Mathematical Proof of God?

[Sheldon]

False as cited in references which have chosen to ignore and not respond to.

False, as is evidenced in those very responses that have pointedly not ignored, but specifically and conclusively addressed your assertion.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a fact that many contemporary Christin apologists do argue that it is a stand alone argument to prove the existence of God as cited.

Straw man, no one is arguing that theists have not tacked on assumptions, to this FIRST CAUSE argument.

 

[Sheldon]

The references demonstrated that contemporary Christian apologists like Craig present arguments that KCA argument is sufficient in and of itself to prove the existence of God, and you failed to respond specifically by simply using a broad brush response without substance.

So your broad assertion is that a poor apologist like WLC, has made broad unevidenced assumptions, and tacked these onto the FIRST CAUSE argument (KCA), is therefore evidence that the FIRST CAUSE argument is a theistic one?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know how many times I have to say this (no disrespect to you)...but..

1. We have both empirical and philosophical evidence that physical reality began to exist.

No WE don't. We have evidence it exists, but a beginning in the way you describe, outside of time space, is a rational contradiction.

 

[Sheldon]

2. Whatever caused physical reality to exist, could not itself be a product of physical reality.

Now, that is just elementary school logic..and circular reasoning should one decide to go that route.

It's elementary alright, now get to the unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic, that you claim is a plausible explanation?

 

[shunyadragon]

So your broad assertion is that a poor apologist like WLC, has made broad unevidenced assumptions, and tacked these onto the FIRST CAUSE argument (KCA), is, therefore, evidence that the FIRST CAUSE argument is a theistic one?

Too wordy to be meaningful and nothing tacked on. It is not a broad assertion (?). It is simply a fact that WLC is one of the most recognized Christian apologists, and he considers the KCA a stand-alone argument for the existence of God as referenced. I can cite other apologists that do the same.

KCA has always been and always will be a Theistic argument for the existence of God. No one uses this argument for anything else.

 

[shunyadragon]

False, as is evidenced in those very responses that have pointedly not ignored, but specifically and conclusively addressed your assertion.

More meaningless rhetoric. The references have been not addressed the references. All responses with only 'hand-wave responses' in this thread, because the references were specific the KCA was used as a stand-alone argument for the existence of God.

 

[ppp]

False, as is evidenced in those very responses that have pointedly not ignored, but specifically and conclusively addressed your assertion.

Exactly so.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly so.

No response to the references provided.

 

[ppp]

No response to the references provided.

We both know that you are desperately trying to hide the fact that you have failed to meet your toh. But I am happy to watch you try to pretend otherwise. By all means continue.

Mwah!

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Its. At T = 0. Not some "arbitrary time". Time can only start at the time that it starts.

This is nonsense.

That is like me saying “I will mow my lawn at whatever time I mow my lawn”, that doesn’t negate the fact that it is I who makes the choice on what specific time (or instance) that I mow my lawn.

And it doesn’t negate the fact that the question of “why did time begin to exist in the first place” has yet to be answered.

I already explained how this is non-sensical.
Causality requires space time to exist.
"a cause of time" requires events with temporal context to happen before time exists.

Which means causality goes out the window.

You are WRONG.

I already gave an example of how X and cause Y without either the cause or effect existing in time.

What makes no sense is to try and say that there was another option for time to being then at the start of time.

Time began at T = 0. The ide of having other options is just bizar.

What makes no sense is how could time itself begin to exist if there were no pre-deterministic factors (on your view) which would have allowed it to do such.

If time began to exist, then whatever gave it its beginning could not be a product of time, and everything within physical reality does in fact exist within time, so it is irrational to even consider a naturalistic explanation.

Why were you born at age 0? And not at age -5 or 15?
Your age at the time of your birth is not arbitrary. It's 0.

False equivalency.

Obviously, I owe my existence to something outside of myself. Just like time would owe its beginning (and existence) to something outside of it.

So again, what could give time itself its beginning?

When you ask "at what time" the universe started, you are essentially asking about the age of time.
T = 0, the start of time, is the reference point. And the only option.

You seem to not be aware of the problem with talking about temporal events in an environment where temporality does not exist....

You keep stressing this point as if it helps your case when it doesn’t. And the fact that you can’t see that it doesn’t help your case is disgusting.

If time had a beginning, why did it begin, PERIOD?

What kind of atemporal reality can be the foundation of temporal reality?

You are logically prohibited from using ANY naturalistic explanation…so I am curious to see what can you appeal to which will explain the effect.

"Nature", like "cosmos", encompasses everything that 'is' and is not necessarily restricted to this space-time bubble.

Well, when you a discovery of another space-time bubble out there, then we will extend “cosmos” to that locale as well.

Until then, lets stick to the only universe we know about, which is ours.

You fail since your "explanations" are invested with fallacies and unsupported premises. Like in this very quote, where you simply "declare" without evidence that the space-time continuum is an "effect".

What is your evidence of this?
To me, it's a non-sensical statement.
Because an effect has a cause that happened BEFORE the effect.
But the "effect" here, is time itself. So for that to have a cause, you need a "before time".

First of all, you are WRONG.

A cause does not necessarily have to precede its effect.

I already gave an example of a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity. The indentation on the cushion is the effect of the ball resting on it, but cause never preceded its effect.

I wonder how many times I will have to say this. So, not only are you wrong there, but you still didn’t answer my question on what could have given time its beginning.

I am still waiting on that one, and I wonder how long will I have to wait.

Again, it's so funny that you accuse me of trying to use "nature to create nature", while it's in fact YOU who's trying to use the physics of the universe, to try and explain the universe.

You are WRONG. I am using God to explain the origins of the universe not physics.

You yourself are guilty of the strawman you (incorrectly) accuse me off.

Nonsense.

"sad" is an emotional state produced by the brain.

Who or what is experience the emotional state of the sadness? Is it my neurons? Is it my brain? Who?

No, that is based on vast amounts of empirical evidence from neurology, psychiatry, etc.

The evidence shows correlation. It doesn’t show absolute origins.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I was trying to give constructive criticism to you. It seems a lot of people have made arguments against that particular claim of yours, but based on my conversation with you, it seems we have all misunderstood it.

What particular claim are you talking about? Based on the quotes that you referenced, I am not seeing what is being misunderstood.

The quote was about the age of the universe, which I said was 137 billion years ago (when I meant 13.7)...besides that minor error, I do not know what you think isn't being clarified.

However, speaking of misunderstandings, I have spent practically the entire thread (since I joined the discussion) pointing out misunderstandings that YOU GUYS have been having as it relates to the KCA.

So, that is where the misunderstandings have been coming from. Not from me.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

All irrelevant.
You said "the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense".
The taxpayer loses vast sums due to the church not paying any tax on its vast wealth.
You were wrong.

Nonsense.

Churches aren't for-profit organizations, so they shouldn't have to pay taxes....nor should church members feel obligated (legally or scripturally) to give money to the church.

Second, why should churches have to pay YOU anything in the first place, when you don't even believe in God?

Makes no sense.

It also makes no sense as to why I, as a tax payer, am paying for your religion (evolution) to be taught in schools.

Now, if you will pay for Christianity taught in schools, I will pay for evolution to be taught in schools. But we both know that ain't happening.

But why wouldn't you want to disprove evolution? It would be a massive boost for god and religionists. And if you don't want the money, you could donate it to charity. I hear that the church is always looking for more money.
It's almost as if you are unable to disprove it.

It is proven based on every zoo or farm that I've ever been to. I only see animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

I understand that some people believe that hundreds of millions of years ago, there were these macro-changes in nature, but I don't have any convincing evidence to believe in such things.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I'm guessing you're from one of the Southern states?

You are WRONG.

 

[shunyadragon]

We both know that you are desperately trying to hide the fact that you have failed to meet your toh. But I am happy to watch you try to pretend otherwise. By all means continue.

Mwah!

Failure to respond to references cited. Appealing to the approval of others' that do not respond to the references either does not help your case,

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution based on a religious agenda is glaringly apparent. 95%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution support the evolution of all life including humans

Ok, so using your logic, at least 95% of Christians believe in the second coming of Jesus.

So I guess that means that they are correct.

SMH.

Dogs evolved from wolves and yes possibly will continue to evolve.

Dogs may have evolved from the wolf, but they are still clearly the same kind of animal.

Yes, there is objectively verifiable evidence for the fossils and genetic evidence that there exist many intermediates between Avian reptiles and birds,

When you discover a fossil, you don't know if that fossil had any children, and you certain don't know if it had different kinds of children.

 

[rational experiences]

Father's human over conscious advice.

From all men who lived good lives.

Says. The Roman Catholic confessed rich man said we are human hypocrites in science. Outlawed it legally.

Alchemy science beginnings were forbidden.

As men knew science was wrong.

Human men didn't think science into creation. Human men lived exactly as equals to their position.

Said any thesis cosmic is O earth mass. Burning alight energy cooling gases in space vacuum no rock. Space history exact relative to cosmic void vacuum....science themes.

In a machine earth... earth based science theme.

Even if the thesis is falsely using earths heavens. They are lying incorrectly about natural history in the cosmos.

Real men...intelligent men..honest men who confessed....father we are sorry we lied and would not heed human spirituality as just men.

Is our lived human history the human science brother hypocrite.

Once named as satanist...changed to use of the name scientist.

Why two types of scientific man human theist argues today.

One on behalf of natural presence as a natural man human. The other to destroy attack life. By want and personal only motivation and agreement that family aren't as worthy as they are.

As they theory the Jesus life sacrificed by heavens terms wanting it.

 

[shunyadragon]

You already admitted that time began to exist...so what can give rise to temporal physical reality?

Quantum Mechanics

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

According to actual science?!?!?! ALL cosmologists and Physicists believe that our universe and all possible universes formed from preexisting matter and energy in the Quantum state, or our universe and all possible universes are cyclic in nature without a beginning nor end.

You need to cite references to support the bold above.

It isn't about what they believe, it is about what can be scientifically proven.

Anyone can "believe" anything.

The Standard Model of the Big Bang has the most empirical evidence supporting it, and according to that model, there was no preexisting matter and energy...the big bang was literally the beginning of all space, time, energy, and matter.

That may not sit right with you, but too bad.

Not only that, but preexisting matter existing throughout infinite time defies sound logical reasoning, and thus cannot happen.

An absolute beginning is necessary.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Quantum Mechanics

Nonsense. Anything within physical reality exists within time...and quantum phenomena is not exempt.