were split between two disparate laws. the law of the conservation of Mass and the law of the conservation of energy. the law of the conservation of mass stated that mass (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form of matter into another. In other words mass can be neither created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of energy was essentially the same but is more difficult to visualize.

"Stephen Hawking expanded this understanding a bit further and explained how mass-energy's seemingly bizarre properties actually solve the riddle of cosmic origins. Hawkings described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space i.e. out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can adn does spontaneiously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws."

This information comes from David Mills who wrote the Athiest Universe. I found it to be quite interesting.

See that? "what appears to be perfectly empty space". What did he theorize that was there?---"random electromagnetic oscillations". See you get deeper and deeper and closer to the starting point. So the question next would be where did the electromagnetic oscillations come from? Did they create themselves?

Edit---deleted last few sentences

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This works both ways.

Indeed. So, when I'm making an argument, it's up to me to demonstrate that my premises are true and my reasoning is valid. Until that happens, you're free to disregard my conclusion as "not proven", just as I disregard yours now.

Again if all consists in Him and from Him, then He is the First Cause. The bible plainly states this

Ive be debating from the biblical point of view this whole time. I just haven’t been backing everything I say up with scriptures because I know you guys don’t believe them anyway. But everything I say is coming from that prospective. And why is the bible not considered evidence when it is all about explaining God? How can you take away what is supposed to explain what God is when we are trying to prove what God is? That’s not right. Your assumption that the bible is untrue is just as valid as me thinking that it is true.

I'm not taking the Bible away; what I'm saying is that if you want to base your conclusion on the Bible, then until you demonstrate with certainty that the Bible is correct, then your conclusion has not been proven to be true.

The last two thousand years of human history have shown us that it is either virtually or actually impossible to prove that the Bible is true. If you want to try where countless theologians have failed, I'm not going to stop you, but I think it's a fool's errand. And in the meantime, your conclusion will remain unproven.

What does the OP say. It is for you guys to prove He doesn’t exist. Now since you guys cannot prove that something can come from nothing----basically yall lose. You guys are trying to put the shoe back on us to prove Him when the OP says for yall to disprove Him.

Yeah, I agree we got sidetracked. I kinda gave up on the task in the OP when I couldn't get a satisfactory answer to the question "what is God?" It's a bit hard to disprove something if you don't have any idea of what that something is.

That was my point. Whenever there is a change is something you therefore have “time” and that’s why there is no such thing as eternal and therefore there will always be a time before a time. There was a time before there this time when there was no earth. Is this not a true statement?

I don't know. AFAICT, it's not a coherent statement, so it's hard for me to evaluate it for truthfulness.

Okay well now we established there is always a time before a certain time and the more and more you break it down the closer you get to an ultimate starting point

No, we haven't established this. I think you'll need to explain your reasoning again on this one.

No mine was correct because yours assumes multiple “uncaused causes”[ or multiple gods], Mine directly sticks with the one true God or uncaused cause.

But to do this, you have to use premises that, so far, you haven't demonstrated are true. Actually, AFAICT, you haven't tried to explain them at all besides saying that that's what the Bible says.

You take it as it cant be God but something like another universe, I don’t rule this out myself but until we know for sure, what I take to be before the BB is God

Why?

So its more believable that a universe can sustain itself forever compared a being that has all power to be able to sustain not only Himself but also everything in Him like the universe [or if you will multiple universes]? Wow!

IMO, it is. Your explanation involves just as many improbable phenomena as mine, except it invokes an infinitely improbable deity.

However, I never said anything about the universe sustaining itself forever.

Maybe if I start quoting scriptures….nah what would be the point

If you can demonstrate that they're actually correct, then by all means, quote away. If not, then I agree it would be rather pointless.

 

[averageJOE]

You pretty much got it there. I dont think you said it like this before though, if so i apologise for the misreading.

Good. Now that that's cleared up that brings us right back to this:

Basically this is what you guys are saying—everything always existed and then somehow, by its own will somehow, came to be in the order it is now. Now does that really sound logical?

This is the same logic you want us to believe about your god.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause) ----Youve still yet to explain how something that is the very first of anything can have a cause

You have yet to explain how needing a cause, then removing that need from the first cause is not special pleading and a double standard.

Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .
Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe. ---so is quantum mechanics
Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time---this is a contradictory statement. If time/space didnt always exist, when they first started to exist, THIS would then become the first moment in time.

You need to learn a lot more about what you are arguing against here. I would suggest reading A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking.

 

[AK4]

Simply put AK conservation of Mass-Energy in the 19th century were split between two disparate laws. the law of the conservation of Mass and the law of the conservation of energy. the law of the conservation of mass stated that mass (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form of matter into another. In other words mass can be neither created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of energy was essentially the same but is more difficult to visualize.

"Stephen Hawking expanded this understanding a bit further and explained how mass-energy's seemingly bizarre properties actually solve the riddle of cosmic origins. Hawkings described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space i.e. out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can adn does spontaneiously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws."

This information comes from David Mills who wrote the Athiest Universe. I found it to be quite interesting.

Just trying to see how an expanding universe fits in with an eternal universe

Quantum theory
In quantum mechanics, energy is defined as proportional to the time derivative of the wave function. Lack of commutation of the time derivative operator with the time operator itself mathematically results in an uncertainty principle for time and energy: the longer the period of time, the more precisely energy can be defined (energy and time become a conjugate Fourier pair).
However, there is a deep contradiction between quantum theory's historical estimate of the vacuum energy density in the universe and the vacuum energy predicted by the cosmological constant. The estimated energy density difference is of the order of 10120 times. The consensus is developing that the quantum mechanical derived zero-point field energy density does not conserve the total energy of the universe, and does not comply with our understanding of the expansion of the universe. Intense effort is going on behind the scenes in physics to resolve this dilemma and to bring it into compliance with an expanding universe

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AK4]

You have yet to explain how needing a cause, then removing that need from the first cause is not special pleading and a double standard.


So unless you think the universe is eternal or self existing, creation itself makes it not a special pleading or a double standard. Creation demands a starting point or a something to cause it to come into being


You need to learn a lot more about what you are arguing against here. I would suggest reading A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking.

I have. Cant say i fully absorbed it all though and ive read some of his other stuff

 

[AK4]

Good. Now that that's cleared up that brings us right back to this:

Only difference is that we dont claim that our God "came to be" or even has to "evolve" to become what He is now. See theres a big difference there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Only difference is that we dont claim that our God "came to be" or even has to "evolve" to become what He is now. See theres a big difference there.

Yes, the difference is special pleading.

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. The cause of the universe is God
3. God is not caused.

 

[Autodidact]

AK4:
If you set up your argument as a syllogism, it would go like this, right?

1. Everything which began to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe must have a cause. That cause is God.

Correct? Here are the problems that have been pointed out to you:
1. We don't know this to be true. It does not seem to be true of quantum events, and we cannot know whether it is true of universes, because the only knowledge we have is inside the universe we're in.
2. We don't know this to be true. The universe may or may not have begun to exist. As a non-physicist, I have no way to evaluate the claims either way. At a minimum, there is a viable contemporary view that it is not true, based on the best science we have right now.
3. A cause may not be a God or anything like a God. Wars are lost for the want of a horseshoe nail. What you are calling God may be the cosmic equivalent of a horseshoe nail.
4. Any such God would have to be "outside" of the universe (which may not make sense in itself.) If so, then it cannot have any direct impact on our lives. It cannot come to earth in the guise of a man, cannot inspire men to write Bibles, cannot pass on commandments to prophets or in any way affect our lives inside the universe. The only possible God-like thing you could get with this argument would be a Deist God. If God is "outside" the universe (wherever that is), then for all functional purposes in my life I can treat It as not existing. To put it differently, the universe contains all that exists for us. If God is not in the universe, then, for us, God is non-existent. And lo, He acts extremely non-existent!
5. You have no way to get from "the universe must have a cause" to "that cause is God." If you get there by definition, then you worship an unknown and unknowable cause.
6. You cannot show that God did not begin to exist, and so is subject to the same logic.

So, in sum, your argument fails repeatedly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The only possible God-like thing you could get with this argument would be a Deist God.

....

 

[AK4]

Yes, the difference is special pleading.

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. The cause of the universe is God
3. God is not caused.

Okay lets say the atom is the very first cause of the everything, please tell me how the atom could be caused to be.

If you cant then you are "special pleading" for this atom

 

[Autodidact]

Okay lets say the atom is the very first cause of the everything, please tell me how the atom could be caused to be.

If you cant then you are "special pleading" for this atom

We have no burden. We're not asserting any argument; you are.
We're not saying the atom is the first cause of anything.
We're not saying that atoms ever came to be.

You cannot escape the fact that you are special pleading. That's (one of the reasons) why this argument fails.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay lets say the atom is the very first cause of the everything, please tell me how the atom could be caused to be.

If you cant then you are "special pleading" for this atom

First of all, I have never claimed an atom is the first cause.
Second of all, I specifically pointed out that on a subatomic level, cause/effect may not apply in all cases.
Third, our physical laws only apply within our universe.

Therefore, there is no special pleading. I have made no such claims, you have.

 

[challupa]

See that? "what appears to be perfectly empty space". What did he theorize that was there?---"random electromagnetic oscillations". See you get deeper and deeper and closer to the starting point. So the question next would be where did the electromagnetic oscillations come from? Did they create themselves?

Edit---deleted last few sentences

I don't know what created them, but we do know they exist. The difference between you and me is this: I am comfortable not knowing and excited about someday finding out. You are not comfortable not knowing and immediately need to insert God into the equation.

 

[AK4]

AK4:
If you set up your argument as a syllogism, it would go like this, right?

1. Everything which began to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe must have a cause. That cause is God.

Correct? Here are the problems that have been pointed out to you:
1. We don't know this to be true. It does not seem to be true of quantum events, and we cannot know whether it is true of universes, because the only knowledge we have is inside the universe we're in.


You are assuming the quantum events are random because we dont know the hidden variables to know if its random or determistic. Now coming from the scriptural perspective everything is deterministic. Gee this sounds so much like something else.

2. We don't know this to be true. The universe may or may not have begun to exist. As a non-physicist, I have no way to evaluate the claims either way. At a minimum, there is a viable contemporary view that it is not true, based on the best science we have right now.

I disagree because there is a bigger majority who claim that the universe had a beginning. Not that numbers matter to me, but its become almost common knowledge of the universe having a beginning. So in this one also, you are wrong

3. A cause may not be a God or anything like a God. Wars are lost for the want of a horseshoe nail. What you are calling God may be the cosmic equivalent of a horseshoe nail.


I dont know what that analogy was for, was that an attack on my God? Doesnt matter. This is a very weak argument. A "may or may not be" argument can discredit a "syllogism"? Come on now

4. Any such God would have to be "outside" of the universe (which may not make sense in itself.) If so, then it cannot have any direct impact on our lives. It cannot come to earth in the guise of a man, cannot inspire men to write Bibles, cannot pass on commandments to prophets or in any way affect our lives inside the universe. The only possible God-like thing you could get with this argument would be a Deist God. If God is "outside" the universe (wherever that is), then for all functional purposes in my life I can treat It as not existing. To put it differently, the universe contains all that exists for us. If God is not in the universe, then, for us, God is non-existent. And lo, He acts extremely non-existent!

See thou knowest not the scriptures and believe what these theologians and churches have taught the world. God is not "outside" of what Hes created, whether if its just this universe or an infinite amount of universes. He is the eonian God or the God of the ages which means Hes not outside but rather as further scriptures would tell you we are in Him and in Him we move and breath. So here again your point fails and mine still stands

5. You have no way to get from "the universe must have a cause" to "that cause is God." If you get there by definition, then you worship an unknown and unknowable cause.

Except that by His Word or His spirit. His inspiring of the Word or writing of His word let us know we are not worshipping an unknown and unknowable cause. Have you not read what Paul said to those i beleive in Athens when they had a statue to the unknown God?


6. You cannot show that God did not begin to exist, and so is subject to the same logic.

Of course i cant. Thats my whole premise. God, the ultimate first cause of everything cannot have a "begin to exist" moment. Whether you call it a God or something scientific lets say for example a atom as being the very first thing that brings everything into existence, no one can argue or show that something else brought that very thing into existance. You cannot say the beginning of the starting line starts before the beginning of the starting line. Thats just illogical

So, in sum, your argument fails repeatedly.

So in sum your rebuttal fails because from the beginning of your rebuttal you started on a wrong premise and everything else fell with it

 

[AK4]

I don't know what created them, but we do know they exist. The difference between you and me is this: I am comfortable not knowing and excited about someday finding out. You are not comfortable not knowing and immediately need to insert God into the equation.

No you got me all wrong. Just like you i am comfortable in not knowing and excited about someday finding out because i know it brings me and everyone closer to knowing God. But until we reach there I trust that it is God behind it all. See big difference, i credit God with the things we do know and further credit Him for the things we dont know yet---meaning as Paul put it "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!". I also take that in a scientific way of getting to the deep things of God

 

[Autodidact]

So in sum your rebuttal fails because from the beginning of your rebuttal you started on a wrong premise and everything else fell with it

Once again we see that religionists have three arguments:
1. Circular.
2. Special pleading.
3. False statements.

Go back and look at your response. You're assuming your conclusion all over the place. And you know what that is, right? It's a fallacy.

 

[challupa]

Just trying to see how an expanding universe fits in with an eternal universe

At present, and correct me if I'm wrong, no one knows for sure if the universe will expand infinitely. Some have speculated that the universe will stop expanding and reverse in what they call the Big Crunch. It has also been speculated that this has happened in a cyclic fashion forever.

However, an eternal universe would need no creator. How it exists at all, is everyone's question. I don't believe in the bible and so that god is not an option for me. If you want to define god as a nature okay, but again I don't understand the need for god at all.