God is only one

[Tiberius]

True. It is difficult to explain the infinite in common language
Calculus uses the notion of infinitesimal quantity. It can be shown to be valid.
i.e. As we approach time t=0

So, does t=0 actually exist? Zero is problematic.
In any case, the argument still applies. "Where" did the universe come from?

No idea.

But better minds than mine have come up with some intriguing possibilities that do not require God.

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Not knowing the answer doesn't mean we should default to "Goddidit," and even if there was some kind of deity, it doesn't answer the question of where they came from. And it also doesn't mean that this entity is what we would call a God. Perhaps it just set things in motion and then wandered off and has done nothing since. As I've said, the first cause argument is not a valid argument for God.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

True. It is difficult to explain the infinite in common language
Calculus uses the notion of infinitesimal quantity. It can be shown to be valid.
i.e. As we approach time t=0

So, does t=0 actually exist? Zero is problematic.
In any case, the argument still applies. "Where" did the universe come from?

The answer is "here."

The universe came from here.

 

[DNB]

You seem to be irony impaired.

What are you talking about, I eat red meat all the time?

 

[firedragon]

You want me to make my own argument, when you can't do the same?

You never asked me to. And I never made any claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the evidence we have indicates that time is a dimension of our universe and thus doesn't exist outside our universe. But even if I were to grant you point (which I don't), the same logic works in reverse, and we can't assume that there WAS time "before" the Big Bang, so Muhammad's claim still fails.

Yeah, some people don't like the unknown and that can be found among both sides.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..and we can't assume that there WAS time "before" the Big Bang, so Muhammad's claim still fails.

I've already explained that..
"before" makes no sense in that context. The confusion arises due to our limited perception of the infinite.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've already explained that..
"before" makes no sense in that context. The confusion arises due to our limited perception of the infinite.

So if we have a limited perception of the infinite, is your claim that you have a non-limited understanding of the infinite?

Is in the end your claim that everybody else don't get infinity, because you have a non-limited understanding? If yes, please explain.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..is your claim that you have a non-limited understanding of the infinite?
.

As far as I'm aware, "our" includes us all.
I'm not an infinite god, you know

However, some people can grasp things better than others.
Some are bright when it comes to maths, and others, not so much.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As far as I'm aware, "our" includes us all.
I'm not an infinite god, you know

However, some people can grasp things better than others.
Some are bright when it comes to maths, and others, not so much.

Yeah, so how you think, determines what the world is independent of your thinking?

 

[Tiberius]

You never asked me to. And I never made any claim.

Ah yes, looking back I see that you are technically correct.

So, that being said, do you think the first cause argument is a valid argument for God?

 

[rational experiences]

A theists.... just a human answer.

I claim space itself suddenly changed. Then creation existed.

Straight away his human ego is told and you never created creation.

Why argue...as it now does exist?

Reasoning. As I want to create it as a recreation. And believes what he says.

So he looks at anything he can... trying to work out what it wasn't and what would it not be if it didn't exist.

To say then I will find the creator.

So his brother another human told him. You truly own an ego self destructive notion.

As you and I live on a naturally formed planet owning its own heavens.

My life cells o. Held in the spatial image of any form O. Held.

No he says lots of form is not yet held as O.

So as yet it is not a God O.

Let me pretend how a God o.became a God he says. Tells a story.

Yet it is all just human egotism.

We were self warned about human personality disorders named as the destroyer mentality.

For our own safety.

Why particular human ways of thinking are not acceptable.

As in our gods image O held mass pressure holds on our life cells in image of.o.

 

[Tiberius]

A theists.... just a human answer.

I claim space itself suddenly changed. Then creation existed.

Straight away his human ego is told and you never created creation.

Why argue...as it now does exist?

Reasoning. As I want to create it as a recreation. And believes what he says.

So he looks at anything he can... trying to work out what it wasn't and what would it not be if it didn't exist.

To say then I will find the creator.

So his brother another human told him. You truly own an ego self destructive notion.

As you and I live on a naturally formed planet owning its own heavens.

My life cells o. Held in the spatial image of any form O. Held.

No he says lots of form is not yet held as O.

So as yet it is not a God O.

Let me pretend how a God o.became a God he says. Tells a story.

Yet it is all just human egotism.

We were self warned about human personality disorders named as the destroyer mentality.

For our own safety.

Why particular human ways of thinking are not acceptable.

As in our gods image O held mass pressure holds on our life cells in image of.o.

Apart from my occasional responses, does anyone ever reply to your posts?

 

[rational experiences]

One God man's egotists theism.

Said you began as a piece of coal or nuclear dust. Human family.

His story I want a resource created from nothing as electricity.

Modern man's satanisms.

So science replied said converting dusts by Alchemy is only human applied.

He argued no God did it to its owned body in the origin of earth.

No it didn't it reacted into sin K holes. Lots of them. K his constant symbol advice. No ice then just water. Water poured into all holes.

In modern ice age the dust ground changed in your man I want a metal into gold product. The sin holes opened but so too did ground ditches form as ice melting occurred. So earths God saviour stopped it.

Where he gained modern day wisdom how to convert nuclear dusts into a fuel. Water cooled by ice melt.

Modern day two theism reactions by man's mind is now direct link fed back the designer of. Thinker to causes.

Design machines is controlled by his mind doing it all in psyche said electricity came out of nothing.

As he is communicated back to mind by two owned spatial moments taking pre burnt separated mass of two variations into a gain of electricity.

How he gained his modern possessed AI mind of science designer. Electricity came out of nothing.

How he says today nothing by two I get electricity. Now I just have to work out how to do it.

Is why our spiritual conscious minded brother named him our destroyer by his conscious status.

As we never began as a human in any burnt reacted reaction.

His idea is microbes formed in the water. Yet water isn't burning.

Then he says but water conducts electricity.

Placing our life as microbes in water conducting electricity equals no microbe living after.

Then he says no electrolytes in your bio chemistry.

We live in fresh water conditions not salted.

Then he says but humans came out of salted water onto land.

Always answers with a lie about an exact position of the human self.

The theist destroyer mind.

 

[firedragon]

Ah yes, looking back I see that you are technically correct.

So, that being said, do you think the first cause argument is a valid argument for God?

It is a valid argument for a first cause. God as a word comes with a lot of baggage. Which is a different argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a valid argument for a first cause. God as a word comes with a lot of baggage. Which is a different argument.

Okay, make your case.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, make your case.

You mean to make the first cause argument? Or why its a valid argument for the first cause and not God per se?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean to make the first cause argument? Or why its a valid argument for the first cause and not God per se?

Yes, make the argument in your own words. First we check if it is valid, then if it is sound.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a valid argument for a first cause. God as a word comes with a lot of baggage. Which is a different argument.

Then a deity of any kind. You know what I'm asking, please answer the question.

 

[firedragon]

Then a deity of any kind. You know what I'm asking, please answer the question.

I didnt say "any kind". I didnt even say "deity". Thats another argument.

 

[Tiberius]

I didnt say "any kind". I didnt even say "deity". Thats another argument.

I take it you can't actually address the issue then, judging by the efforts you are taking to avoid it.