Quantum physics found an effect that at the sub atomic level the energy of any reaction comes from no where to initiate and then release that energy nowhere after ward. was found that the only possible reason is the energy of the future initiated the reaction for the past. the future is predetermined, the end of our universe caused the big bang. like its always been the entire universe, alternate realities and all is just a balanced system working itself out again and again
Not everything must have a cause. For instance, quantum fluctuations have been observed to come into being from apparently nothing. Therefore, the universe needs not come from anything.
Now, one could in fact argue that this also means that a deity need not come from anything either due to this fact. Let me ask you this: does that mean that that deity created the Universe? In fact, does that even prove that one exists? No. This simply means it could come from nothing, but isn't proof of it.
The universe is all that exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. We can only track our reality back to a singularity. We don't understand how or if times works at such point so to assume anything about that point or where it came from is begging the question.
You argued that bananas or any other finite object could be just as as God responsible for the creation of the earth. You neglect to realize that finite objects are neither all powerful nor infinite and, therefore, cannot be responsible for the earths creation. Only a finite and all powerful being could create the world, and that being is God.
everything comes into the world with some type of cause. everything finite has to have a beginning. but there can't be an infinate number of causes or there wouldn't be a beginning. The universe is finite and had to have a beginning so at some point there must have been an uncaused cause that brought the universe into existence which is God.
How come you can't just say the universe is outside of time and that time is a figment of our finite perspective's imagination? Boom. Now there is no reason to think that the universe is inside time.. Maybe you can do the same with space? Say that what we perceive as space is a piece of a much larger tapestry of possibly multidimensional space which is as "infinite" and eternal as God. Both possible. But is there reason to prefer one to the other? That is the question.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause: the universe had a beginning therefore it has a cause: therefore bananas. . . makes about as much sense as saying therefore god.
Cause and effect are well and good, but only work on a conceptualized model of existence and ignores the eternal, infinite and infinitesimal nature of all of existence. Our brains conceptualize patterns and by doing so create isolated events when in reality there are no isolated events. The Universe as a whole in singular and spontaneous. I think that should be acknowledged.
5. But such a case would contradict the second line of the argument which states: “The Universe began to exist.” and that beginning includes “all items That exist.” That contradiction destroys the argument.
4. Therefore, the set of all items that Begin to exist must be smaller than the set of all items That exist- but that implies the existence of at least one item in the universe which did not begin to exist. (This single item must be other than God because that would put God in the argument which would render any argument purporting to prove the existence of God as circular.)
3. At the other extreme, if the set of all items that Begin to exist is equal to the set of all items That exist then, again, the set would be the universe and the argument would be circular.
2. If the set of all items that Begin to exist has only one member, then that member must be the universe as a whole, per the second line of the argument. In that event the first line of the argument could be rewritten, “The universe beginning to exist has a cause” but that would make the entire argument circular.
Bear with me here... My argument will take several messages. Here goes...
Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
1. Consider the set of all items that Begin to exist. Since we are dealing with reality this set must be contained within the set of all items That exist- which is the definition of the universe.
Though I wouldn't defend the typical 'Creationist's' view, I will defend ex nihilo from the standpoint that causality (as he stated) is a condition of the universe – not the other way around. Cause and effect require a space time context. The big bang was the birth and formation of space and time, both of which are required for the occurrence of events. Demanding cause to be factored into a valid explanation for the origin of the universe, requires spacetime to have preceded spacetime.
The problem with this argument is that the Cause that exists outside our time and space and is not subject to any certain physical laws we know of, can not be observed, nor can evidence ever be presented to show that the Cause exists. Its simply another assertion.
A thing that can not or will not manifest, is indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist.
The answer ends up being the same when arguments can not be demonstrated, "you just have to have faith." Not good enough.
If you take this as absolutely true: "The cause of the big bang was outside of the dimensions of the laws of the universe"
Why does that have to point to a god? The big bang created the laws of the universe, so whatever caused the big bang must have been outside of those laws. It didn't have to be an intelligent or supernatural being.
"God is timeless, and lives outside the realm of time." The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transferred. In order for an entity to create something, it needs to abide within the realm of time, as creation implies a time before creation and time after. However, god does not follow linear time, and is timeless, and so cannot create anything material without being following the laws of time and space.
if you can say god is timeless, you can also say natural processes that caused the universe are not subject to time. this moron is simply assuming only god can be timeless. retard.
You don't know that anything that has a beginning has a cause. It may be true in human experience, but human experience is extremely limited. I don't accept your basic supposition.
God existed before time itself, becacause as i hope u kno recently it was shown that time and matter existed at the same time, so scripture says in the begining GOD indicating that god was here before EVERYTHING! even matter so god lived in a state of eternity because there was no matter and thus no time and vice versa. he was self existing and eternal he still lives in this eternal demension wathing over us his creation. God has no cause so therefore he has no begining
Please explain what you mean by "outside of space and time"? "Outside space" and "before time" are oxymorons.
Against what are you measuring the beginning of the universe?
At what point in God's "infinite" and "eternal" existence did He create the universe? (considering the absurdities that you yourself admit when talking about infinity)
Why a 'being' why not, a 'principle'? Craig claims its "obvious" but refuses to produce any evidence of consciousness existing independent of time and space.
I'd have to agree with "myteethareshiny," time and space are abstract ideas that describe the relationship between matter; so the law of causation does not and could not apply 'before' the existence of matter. Even so, like others have stated, this does not prove the existence of any god; reason being the qualities that the created situation calls for are merely assumed and vacuously asserted to be retained by this being. (TBC)
1/ Usual "God of the gaps" argument: we don't fully understand xxx. therefore xxx is caused by God.
2/ We are not sure that there were nothing before the big bang.
3/ After your "demonstration", it would be interesting to build a device to detect God or a theory to describe it; but your God being unpredictable, it is not different from random. There is no difference between an undetectable God and a non-existent God, except if your are 100% sure that your brain does not deceive you.
"the idea of an actual infinite collection leads to absurdities": not at all. In infinite sets, there is no problem saying that two sets, one strictly included in the other, have the same number of elements. In maths, "same number of elements" is defined as "there exists a bijection between them" which apply for finite and infinite sets.
NOOOO you can't say that GOOOODDDD is eternal or infinite. First, you must have evidence that this god exists. The universe is not evidence for God. If it WERE evidence, then it would also be evidence for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.
Also, if you want to argue that with the creation of the universe came the creation of time itself, then the law of causation no longer applies. Time has to be a factor for the law of causation to exist.
The Universe doesn't have or NEED a cause. The laws of the Universe itself require that the Universe would have brought ITSELF into existence WITHOUT any external assistance from any "God" real or imaginary.
I agree. Somethings are not subject to causation. In fact there are many effects in the world where no cause is observed. The principle of uncertainty manifests itself in electron transitions, proton emission in radioactive decay, photons in Young's slit experiment. Newton and Laplace's notion of cause and effect was incomplete. Not every effect needs a cause or explanation, including things in the physical world.
that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd was eturnal, that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd is infinite, that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd is outside our balahblahblahakfd
@hairybalooncabbage I know! Me too! Don't you just hate it how he takes the best argument for atheism and destroys it using logic and reason? Damn you, Randall Niles! No fair using that logic stuff. Why can't you be as dumb as a post like Richard Dawkins? I wanted to continue living in my delusion and have blind faith that God doesn't exist! Now what am I supposed to do? I already bought an "A" is for atheist t-shirt and everything! Waaaaaaaaaa!
@bestvalue He doesn't use reason or logic at all... are you being sarcastic? He's making ridiculous assumptions based on zero evidence, only his personal interpretation of events. lol
@matics19 I AM being sarcastic but not in the way you think. I don't hear any ridiculous assumptions - just logic and reason and evidence? Could you tell me what you think his errors in reasoning are?
@bestvalue No, we as humans WANT everything to have a cause. That's one of the biggest hurdles that must be overcome in any discussion about science, theology, cosmology, or anything. Just because there is a rock in my garden doesn't mean it has a cause. Maybe I put it there for a purpose, maybe I put it there absent-mindedly while raking, maybe a bird or other animal brought it over. However it got there, it doesn't need a purpose to BE there, or exist at all. It just does.
@matics19 Why do you insist on saying EVERYTHING has a cause when that is not the argument? Your own argument about the rock in your garden is fallacious. If the rock had not been there for eternity (which it hasn't - at least not longer than 4.6 billion years, right?) then something most definitely CAUSED it to be there. The logic is inescapable. I think you might be confusing a purposeful cause with a natural cause. The universe requires a cause - CASE CLOSED!
@bestvalue But my point is that the idea that "if something had a beginning, it had a cause" is completely invalid when considering the universe. How are we to determine whether something had a cause? Especially something like the Big Bang (ie the creation of the Unvierse). Sure you can ASSUME it had a cause because we as humans want it to, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't need a cause. The argument is in fact that everything has a cause, which is not true.
@matics19 I'm not assuming that the universe had a cause because I want it to. I KNOW that it had a cause because it had a beginning. If it didn't have beginning and was eternal, this conversation would be moot. How can you deny the self-evidence fact that whatever comes to exist must have a cause? (Again, note that I did not say whatever exists has a cause.) Why is it invalid when considering the universe?
"How are we to determine whether something had a cause?" Easy. If it had a beginning.
It doesn't make sense to say that God exists outside the laws and properties of the universe while simultaneously making the argument that he simply decided to create the universe at some moment. This would imply a time at which he made this decision as well as some sort of action that created it, which is also dependent on time. The argument is rather paradoxical as I see it
We agree that the current manifestation of this particular universe began with the big bang, and that in all likelihood no evidence could survive of anything that went before. That's not saying there was nothing before, merely that we don't have any evidence to analyze. Perhaps mass-energy is eternal; perhaps space-time can arise out of nothing, at a quantum level; perhaps you just proved the existence of Zeus and it's all the other gods that are false. The point is, who can claim to know?
...continued Even if it were to be concluded that something outside of space/time must have caused the universe, why call it god? The concept of being outside of space and time is something I don't think our minds can grasp. I don't know why people think they can assign the label 'God' to it, with human properties of intelligence&compassion. He says he won't assign properties to it, but even by calling it god and using the ambiguous descriptors 'infinite'&'spiritual', he is.
The big bang doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. There could have existed the universe before the singularity in some other form. And if he's saying that a thing can exist eternally or outside of time and that thing must be god, why can't that thing just be the universe? Everything in the universe appears to have a cause, but that doesn't mean the universe itself does.
@Dianeva89 ughh..u not listning..matter and entergy cant be eterntal there was no universe before this universe before this universe etc...God was there and created it all..goshh i dnt see how ppl can make this so difficult to understand wen it comes to cause and effect..he explains it very well in the vid
Whose dream ? Any questions /debate about the origin of Universe is a sign of progress and acceptable. Any dogma - ie, that the religions preaches that Bible/Quran is the ultimate truth and everything has explained in those books are unacceptable. Then the religions must be able to answer all the questions asked. What we know is science . What we don't know is God. So god is our ignorance.
i agree with you that the universe must have an explanation for it's existence and that there was definetely a cause but why are you assuming that the cause was god? see im being honest with myself and saying that i don't know and the cause could've been a what instead of a who.
@bzman149 We'll never know, science is an endless spiral of essentially meaningless facts that go deeper and deeper into infinity. Personally I just without looking for scientific proof because it will never get there - jump to the conclusion of God because it seems natural and completely realistic with how I view reality.
Ugh... You do know that "the beginning of the universe" is a subject of hot debate. There are quite a few sientist who have theories about the universe having no begeniing at all. Before the Big Bang it it existed in another state. If the universe is eternal we do not even need your god!
OK-let us assume that god was outside time and space. Then he must have created the universe from himself as nothing outside was existing. Since he himself was above the physical laws (space/time) how his creations -which is of course a part of him -could bind to physical laws. If the creation is an intentional -purposeful thing, the god is also bound to evolution -for the fact that he didnot think about before. Otherwise, the universe must be existing ever since the god is existing...
@aciddmc Whose dream ? Any questions /debate about the origin of Universe is a sign of progress and acceptable. Any dogma - ie, that the religions preaches that Bible/Quran is the ultimate truth and everything has explained in those books are unacceptable. Then the religions must be able to answer all the questions asked. What we know is science . What we don't know is God. So god is our ignorance.
So you explain the "something" must have a beginning, however, we tend to forget that space is "nothing". Does nothing need a beginning? I'm thinking not. All of these laws you mention are only relative to our "human" research. We get all caught up in laws we have "created" when they may not even be relative to other places and areas of our dimension. Nothing is ever how it seems...
My name is Mark Maloney; I would like to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56. com. There you will find entirely new physics and cosmology, called Proto-space and DSFF, which are the formational mechanics composing all aspects composing our universe. The best way to learn something new is to securitize it looking for errors. I welcome your opinions.
Yeah, so basically the argument is there was a first "cause" in a series of "cause and effect". I disagree. There could be an infinite series of cause and effect, or there could be multiple causes. But even assuming there is a first cause, why do you call it God? You (and I) have no idea what this "cause" is. God is a title people usually use to refer to a being of some sort. Your argument is misleading at best.
@raoskaos yep. science includes a horrible amount of assumptions too. Maybe every single law we have is false. For example lets say as a biologist in 1500 all you've seen are 100s of white swans. 300 years down the road you're ancestor bumps into a black swan... WTF!!! We could have sworn all swans were white. For all we know the law of gravity has many exceptions and isn't grounded in anything, something as simple as that could be way off, who knows. Science assumes things too.
Furthurmore, when you propose an eternal god, you propose an eternal universe. The universe is defined as everything that exists and existence itself. If there was a god before the big bang, then he would have been the only thing in existence and thus would be the universe by definition. He may have been the catalyst from which everything else in the universe emerged, but nonetheless would be included. The universe is eternal. The only alternative is to literally believe in an uncaused exnihilo
"God is not subject to time or resources" is just a cop-out way of explaining the universe's origins. The answer to the question doesn't make sense so you blame it on magic. God himself, would HAVE to have resources at his disposal to create the universe. God himself would HAVE to experience time to do so intelligently. You can't just say that he didn't need those things. Even if the time and resources were of his own being, they were still there.
@kaje01 (God himself would Have to have resources at his disposal to create)..so u sayin sum part of material was ETERNAL with God?? noooo God SPOKE things into existance! the only resource was his mouth..why? cuz he was the only thing existing
@JMACisDOPE If that were the case then by what means did god create everything? If he just SPOKE as you say, then he wouldn't have been the one actually creating anything. Some 'magic' force would have designed the human brain and not god in that example. (god says: "Let there be a brain"). He himself would have had to design the brain and every part of it. No matter how powerful he is he couldn't simply speak things into existance. The same applies to matter.
@kaje01 to speak things into existance that implies POWER so if God has INFINITE all power howcome he couldnt??? imean if he couldnt do that then that would mean he wouldnt be all powerful!! he spoke it..then he shaped it or formed it!...
u right he would have to design it..and he did..they say the brain is the most complex stucture in the universe with like trillions of cells each working together
@JMACisDOPE Yep "shaped or formed" makes much more sense then "spoke". And I do think the difference matters, as "shaped or formed" takes the magic out of the equation. Basically god becomes a scientific object that MUST exist in some way shape or form, where as "spoke" is just passively saying 'god done it' and leaving it at that. ie - not logical, not usable in an argument. The same would apply to matter, simply saying "GOD MADE IT" is illogical, it makes more sense to say "GOD HAD IT" imo
Good point, but isn't god supposed to be everywhere? God being in another dimension directly contradicts the statement that god is everywhere at any given time and place.
@drdalet The problem with your statement is proceses do not self initiate themselves I.e The universe cannot initate the universe. Something initiated the universe and what we call all the matter within it. On the quantum level, matter has a less real feel about it, making it like something constructed it and can easily de-constucte it. A passage in the Bible might be discribing the process Rev 6:14
@Silly2smart What you are saying to me is that God can not initiate itself, so whatever argument you have to justify God, I use the same justification for Nature and all that is part of nature, the seen and unseen. The only difference is that you accept a ancient book and I modern science to find explanations. Modern interpretations of ancient texts are irrelevant.
The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning, so the beginning in itself is relative, we can not asume that there is a creator just because we don`t know what is or how it was before.
So, whatever you wish to CALL this "thing" that initiated the universe, it would be outside of space-time or in some way able to re-new or not be subject to entropy. Being agnostic would be a healthy scientific view to have unless this "thing" had a reason for the universe's creation. The tough question is: What is the reason? Now an Atheistic view does not logically have merit as if they are correct they they have gained nothing, but if wrong they could suffer some type of loss.
This is a classic religious fallacy. The universe as defined by the physical laws which govern us, those in place since the big bang, did in fact have a begining. No scientist will argue this. The universe as defined as all exists now before or beside and outside of the big bang is not neccesarily infinite or even still. In fact no conclusions can be drawn about such a state of the universe, and certainly not one that invents a sentient being to "majic" us into existence.
This argument assumes that time is a linear Euclidean dimension as we experience it on a human scale. From general relativity we know that, whatever the actual case, this assumption is not justified. Time is a measure of the interval between events, this measure distorts asymptotically as one approaches a singularity and hence there is no beginning to be reached.
The law of causation: Everything that has a beginning has a cause is a premise. We know that this premise applies on a macroscopic human scale. However we also know that this premise does not apply on a quantum scale. We have no more justification for extrapolating this law to apply on a universal scale that we have in extrapolating it to apply to a supernatural being.
Stop your emotional outbursts. Answer the key questions that make or break your theory:
1) You claim space can be cut from a location, and that leaves us with nothing at that location.
2) Then you claim that you cannot put an object in that nothing location.
Clearly, you havent a clue how the environment you live in operates. I suggest you go conduct this experiment and explain your claims; which are obviously false!
You still cant draw that physical object you call time..lol
A dimension is a concept that relates to an architectural property of a physical object. It is an indispensable ingredient of the adjective three-dimensional, which we can only use in the context of architecture.
Time has to do with adverbs and not with nouns.
Learn some English, otherwise you are spattering gibberish!
Time qualifies how something moves. It doesnt qualify the something itself. A dimension is to a photograph what time is to a movie.
Hence, by its very nature, time is incompatible with the dimensions of Physics, and it is incredibly stupid to suggest that time forms a part of a geometrical object. If it did, then you can DRAW it.
To borrow from the current jargon of Mathematics so that our mentally challenged friend may also understand: time is a
{it is incredibly stupid to suggest that time forms a part of a geometrical object. If it did, then you can DRAW it}
{A dimension is a concept that relates to an architectural property of a physical object}
So you say that because you can't draw time, it's not a dimension? Also, that a dimension must relate to a property of a physical object?
Physicists say there exist upwards of 11 dimensions. Can you draw them all or are they lying? Can you show them all to relate to.. bla bla, or they lied?
You are parroting statement you dont understand. People create hundreds of mathematical dimensions/data points every day to model systems from networks, to cars, to universes.
Those are NOT physical dimensions. The only physical dimensions are L, W, H. If you say there are more, please POINT, SHOW, DRAW, or take picture of them, because they would be PHYSICAL. You cant do it, because time is only CONCEPTUAL you use math to count it.
How is empty space different than nothing? It isnt. Space is that which lacks shape. Space is not an object. Space IS nothing.
In Science, an object is that which has shape. ALL objects, without exception, have space contouring them. Every atom is encapsulated 'within' space. Not even God can elude being surrounded by space.
There is NO back door for God to escape because space is NOT quantized or finite.
It's impossible to make that determination. Space is finite & neither you nor anyone else has ever observed beyond the limits of space. Your assertion is merely equivalent to claiming that space is infinite... which is contrary to science
{How is empty space different than nothing?}
One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing. That's why there's a word which is "space" & another word which is "nothing". They hav 2 different definitions
Then answer my previous question about cutting space and removing it. Why cant that be done if it is finite? You cannot answer the wild claims that you parrot.
(you claiming that space is infinite)
The words finite and infinite are adjectives you moron. Adjectives can only be used with objects. Space cannot be said to be finite or infinite, idiot. Anything qualified as infinite cannot possibly have shape. Learn English!
{answer my question about cutting space & removing it. Why cant that be done if it is finite?}
This is some of the most ludicrous thinking I've ever witnessed. You're saying that it's impossible to cut out a piece of space, simply because it's not finite. Of which, it's true that a piece can't be cut out. However, if not being finite is the reason why one can't cut out a piece, then being infinite should be the reason why you can cut out a piece
You're defective thinking cannot realize that whether or not one can cut out a piece of space, is irrelevant. It's not the criteria by which the matter can be determined
Unlike your religion, in Physics, space is not physical. It is irrational to qualify it as either finite or infinite. Go take grade 2 English and learn what an adjective, noun, and adverb is.
Space is perfectly transparent, intangible, friction-less, unmovable, colorless, temperature-less, etc. It is neither small nor large nor wide nor tall. It cannot move nor be occupied (e.g., like fish occupy water by displacing water molecules).
{It is irrational to qualify it (space) as either finite or infinite}
You say this after you've been arguing that space is infinite. Do you realize that this refutation could have been done by a teenager with down syndrome? Yet, I'm supposed to go to grade 2 English. You don't need English, you need a elementary, basic degree of "logic". It's what keeps you from contradicting yourself. Watch Star Trek - focus on Dr. Spock
(On second thought, you do also need basic English)
Typical for a loser to resort to childish nah nah's by pointing out the word 'is', or how ugly someone's mother 'is'.
We are dealing with physics, chui, not childish games.
Physics is the study of objects. You claim that time is an object. For the 15th time, PROVE IT or concede you are an idiot for wasting Utube bandwidth with your childish games!
You're trying to deal with a man, not an evo child mind you're used to possessing & being around
{You claim time is an object. PROVE IT or concede you're an idiot} I claimed its a dimension. An idiot changes that to an object
You claimed that if something is a dimension then it must be physical & one can draw, show or photo it. Therefor, I said that Physicists say there are upwards of 11 dimensions, can you draw, show or photo all of them?
Chui: (I claimed TIME is a dimension. An idiot changes that to an object)
(Time is indeed physical dimension, its not a concept.)
Noooooooooooooo! You are on the RECORD as stating that time is physical. This means that its part of a physical object. Draw a pic of a cube (L,W,H) and show the physical time on it. Youve been asked to draw time over 10 times now! You cant! Is time sticking out of your butt?
You dont know the difference between a dimension, coordinate, vector.
In Physics, 3-D means that 3 mutually-perpendicular planes of an object can be brought together to form a corner while their edges meet to form a vertex - which are lines of dimension.
Dimensions & coordinates are STATIC CONCEPTS. Vectors are dynamic concepts.
Although these definitions, characterizations, or descriptions at face value seem to be identical, they are conceptually irreconcilable.
Time CANNOT be static concept, like a dim; time is dynamic! So tell us what time is then.
In Physics, Dimension is a property (attribute) and used as adjective to qualify an object.
Time is a verb (measurement) and IMPOSSIBLE to be qualified by the word dimension; in religion YES but NOT in Physics! THIS IS WHAT CONFUSES YOU!
The 3 dimensions are length, width, and height; the 3 coordinates are known as longitude, latitude, and altitude; the 3 vectors are known as depth, breadth, and elevation.
To which only an idiot would reply with - "People create hundreds of mathematical dimensions/data points every day to model systems from networks, to cars, to universes"
Regarding 11 dimensions, Physicists aren't talking about data points to model systems from networks to bla bla bla
(Regarding 11 dimensions, Physicists aren't talking about data points to model)
Then why dont you tell us what these 11 physical dimension ARE? Please show them, draw them!
You are beaten to a pulp and the only thing you do is just keep babbling all the science fictional religious stuff you read, but CANNOT explain anything you parrot. Arguments from supposed authorities are FALLACIOUS. YOU must explain what you say.
I'm through toying with you kid. You're an obvious waste of time that's unteachable due to a fools pride. You should ask why they lie to you? A physiological inability to speak, 4 hands, full body fur, drag knuckles & very large canines. They're common threads shared by all apes. What makes you so special that even while lacking all the criteria, you still get to be in the ape club?
Must be Evoist brains. Even crows are smarter than apes & they can speak
I remember the 2nd grade was when they said don't end a sentence with "is". Is what? If only I had a dime for every time a Evolutionist proved to be precisely what he was accusing me of being, while he was accusing me. Grammar can be so easy to get incorrect that it's why I never criticize it unless someone first criticizes mine with finger painted A B D's... as you have
Definitions & grammar are of paramount importance in physics so that YOU, as a prosecutor, can clearly communicate your theory to the jury. Otherwise you are making up nonsense that is used to play the role of god in your dissertation.
According to you, space is something. When we remove it from a location, then we have nothing.
Why is it that we can occupy this location again? This PROVES your bald assertion to be wrong! Space IS nothing. You haven't a clue about science or rational thinking. You are finished.
Then how is it that you're describing it to me so much? You've been telling me all about space/nothing, it's characteristics, how it can be occupied, what you can & can't do with it. You sure seem to know much about nothing. Everyone else knows nothing about nothing because when regarding "nothing"....nothing comprises nothing. Thus, there's nothing to know about it... other than nothing
You knowing much about nothing explains why you know nothing about everything else
(Then how is it that you're describing space to me so much if its nothing?)
Because if it WAS something, you'd be able to cut it out of a location, you moron. It can't be done. I've said that to you over 5 times but you only prosthelytize instead of paying attention.
Only an idiot continues to insist that space is a physical object, especially when it doesn't have shape!
Cant you even read at a minimum 'monkey' level? You're attacking strawmen at every turn because you don't read.
At a boy, you're showing every sign of a real loser!
"moron", "idiot" (ad hominem) "space is a physical object" (straw man) Are you getting angry with me "fattyboy"? Don't get angry with me. I didn't make you the loser. I merely brought it out in you
It's not my fault you think that I said space is a physical object. I never said that. I said physical objects can occupy space. That's as elementary as it gets. But you had to argue against it & now look at yourself. Its what happens when duhhh
No physical object is subject to time. Time is a figment of the imagination for a living entity and nothing more other than a counter to 'describe' an event.
If God 'created' the U, then he had an event which took time (motion+memory).
{Time requires an observer: time = motion + memory}
Everyone agrees that the universe & many objects within it existed well before any living organism with a memory existed. We know from even just the measure of time in which man has been observing things beyond Earths atmosphere, that change has occurred. Stars have died, distances between objects have increased etc. Certainly much change occurred when before organisms existed. What thing separates those different states of existence, one from
the other? "Time" that's what & it existed despite the absolute non existence of any memories
{No physical object is subject to time}
Are you still 9 lbs. 4 oz. & butt naked?
Just because you still have "fatfists" it doesn't mean the answer is yes. Are you not today, one day closer to death than you were yesterday? It appears that you're a physical object that's subject to time. Not to mention that you've definitely missed some Sundays
Therefor, impossible for God to have created you for the purpose of determining anything about him. You can't even determine obvious things about yourself. Such as the fact that change has occurred since when you were born & it's purely because you're a physical object that is subject to time
That has to do with biological processes. We observe them, store them in MEMORY and COUNT ticks as secs to time them. Havent you learned anything in your church?
You are babbling nonsense. You have no rational arguments. You can rub your tush to warm up your heart all you want. But you have not proven space as physical so you can CUT chunks out and take them away. Nor have you proven time is a physical.
WOW! It's truly incredible to witness the lengths to which a predetermining person will go in denying that he's lost the argument. Once your arguments have been check mated & you deny it, usually you'll start saying incredibly ridiculous things from that point forward
Example - fatfist; "Time requires an observer: time = motion + memory"
This is what you referenced in your last post with upper case "MEMORY". But you said that "we observe (changes) them > memory > count = time is merely concept
But that's after having observed the changes which already took place... due to time! "In church"? I learned that "fear & reverence of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom & knowledge". Therefor, the literature is obviously conducive of the correct execution of critical thought processes. Not conducive of your Evo-typical tautological (circular) thinking
That's why you're lucky that Mr. Niles is certainly too busy to reply to you. As a Christian & a lawyer (trained thought processes) he'd make
mincemeat of your arguments. He might reply to the occasional exception but someone like myself is all that's required for run of the mill athevolutionists like you. Think about it, after tautological absurdity you call me babbler, irrational & Manasses lover?
I never said space is "physical". I merely challenged your claim that it's equivalent to "nothing". But nothing is nothing & you can't occupy nothing with something. You can put something into a empty box because it has space within
You are on the record as literally implying that space IS physical, as witnessed by your comments:
1. (Space is finite)
2. (you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish)
You also made this CONTRADICTORY statement:
3. (One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing)
A physical object can be occupied, like a virus occupies you. Space cannot be occupied like a fish occupies the ocean by displacing water. Therefore space IS nothing. QED!
{You are on record as implying that space is physical}
Not in my comments. Thats why you said "implying". Only you think it's implied because "finite", to you means "physical". You've been using "physical" to mean "material". Finite doesn't mean material to anyone but you
(you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish) Indeed, if a box is empty there is space within. Take it anywhere & if you didn't put anything in it, the space will still be there
Princeton Dictionary (finite = bounded, limited in magnitude)
Wiki (Space IS boundless)
Anything bounded or occupied is physical because it has border, it has shape. Space doesnt. Space has no magnitude! Only morons keep parroting otherwise.
You are on the RECORD arguing that space IS physical, as witnessed by your 3 comments:
1. (Space is finite)
2. (you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish)
(One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing) Contradictory is your illogical gig, not mine. I never said space = nothing. Nobody has ever said that NASA's nothing shuttle has launched & gone into nothing. It's orbiting in outer nothing. "Space" is something. It's what all the matter in the universe is contained in. You cannot contain matter in nothing
(A physical object can be occupied, like a virus occupies you) Only because I have space for it. Stop running from the truth.. dummy
You can't prove space is physical. In Physics, the words 'finite', 'infinite' do not apply to space.
(I never said space = nothing)
You are still creating straw puppets that you can attack. Keep arguing with yourself...LOL
(evo child mind you're used to possessing)
We are talking Physics here chui, not religion and demons. Speak to your pastor about possession. Speak to ME about Physics, not your heart-felt emotions.
I think the problem here is that unless we presuppose that the God in question is in fact the Christian God we have no reason to think that the Causer is without a cause Itself... The problem overall is that this argument does nothing for the Christian faith and can be used by any religion...
We have no information of what is or what was before the singularity so we can't know that the Causer was without a cause...
hey good video and insight on the cosmological argument.
Another good point to bring up is that cosmologists used to believe that the universe was eternal (steady state theory) and therefore had no creator. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, we can now ask, who made it! And if that cause happens to be an eternal God, it makes no sense asking who made him!
Why does it have to be a who? How does he get from saying, "the universe had a cause, so it must be God"
No. Much more likely is a non-living entity.
This argument is essentially, "Everything has a cause. Except my God, because he is special."
If a being were outside time, he could not change nor cause change. If a being were outside matter, he could not affect matter. If he were outside space, he would not be in our dimension.
"An infinitely dense vacuum." I like that because it shows how far the naturalist will go to avoid God.
This actually very simple to understand. People just need to transpose the situation. God doesn't need a cause just like the computer programmer doesn't need a cause when the entities inside the software wonder who created the software.
Even if there was a creator of God, it doesn't apply to the argument. We only want to know how our existence was formed. We are blind to anything else.
2. Other beings who have at least one sense that we do and one sense we don't.
3. The creator of the sensory environment.
Naturalists and atheists are stuck on 1 and consider 2. Some of them experience 3, but consider it to be a sensory illusion.
An improbable set of coincidences, accurate prophecy, and an abnormal exposure to super sensory information can all help to validate 3 due to it's uniformity.
The improbable set of coincidences should be obvious to everyone. Most just aren't looking hard enough. And the ones who find it and reject it do so out of the anger of their own heart.
Our heart is our 6th sense, but unlike the other five it is in an incomplete state so most consider it a function of our mind. This is odd considering out of all our senses, it controls us the most.
Ironically it is the first reason why an atheist will become an atheist only to deny it's existence as well.
"reflect7", can you for only a short time, pretend to be an evolutionist? It would be nice to have a conversation or debate with an evolutionist whom, even though his overall view is incorrect, may at least present thinking that is not so broken that it makes wrong within a wrong. Usually "Created" or "evolved" becomes a moot point due to all the illogically irrelevant, tautological oxymorons coupled with incomprehension
I'm convinced, ones mind on crack is better than on evolution
Quantum physics found an effect that at the sub atomic level the energy of any reaction comes from no where to initiate and then release that energy nowhere after ward. was found that the only possible reason is the energy of the future initiated the reaction for the past. the future is predetermined, the end of our universe caused the big bang. like its always been the entire universe, alternate realities and all is just a balanced system working itself out again and again
max170892 3 weeks ago
Not everything must have a cause. For instance, quantum fluctuations have been observed to come into being from apparently nothing. Therefore, the universe needs not come from anything.
Now, one could in fact argue that this also means that a deity need not come from anything either due to this fact. Let me ask you this: does that mean that that deity created the Universe? In fact, does that even prove that one exists? No. This simply means it could come from nothing, but isn't proof of it.
RevanRedeemed 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheistic Cosmological Argument:
(1) The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate
(3) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.
(4) God would ensure the singularity contained properties which would guarantee that it involved into an animate universe
(5) God did not create the singularity.
This is a real argument. The Kalam is kindergarten logic posing as logic.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Everything that exists had a cause. If it didn't have a cause it doesn't exist.
ArchhereticK 3 months ago
The universe is all that exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. We can only track our reality back to a singularity. We don't understand how or if times works at such point so to assume anything about that point or where it came from is begging the question.
ultradevon04 4 months ago
@rictusgate
You argued that bananas or any other finite object could be just as as God responsible for the creation of the earth. You neglect to realize that finite objects are neither all powerful nor infinite and, therefore, cannot be responsible for the earths creation. Only a finite and all powerful being could create the world, and that being is God.
jennxisxradd 5 months ago
everything comes into the world with some type of cause. everything finite has to have a beginning. but there can't be an infinate number of causes or there wouldn't be a beginning. The universe is finite and had to have a beginning so at some point there must have been an uncaused cause that brought the universe into existence which is God.
dukeizduke1 5 months ago
How come you can't just say the universe is outside of time and that time is a figment of our finite perspective's imagination? Boom. Now there is no reason to think that the universe is inside time.. Maybe you can do the same with space? Say that what we perceive as space is a piece of a much larger tapestry of possibly multidimensional space which is as "infinite" and eternal as God. Both possible. But is there reason to prefer one to the other? That is the question.
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago 2
Everything that has a beginning has a cause: the universe had a beginning therefore it has a cause: therefore bananas. . . makes about as much sense as saying therefore god.
rictusgate 7 months ago
Cause and effect are well and good, but only work on a conceptualized model of existence and ignores the eternal, infinite and infinitesimal nature of all of existence. Our brains conceptualize patterns and by doing so create isolated events when in reality there are no isolated events. The Universe as a whole in singular and spontaneous. I think that should be acknowledged.
kausidya 9 months ago
5. But such a case would contradict the second line of the argument which states: “The Universe began to exist.” and that beginning includes “all items That exist.” That contradiction destroys the argument.
apeek7 9 months ago
4. Therefore, the set of all items that Begin to exist must be smaller than the set of all items That exist- but that implies the existence of at least one item in the universe which did not begin to exist. (This single item must be other than God because that would put God in the argument which would render any argument purporting to prove the existence of God as circular.)
apeek7 9 months ago
3. At the other extreme, if the set of all items that Begin to exist is equal to the set of all items That exist then, again, the set would be the universe and the argument would be circular.
apeek7 9 months ago
2. If the set of all items that Begin to exist has only one member, then that member must be the universe as a whole, per the second line of the argument. In that event the first line of the argument could be rewritten, “The universe beginning to exist has a cause” but that would make the entire argument circular.
apeek7 9 months ago
Bear with me here... My argument will take several messages. Here goes...
Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
1. Consider the set of all items that Begin to exist. Since we are dealing with reality this set must be contained within the set of all items That exist- which is the definition of the universe.
Continued...
apeek7 9 months ago
Though I wouldn't defend the typical 'Creationist's' view, I will defend ex nihilo from the standpoint that causality (as he stated) is a condition of the universe – not the other way around. Cause and effect require a space time context. The big bang was the birth and formation of space and time, both of which are required for the occurrence of events. Demanding cause to be factored into a valid explanation for the origin of the universe, requires spacetime to have preceded spacetime.
tubeboy8 9 months ago
The problem with this argument is that the Cause that exists outside our time and space and is not subject to any certain physical laws we know of, can not be observed, nor can evidence ever be presented to show that the Cause exists. Its simply another assertion.
A thing that can not or will not manifest, is indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist.
The answer ends up being the same when arguments can not be demonstrated, "you just have to have faith." Not good enough.
citizen762 9 months ago
@citizen762 what do you think caused us into the world??
TheSuperJarebear 5 months ago
@citizen762 what do you think caused us into the world??
TheSuperJarebear 5 months ago
What about brains?
josephpearse1 9 months ago
If you take this as absolutely true: "The cause of the big bang was outside of the dimensions of the laws of the universe"
Why does that have to point to a god? The big bang created the laws of the universe, so whatever caused the big bang must have been outside of those laws. It didn't have to be an intelligent or supernatural being.
killvolume 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"God is timeless, and lives outside the realm of time." The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transferred. In order for an entity to create something, it needs to abide within the realm of time, as creation implies a time before creation and time after. However, god does not follow linear time, and is timeless, and so cannot create anything material without being following the laws of time and space.
doriandaniells 9 months ago
Comment removed
doriandaniells 9 months ago
Comment removed
doriandaniells 9 months ago
if you can say god is timeless, you can also say natural processes that caused the universe are not subject to time. this moron is simply assuming only god can be timeless. retard.
nickallah 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
jehallhelo 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen."
Romans 1:25
jehallhelo 10 months ago
You don't know that anything that has a beginning has a cause. It may be true in human experience, but human experience is extremely limited. I don't accept your basic supposition.
bogusnachos 11 months ago
If an actual infinite cannot exist, then either God is finite, or does not exist.
That or God is infinite, and therefore the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist is incorrect (which destroys the argument anyhow).
The proof is not internally consistent, which is probably why it fell out of fashion until Craig stupidly resurrected it.
imperator332 1 year ago
God existed before time itself, becacause as i hope u kno recently it was shown that time and matter existed at the same time, so scripture says in the begining GOD indicating that god was here before EVERYTHING! even matter so god lived in a state of eternity because there was no matter and thus no time and vice versa. he was self existing and eternal he still lives in this eternal demension wathing over us his creation. God has no cause so therefore he has no begining
gateceeper6 1 year ago
@gateceeper6 where was it recently shown that time and matter existed at the same time? please cite the source...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
Please explain what you mean by "outside of space and time"? "Outside space" and "before time" are oxymorons.
Against what are you measuring the beginning of the universe?
At what point in God's "infinite" and "eternal" existence did He create the universe? (considering the absurdities that you yourself admit when talking about infinity)
Why a 'being' why not, a 'principle'? Craig claims its "obvious" but refuses to produce any evidence of consciousness existing independent of time and space.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
THE GUY ON THIS VIDEO IS THINKING WAY TOO HARD, HES CONFUSING EVEN HIMSELF!!
theageofgrace 1 year ago
why can't energy be eternal?:p
fcdog555 1 year ago
(cont'd) Simply put: in order to prove (any) god caused the universe, one would first need to prove
1 this god exists
2 the qualities/characteristics of this being
3 this being has the ability to do such a thing.
VENOM3RDUM 1 year ago
I'd have to agree with "myteethareshiny," time and space are abstract ideas that describe the relationship between matter; so the law of causation does not and could not apply 'before' the existence of matter. Even so, like others have stated, this does not prove the existence of any god; reason being the qualities that the created situation calls for are merely assumed and vacuously asserted to be retained by this being. (TBC)
VENOM3RDUM 1 year ago
1/ Usual "God of the gaps" argument: we don't fully understand xxx. therefore xxx is caused by God.
2/ We are not sure that there were nothing before the big bang.
3/ After your "demonstration", it would be interesting to build a device to detect God or a theory to describe it; but your God being unpredictable, it is not different from random. There is no difference between an undetectable God and a non-existent God, except if your are 100% sure that your brain does not deceive you.
j9dz2sf 1 year ago
"the idea of an actual infinite collection leads to absurdities": not at all. In infinite sets, there is no problem saying that two sets, one strictly included in the other, have the same number of elements. In maths, "same number of elements" is defined as "there exists a bijection between them" which apply for finite and infinite sets.
j9dz2sf 1 year ago
NOOOO you can't say that GOOOODDDD is eternal or infinite. First, you must have evidence that this god exists. The universe is not evidence for God. If it WERE evidence, then it would also be evidence for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.
Also, if you want to argue that with the creation of the universe came the creation of time itself, then the law of causation no longer applies. Time has to be a factor for the law of causation to exist.
Fucking idiotic creationists...
myteethareshiny 1 year ago
Also, there is no such "Law of Causation" he's making up/perpetrating someone else's false "Law."
There is a Law of Gravity, but String Theory is a THEORY. It's a THEORY OF CAUSATION.
matics19 1 year ago
The Universe doesn't have or NEED a cause. The laws of the Universe itself require that the Universe would have brought ITSELF into existence WITHOUT any external assistance from any "God" real or imaginary.
matics19 1 year ago
I agree. Somethings are not subject to causation. In fact there are many effects in the world where no cause is observed. The principle of uncertainty manifests itself in electron transitions, proton emission in radioactive decay, photons in Young's slit experiment. Newton and Laplace's notion of cause and effect was incomplete. Not every effect needs a cause or explanation, including things in the physical world.
estragon9 1 year ago
hahaha pause the video at exactally 3:20
hairybalooncabbage 1 year ago 2
that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd was eturnal, that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd is infinite, that gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd is outside our balahblahblahakfd
hairybalooncabbage 1 year ago
I really want to punch him in the face.
hairybalooncabbage 1 year ago
@hairybalooncabbage I know! Me too! Don't you just hate it how he takes the best argument for atheism and destroys it using logic and reason? Damn you, Randall Niles! No fair using that logic stuff. Why can't you be as dumb as a post like Richard Dawkins? I wanted to continue living in my delusion and have blind faith that God doesn't exist! Now what am I supposed to do? I already bought an "A" is for atheist t-shirt and everything! Waaaaaaaaaa!
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue He doesn't use reason or logic at all... are you being sarcastic? He's making ridiculous assumptions based on zero evidence, only his personal interpretation of events. lol
matics19 1 year ago
@matics19 I AM being sarcastic but not in the way you think. I don't hear any ridiculous assumptions - just logic and reason and evidence? Could you tell me what you think his errors in reasoning are?
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue yea your right this guy is so f'ing intellegent. btw he looks really cool at exactally 3:20 you should check it out
hairybalooncabbage 1 year ago
@hairybalooncabbage Haha, nice.
matics19 1 year ago
why is he talking as if to an infant?
hairybalooncabbage 1 year ago
So you're assuming everything has a "cause"? That's a pretty big assumption with literally no basis to it that is defensible...
matics19 1 year ago
@matics19 No, he specifically said not everything has a cause. But everything that comes to exist must have a cause.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue No, we as humans WANT everything to have a cause. That's one of the biggest hurdles that must be overcome in any discussion about science, theology, cosmology, or anything. Just because there is a rock in my garden doesn't mean it has a cause. Maybe I put it there for a purpose, maybe I put it there absent-mindedly while raking, maybe a bird or other animal brought it over. However it got there, it doesn't need a purpose to BE there, or exist at all. It just does.
matics19 1 year ago
@matics19 Why do you insist on saying EVERYTHING has a cause when that is not the argument? Your own argument about the rock in your garden is fallacious. If the rock had not been there for eternity (which it hasn't - at least not longer than 4.6 billion years, right?) then something most definitely CAUSED it to be there. The logic is inescapable. I think you might be confusing a purposeful cause with a natural cause. The universe requires a cause - CASE CLOSED!
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue But my point is that the idea that "if something had a beginning, it had a cause" is completely invalid when considering the universe. How are we to determine whether something had a cause? Especially something like the Big Bang (ie the creation of the Unvierse). Sure you can ASSUME it had a cause because we as humans want it to, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't need a cause. The argument is in fact that everything has a cause, which is not true.
matics19 1 year ago
@matics19 I'm not assuming that the universe had a cause because I want it to. I KNOW that it had a cause because it had a beginning. If it didn't have beginning and was eternal, this conversation would be moot. How can you deny the self-evidence fact that whatever comes to exist must have a cause? (Again, note that I did not say whatever exists has a cause.) Why is it invalid when considering the universe?
"How are we to determine whether something had a cause?" Easy. If it had a beginning.
bestvalue 1 year ago
It doesn't make sense to say that God exists outside the laws and properties of the universe while simultaneously making the argument that he simply decided to create the universe at some moment. This would imply a time at which he made this decision as well as some sort of action that created it, which is also dependent on time. The argument is rather paradoxical as I see it
mccambria1144 1 year ago
I think he just used God as evidence for the existence of God.
butladaballa 1 year ago
We agree that the current manifestation of this particular universe began with the big bang, and that in all likelihood no evidence could survive of anything that went before. That's not saying there was nothing before, merely that we don't have any evidence to analyze. Perhaps mass-energy is eternal; perhaps space-time can arise out of nothing, at a quantum level; perhaps you just proved the existence of Zeus and it's all the other gods that are false. The point is, who can claim to know?
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
does farting have a cause? it exists...
stangrits 1 year ago
...continued Even if it were to be concluded that something outside of space/time must have caused the universe, why call it god? The concept of being outside of space and time is something I don't think our minds can grasp. I don't know why people think they can assign the label 'God' to it, with human properties of intelligence&compassion. He says he won't assign properties to it, but even by calling it god and using the ambiguous descriptors 'infinite'&'spiritual', he is.
Dianeva89 1 year ago
The big bang doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. There could have existed the universe before the singularity in some other form. And if he's saying that a thing can exist eternally or outside of time and that thing must be god, why can't that thing just be the universe? Everything in the universe appears to have a cause, but that doesn't mean the universe itself does.
continued...
Dianeva89 1 year ago
@Dianeva89 ughh..u not listning..matter and entergy cant be eterntal there was no universe before this universe before this universe etc...God was there and created it all..goshh i dnt see how ppl can make this so difficult to understand wen it comes to cause and effect..he explains it very well in the vid
JMACisDOPE 1 year ago
Whose dream ? Any questions /debate about the origin of Universe is a sign of progress and acceptable. Any dogma - ie, that the religions preaches that Bible/Quran is the ultimate truth and everything has explained in those books are unacceptable. Then the religions must be able to answer all the questions asked. What we know is science . What we don't know is God. So god is our ignorance.
Thrideepspillai 1 year ago
i agree with you that the universe must have an explanation for it's existence and that there was definetely a cause but why are you assuming that the cause was god? see im being honest with myself and saying that i don't know and the cause could've been a what instead of a who.
bzman149 1 year ago
@bzman149 We'll never know, science is an endless spiral of essentially meaningless facts that go deeper and deeper into infinity. Personally I just without looking for scientific proof because it will never get there - jump to the conclusion of God because it seems natural and completely realistic with how I view reality.
aciddmc 1 year ago
Ugh... You do know that "the beginning of the universe" is a subject of hot debate. There are quite a few sientist who have theories about the universe having no begeniing at all. Before the Big Bang it it existed in another state. If the universe is eternal we do not even need your god!
AJBuwalda 1 year ago
OK-let us assume that god was outside time and space. Then he must have created the universe from himself as nothing outside was existing. Since he himself was above the physical laws (space/time) how his creations -which is of course a part of him -could bind to physical laws. If the creation is an intentional -purposeful thing, the god is also bound to evolution -for the fact that he didnot think about before. Otherwise, the universe must be existing ever since the god is existing...
Thrideepspillai 1 year ago
@Thrideepspillai they don't bind to physical laws technically, study quantum physics. everything is a dream.
aciddmc 1 year ago
@aciddmc Whose dream ? Any questions /debate about the origin of Universe is a sign of progress and acceptable. Any dogma - ie, that the religions preaches that Bible/Quran is the ultimate truth and everything has explained in those books are unacceptable. Then the religions must be able to answer all the questions asked. What we know is science . What we don't know is God. So god is our ignorance.
Thrideepspillai 1 year ago
So you explain the "something" must have a beginning, however, we tend to forget that space is "nothing". Does nothing need a beginning? I'm thinking not. All of these laws you mention are only relative to our "human" research. We get all caught up in laws we have "created" when they may not even be relative to other places and areas of our dimension. Nothing is ever how it seems...
jf4r3w311 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Wonderers,
My name is Mark Maloney; I would like to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56. com. There you will find entirely new physics and cosmology, called Proto-space and DSFF, which are the formational mechanics composing all aspects composing our universe. The best way to learn something new is to securitize it looking for errors. I welcome your opinions.
Sincerely, Mark Maloney
MarkMaloney56 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
Yeah, so basically the argument is there was a first "cause" in a series of "cause and effect". I disagree. There could be an infinite series of cause and effect, or there could be multiple causes. But even assuming there is a first cause, why do you call it God? You (and I) have no idea what this "cause" is. God is a title people usually use to refer to a being of some sort. Your argument is misleading at best.
ExSaint1379 1 year ago
I am studying critical thinking and yours is a superb argument! Wish I had a big bro like you :D
sjerads 1 year ago 2
So many fallacies...so many assumptions...
raoskaos 1 year ago
@raoskaos yep. science includes a horrible amount of assumptions too. Maybe every single law we have is false. For example lets say as a biologist in 1500 all you've seen are 100s of white swans. 300 years down the road you're ancestor bumps into a black swan... WTF!!! We could have sworn all swans were white. For all we know the law of gravity has many exceptions and isn't grounded in anything, something as simple as that could be way off, who knows. Science assumes things too.
aciddmc 1 year ago
@aciddmc
No...it doesn't. Science is about facts and knowledge. Not superstition and wish-thinking.
raoskaos 1 year ago
So how was god created? How could he exist?
porkramen21 1 year ago
@porkramen21
God exist, leave with it.
roniepao 1 year ago
@roniepao
leave with it where?
stangrits 1 year ago
Furthurmore, when you propose an eternal god, you propose an eternal universe. The universe is defined as everything that exists and existence itself. If there was a god before the big bang, then he would have been the only thing in existence and thus would be the universe by definition. He may have been the catalyst from which everything else in the universe emerged, but nonetheless would be included. The universe is eternal. The only alternative is to literally believe in an uncaused exnihilo
Raptor302 1 year ago
Your assuming that the universe had a beginning. Not knowing what happened before the singularity is not the same thing as there being nothing.
Raptor302 1 year ago
"God is not subject to time or resources" is just a cop-out way of explaining the universe's origins. The answer to the question doesn't make sense so you blame it on magic. God himself, would HAVE to have resources at his disposal to create the universe. God himself would HAVE to experience time to do so intelligently. You can't just say that he didn't need those things. Even if the time and resources were of his own being, they were still there.
kaje01 1 year ago
@kaje01 (God himself would Have to have resources at his disposal to create)..so u sayin sum part of material was ETERNAL with God?? noooo God SPOKE things into existance! the only resource was his mouth..why? cuz he was the only thing existing
JMACisDOPE 1 year ago
@JMACisDOPE If that were the case then by what means did god create everything? If he just SPOKE as you say, then he wouldn't have been the one actually creating anything. Some 'magic' force would have designed the human brain and not god in that example. (god says: "Let there be a brain"). He himself would have had to design the brain and every part of it. No matter how powerful he is he couldn't simply speak things into existance. The same applies to matter.
kaje01 1 year ago
@kaje01 to speak things into existance that implies POWER so if God has INFINITE all power howcome he couldnt??? imean if he couldnt do that then that would mean he wouldnt be all powerful!! he spoke it..then he shaped it or formed it!...
u right he would have to design it..and he did..they say the brain is the most complex stucture in the universe with like trillions of cells each working together
JMACisDOPE 1 year ago
@JMACisDOPE Yep "shaped or formed" makes much more sense then "spoke". And I do think the difference matters, as "shaped or formed" takes the magic out of the equation. Basically god becomes a scientific object that MUST exist in some way shape or form, where as "spoke" is just passively saying 'god done it' and leaving it at that. ie - not logical, not usable in an argument. The same would apply to matter, simply saying "GOD MADE IT" is illogical, it makes more sense to say "GOD HAD IT" imo
kaje01 1 year ago
Good point, but isn't god supposed to be everywhere? God being in another dimension directly contradicts the statement that god is everywhere at any given time and place.
Smashkirby 1 year ago
if God is not subjected to time, then how can someone ask when did He came to be?
i am reminded in the bible that in some verses God disregards time:
example in old testament:
psalm 90: 4
new testament
2nd Peter 3 : 8
it makes sense. thanks for the video and God bless all 8)
gerinja 1 year ago
The keyword is: IF!
Christian: God is the cause of the beginning of the universe.
Science: A quantum mechanical process is the cause of the beginning of the universe.
So your God is a quantum mechanical process.
1st it says nothing about the state of space and time before the BB.
2nd It says nothing about any religion, or about anything that is written in any "holy" book. The word GOD here is just an excuse.
drdalet 1 year ago
@drdalet The problem with your statement is proceses do not self initiate themselves I.e The universe cannot initate the universe. Something initiated the universe and what we call all the matter within it. On the quantum level, matter has a less real feel about it, making it like something constructed it and can easily de-constucte it. A passage in the Bible might be discribing the process Rev 6:14
Silly2smart 1 year ago
@Silly2smart What you are saying to me is that God can not initiate itself, so whatever argument you have to justify God, I use the same justification for Nature and all that is part of nature, the seen and unseen. The only difference is that you accept a ancient book and I modern science to find explanations. Modern interpretations of ancient texts are irrelevant.
drdalet 1 year ago
Yooo birdbrain...
please prove that the laws of physics ARE NOT ETERNAL... instead of proving that god created the laws !
TheDivineCellphone 1 year ago
The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning, so the beginning in itself is relative, we can not asume that there is a creator just because we don`t know what is or how it was before.
mrsblossom2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
Silly2smart 1 year ago
So, whatever you wish to CALL this "thing" that initiated the universe, it would be outside of space-time or in some way able to re-new or not be subject to entropy. Being agnostic would be a healthy scientific view to have unless this "thing" had a reason for the universe's creation. The tough question is: What is the reason? Now an Atheistic view does not logically have merit as if they are correct they they have gained nothing, but if wrong they could suffer some type of loss.
Silly2smart 1 year ago
This is a classic religious fallacy. The universe as defined by the physical laws which govern us, those in place since the big bang, did in fact have a begining. No scientist will argue this. The universe as defined as all exists now before or beside and outside of the big bang is not neccesarily infinite or even still. In fact no conclusions can be drawn about such a state of the universe, and certainly not one that invents a sentient being to "majic" us into existence.
nomajic 2 years ago
This argument is nothing but a cop out with no explanatory power at all.
You'd may as well just say that the universe was magicked into existence.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago 3
This argument assumes that time is a linear Euclidean dimension as we experience it on a human scale. From general relativity we know that, whatever the actual case, this assumption is not justified. Time is a measure of the interval between events, this measure distorts asymptotically as one approaches a singularity and hence there is no beginning to be reached.
herbiepop 2 years ago
The law of causation: Everything that has a beginning has a cause is a premise. We know that this premise applies on a macroscopic human scale. However we also know that this premise does not apply on a quantum scale. We have no more justification for extrapolating this law to apply on a universal scale that we have in extrapolating it to apply to a supernatural being.
herbiepop 2 years ago
Backwards logic does not work, "I am wet because it rained" is not the case that "It rained to get me wet"
Cause as initial state is not the same as cause in the sense of intended purpose.
orcodrilo 2 years ago 31
Stop your emotional outbursts. Answer the key questions that make or break your theory:
1) You claim space can be cut from a location, and that leaves us with nothing at that location.
2) Then you claim that you cannot put an object in that nothing location.
Clearly, you havent a clue how the environment you live in operates. I suggest you go conduct this experiment and explain your claims; which are obviously false!
You still cant draw that physical object you call time..lol
fatfist 2 years ago
chuichupachichi: [marches, zip it, etc]
when you use terms like 'time' in common language, you just speak nonsense.
You haven't a clue about science, time, physics. In physics, we use the terms consistently and unambiguously.
In physics, time can only be used as verb/adverb, and not as adjective/object.
In physics, usage of time is qualitative (before/after, early/late, now and then, past/present/future).
That's why you can't draw a picture of your imaginary physical time.
fatfist 2 years ago
A dimension is a concept that relates to an architectural property of a physical object. It is an indispensable ingredient of the adjective three-dimensional, which we can only use in the context of architecture.
Time has to do with adverbs and not with nouns.
Learn some English, otherwise you are spattering gibberish!
ADJECTIVE --> NOUN
ADVERB --> VERB
dimension --> object
time --> verb
fatfist 2 years ago
"English"?
"Time" magazine!
"Time" is on my side!
"Time" is of the essence!
"Time" marches on
"Time" you zip it
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Time qualifies how something moves. It doesnt qualify the something itself. A dimension is to a photograph what time is to a movie.
Hence, by its very nature, time is incompatible with the dimensions of Physics, and it is incredibly stupid to suggest that time forms a part of a geometrical object. If it did, then you can DRAW it.
To borrow from the current jargon of Mathematics so that our mentally challenged friend may also understand: time is a
scalar. It points to nowhere!
fatfist 2 years ago
{it is incredibly stupid to suggest that time forms a part of a geometrical object. If it did, then you can DRAW it}
{A dimension is a concept that relates to an architectural property of a physical object}
So you say that because you can't draw time, it's not a dimension? Also, that a dimension must relate to a property of a physical object?
Physicists say there exist upwards of 11 dimensions. Can you draw them all or are they lying? Can you show them all to relate to.. bla bla, or they lied?
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(because you can't draw time, it's not a dimension)
You are chasing scarecrows. You said time is a PHYSICAL component of universe. If it is, then it has shape because it would be an object.
DRAW IT please! Cut a chunk of it and take a picture and post it on the net please.
I have asked you MANY times to do this. You can't. You are finished.
fatfist 2 years ago
(Physicists say exist 11 dimensions)
You are parroting statement you dont understand. People create hundreds of mathematical dimensions/data points every day to model systems from networks, to cars, to universes.
Those are NOT physical dimensions. The only physical dimensions are L, W, H. If you say there are more, please POINT, SHOW, DRAW, or take picture of them, because they would be PHYSICAL. You cant do it, because time is only CONCEPTUAL you use math to count it.
fatfist 2 years ago
Comment removed
fatfist 2 years ago
There is no such anything as 'outside of space'.
How is empty space different than nothing? It isnt. Space is that which lacks shape. Space is not an object. Space IS nothing.
In Science, an object is that which has shape. ALL objects, without exception, have space contouring them. Every atom is encapsulated 'within' space. Not even God can elude being surrounded by space.
There is NO back door for God to escape because space is NOT quantized or finite.
fatfist 2 years ago
{There is no such anything as 'outside of space'}
It's impossible to make that determination. Space is finite & neither you nor anyone else has ever observed beyond the limits of space. Your assertion is merely equivalent to claiming that space is infinite... which is contrary to science
{How is empty space different than nothing?}
One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing. That's why there's a word which is "space" & another word which is "nothing". They hav 2 different definitions
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(Space is finite)
Then answer my previous question about cutting space and removing it. Why cant that be done if it is finite? You cannot answer the wild claims that you parrot.
(you claiming that space is infinite)
The words finite and infinite are adjectives you moron. Adjectives can only be used with objects. Space cannot be said to be finite or infinite, idiot. Anything qualified as infinite cannot possibly have shape. Learn English!
fatfist 2 years ago
{answer my question about cutting space & removing it. Why cant that be done if it is finite?}
This is some of the most ludicrous thinking I've ever witnessed. You're saying that it's impossible to cut out a piece of space, simply because it's not finite. Of which, it's true that a piece can't be cut out. However, if not being finite is the reason why one can't cut out a piece, then being infinite should be the reason why you can cut out a piece
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
@Chuichupachichi
"if not being finite is the reason why one can't cut out a piece"
you are confused man.
you are saying that just because something aint finite, it is infinite.
but infinite is not a number, not a thing, not real, it is only an idea. There is no infinite thing, if there is, then show one.
I'm interested how you answer the questions:
if you cut out a piece of space from a location, what is left there?
can you put your hand there afterwards?
tsixles 2 years ago 2
You're defective thinking cannot realize that whether or not one can cut out a piece of space, is irrelevant. It's not the criteria by which the matter can be determined
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Unlike your religion, in Physics, space is not physical. It is irrational to qualify it as either finite or infinite. Go take grade 2 English and learn what an adjective, noun, and adverb is.
Space is perfectly transparent, intangible, friction-less, unmovable, colorless, temperature-less, etc. It is neither small nor large nor wide nor tall. It cannot move nor be occupied (e.g., like fish occupy water by displacing water molecules).
fatfist 2 years ago
{It is irrational to qualify it (space) as either finite or infinite}
You say this after you've been arguing that space is infinite. Do you realize that this refutation could have been done by a teenager with down syndrome? Yet, I'm supposed to go to grade 2 English. You don't need English, you need a elementary, basic degree of "logic". It's what keeps you from contradicting yourself. Watch Star Trek - focus on Dr. Spock
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(You say this after you've been arguing that space is infinite)
Oh chui, you have been defeated by logic and now you are chasing scarecrows at every corner.
Every statement on Utube is on the RECORD. Cut & paste my statement where I state that space is infinite.
Not only are your strawmen vanishing at every corner, but you don't understand grammar either.
GRAMMAR LESSON:
space is not an object, so it can't be modified by an adjective like 'infinite' or 'finite'. Not in physics!
fatfist 2 years ago
On second thought, you do also need basic English. Look at your grammatical ghastliness
"Take 2nd grade English & learn what an adjective, noun, & adverb is".
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(On second thought, you do also need basic English)
Typical for a loser to resort to childish nah nah's by pointing out the word 'is', or how ugly someone's mother 'is'.
We are dealing with physics, chui, not childish games.
Physics is the study of objects. You claim that time is an object. For the 15th time, PROVE IT or concede you are an idiot for wasting Utube bandwidth with your childish games!
fatfist 2 years ago
{A typical loser will resort to childish nah nahs by pointing out} that the winner should "Go take 2nd grade English"
learn what "is" an adjective, noun & adverb
how ugly "is" someone's mother
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
{We're dealing with physics, chui}
You're trying to deal with a man, not an evo child mind you're used to possessing & being around
{You claim time is an object. PROVE IT or concede you're an idiot} I claimed its a dimension. An idiot changes that to an object
You claimed that if something is a dimension then it must be physical & one can draw, show or photo it. Therefor, I said that Physicists say there are upwards of 11 dimensions, can you draw, show or photo all of them?
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Chui: (I claimed TIME is a dimension. An idiot changes that to an object)
(Time is indeed physical dimension, its not a concept.)
Noooooooooooooo! You are on the RECORD as stating that time is physical. This means that its part of a physical object. Draw a pic of a cube (L,W,H) and show the physical time on it. Youve been asked to draw time over 10 times now! You cant! Is time sticking out of your butt?
You dont know the difference between a dimension, coordinate, vector.
fatfist 2 years ago
In Physics, 3-D means that 3 mutually-perpendicular planes of an object can be brought together to form a corner while their edges meet to form a vertex - which are lines of dimension.
Dimensions & coordinates are STATIC CONCEPTS. Vectors are dynamic concepts.
Although these definitions, characterizations, or descriptions at face value seem to be identical, they are conceptually irreconcilable.
Time CANNOT be static concept, like a dim; time is dynamic! So tell us what time is then.
fatfist 2 years ago
dimension (adjective)
time (verb)
In Physics, Dimension is a property (attribute) and used as adjective to qualify an object.
Time is a verb (measurement) and IMPOSSIBLE to be qualified by the word dimension; in religion YES but NOT in Physics! THIS IS WHAT CONFUSES YOU!
The 3 dimensions are length, width, and height; the 3 coordinates are known as longitude, latitude, and altitude; the 3 vectors are known as depth, breadth, and elevation.
fatfist 2 years ago
To which only an idiot would reply with - "People create hundreds of mathematical dimensions/data points every day to model systems from networks, to cars, to universes"
Regarding 11 dimensions, Physicists aren't talking about data points to model systems from networks to bla bla bla
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(Regarding 11 dimensions, Physicists aren't talking about data points to model)
Then why dont you tell us what these 11 physical dimension ARE? Please show them, draw them!
You are beaten to a pulp and the only thing you do is just keep babbling all the science fictional religious stuff you read, but CANNOT explain anything you parrot. Arguments from supposed authorities are FALLACIOUS. YOU must explain what you say.
fatfist 2 years ago
I'm through toying with you kid. You're an obvious waste of time that's unteachable due to a fools pride. You should ask why they lie to you? A physiological inability to speak, 4 hands, full body fur, drag knuckles & very large canines. They're common threads shared by all apes. What makes you so special that even while lacking all the criteria, you still get to be in the ape club?
Must be Evoist brains. Even crows are smarter than apes & they can speak
I'm gone!
~ The Ape Hunter ~
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(I'm through toying with you kid)
Beaten down by logic and reason? Your subjective and heart-felt attitude towards reality has beaten you to a pulp.
Ahhh, the passions of the heart, the epitome of self-induced harm for the purpose of getting attention .....priceless!!!
You are full of emotional fluff with no substance. Sure, go ahead, run; Im not stopping you. Thanks for the comedy though :-)
fatfist 2 years ago
I remember the 2nd grade was when they said don't end a sentence with "is". Is what? If only I had a dime for every time a Evolutionist proved to be precisely what he was accusing me of being, while he was accusing me. Grammar can be so easy to get incorrect that it's why I never criticize it unless someone first criticizes mine with finger painted A B D's... as you have
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
chui,
Definitions & grammar are of paramount importance in physics so that YOU, as a prosecutor, can clearly communicate your theory to the jury. Otherwise you are making up nonsense that is used to play the role of god in your dissertation.
fatfist 2 years ago
(One cannot occupy nothing)
According to you, space is something. When we remove it from a location, then we have nothing.
Why is it that we can occupy this location again? This PROVES your bald assertion to be wrong! Space IS nothing. You haven't a clue about science or rational thinking. You are finished.
fatfist 2 years ago
{Space IS nothing}
Then how is it that you're describing it to me so much? You've been telling me all about space/nothing, it's characteristics, how it can be occupied, what you can & can't do with it. You sure seem to know much about nothing. Everyone else knows nothing about nothing because when regarding "nothing"....nothing comprises nothing. Thus, there's nothing to know about it... other than nothing
You knowing much about nothing explains why you know nothing about everything else
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(Then how is it that you're describing space to me so much if its nothing?)
Because if it WAS something, you'd be able to cut it out of a location, you moron. It can't be done. I've said that to you over 5 times but you only prosthelytize instead of paying attention.
Only an idiot continues to insist that space is a physical object, especially when it doesn't have shape!
Cant you even read at a minimum 'monkey' level? You're attacking strawmen at every turn because you don't read.
fatfist 2 years ago
At a boy, you're showing every sign of a real loser!
"moron", "idiot" (ad hominem) "space is a physical object" (straw man) Are you getting angry with me "fattyboy"? Don't get angry with me. I didn't make you the loser. I merely brought it out in you
It's not my fault you think that I said space is a physical object. I never said that. I said physical objects can occupy space. That's as elementary as it gets. But you had to argue against it & now look at yourself. Its what happens when duhhh
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
{There is NO back door for God to escape because space is NOT quantized or finite}
It is space that cannot escape God. For space is finite & God is the infinite
Science says space is finite
fatfist says space is infinite
God defines himself in his word
fatfist presents the definition of Mickey Mouse
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
There is no such anything as 'outside of time'.
Time requires an observer: time = motion + memory
No physical object is subject to time. Time is a figment of the imagination for a living entity and nothing more other than a counter to 'describe' an event.
If God 'created' the U, then he had an event which took time (motion+memory).
Therefore impossible for God to create time!
fatfist 2 years ago
{Time requires an observer: time = motion + memory}
Everyone agrees that the universe & many objects within it existed well before any living organism with a memory existed. We know from even just the measure of time in which man has been observing things beyond Earths atmosphere, that change has occurred. Stars have died, distances between objects have increased etc. Certainly much change occurred when before organisms existed. What thing separates those different states of existence, one from
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
the other? "Time" that's what & it existed despite the absolute non existence of any memories
{No physical object is subject to time}
Are you still 9 lbs. 4 oz. & butt naked?
Just because you still have "fatfists" it doesn't mean the answer is yes. Are you not today, one day closer to death than you were yesterday? It appears that you're a physical object that's subject to time. Not to mention that you've definitely missed some Sundays
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Therefor, impossible for God to have created you for the purpose of determining anything about him. You can't even determine obvious things about yourself. Such as the fact that change has occurred since when you were born & it's purely because you're a physical object that is subject to time
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(change occurred you were born)
That has to do with biological processes. We observe them, store them in MEMORY and COUNT ticks as secs to time them. Havent you learned anything in your church?
You are babbling nonsense. You have no rational arguments. You can rub your tush to warm up your heart all you want. But you have not proven space as physical so you can CUT chunks out and take them away. Nor have you proven time is a physical.
You have proven your claims as irrational.
fatfist 2 years ago
WOW! It's truly incredible to witness the lengths to which a predetermining person will go in denying that he's lost the argument. Once your arguments have been check mated & you deny it, usually you'll start saying incredibly ridiculous things from that point forward
Example - fatfist; "Time requires an observer: time = motion + memory"
This is what you referenced in your last post with upper case "MEMORY". But you said that "we observe (changes) them > memory > count = time is merely concept
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
But that's after having observed the changes which already took place... due to time! "In church"? I learned that "fear & reverence of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom & knowledge". Therefor, the literature is obviously conducive of the correct execution of critical thought processes. Not conducive of your Evo-typical tautological (circular) thinking
That's why you're lucky that Mr. Niles is certainly too busy to reply to you. As a Christian & a lawyer (trained thought processes) he'd make
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
mincemeat of your arguments. He might reply to the occasional exception but someone like myself is all that's required for run of the mill athevolutionists like you. Think about it, after tautological absurdity you call me babbler, irrational & Manasses lover?
I never said space is "physical". I merely challenged your claim that it's equivalent to "nothing". But nothing is nothing & you can't occupy nothing with something. You can put something into a empty box because it has space within
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
You are on the record as literally implying that space IS physical, as witnessed by your comments:
1. (Space is finite)
2. (you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish)
You also made this CONTRADICTORY statement:
3. (One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing)
A physical object can be occupied, like a virus occupies you. Space cannot be occupied like a fish occupies the ocean by displacing water. Therefore space IS nothing. QED!
fatfist 2 years ago
{You are on record as implying that space is physical}
Not in my comments. Thats why you said "implying". Only you think it's implied because "finite", to you means "physical". You've been using "physical" to mean "material". Finite doesn't mean material to anyone but you
(you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish) Indeed, if a box is empty there is space within. Take it anywhere & if you didn't put anything in it, the space will still be there
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Princeton Dictionary (finite = bounded, limited in magnitude)
Wiki (Space IS boundless)
Anything bounded or occupied is physical because it has border, it has shape. Space doesnt. Space has no magnitude! Only morons keep parroting otherwise.
You are on the RECORD arguing that space IS physical, as witnessed by your 3 comments:
1. (Space is finite)
2. (you will take that space contained within the box to wherever it is you wish)
3. (I said physical objects can occupy space.)
fatfist 2 years ago
(One can occupy empty space. One cannot occupy nothing) Contradictory is your illogical gig, not mine. I never said space = nothing. Nobody has ever said that NASA's nothing shuttle has launched & gone into nothing. It's orbiting in outer nothing. "Space" is something. It's what all the matter in the universe is contained in. You cannot contain matter in nothing
(A physical object can be occupied, like a virus occupies you) Only because I have space for it. Stop running from the truth.. dummy
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
You can't prove space is physical. In Physics, the words 'finite', 'infinite' do not apply to space.
(I never said space = nothing)
You are still creating straw puppets that you can attack. Keep arguing with yourself...LOL
(evo child mind you're used to possessing)
We are talking Physics here chui, not religion and demons. Speak to your pastor about possession. Speak to ME about Physics, not your heart-felt emotions.
fatfist 2 years ago
and you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking... racing around to come up behind you again
the sun is the same in a relative way but you're older... shorter of breath and one day closer to death...
or eternal life... recognize your Maker!
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
I think the problem here is that unless we presuppose that the God in question is in fact the Christian God we have no reason to think that the Causer is without a cause Itself... The problem overall is that this argument does nothing for the Christian faith and can be used by any religion...
We have no information of what is or what was before the singularity so we can't know that the Causer was without a cause...
What do you think?
KeezeeD 2 years ago
hey good video and insight on the cosmological argument.
Another good point to bring up is that cosmologists used to believe that the universe was eternal (steady state theory) and therefore had no creator. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, we can now ask, who made it! And if that cause happens to be an eternal God, it makes no sense asking who made him!
Great video, keep it up!! :)
mattea19841984 2 years ago
"who made it"
Why does it have to be a who? How does he get from saying, "the universe had a cause, so it must be God"
No. Much more likely is a non-living entity.
This argument is essentially, "Everything has a cause. Except my God, because he is special."
If a being were outside time, he could not change nor cause change. If a being were outside matter, he could not affect matter. If he were outside space, he would not be in our dimension.
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
This argument has been roundly refuted so many times...
/watch?v=WHtxnIkzros
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"An infinitely dense vacuum." I like that because it shows how far the naturalist will go to avoid God.
This actually very simple to understand. People just need to transpose the situation. God doesn't need a cause just like the computer programmer doesn't need a cause when the entities inside the software wonder who created the software.
Even if there was a creator of God, it doesn't apply to the argument. We only want to know how our existence was formed. We are blind to anything else.
DragolJanzovnik 2 years ago
The discovery of information happens three ways.
1. Our known human five senses
2. Other beings who have at least one sense that we do and one sense we don't.
3. The creator of the sensory environment.
Naturalists and atheists are stuck on 1 and consider 2. Some of them experience 3, but consider it to be a sensory illusion.
An improbable set of coincidences, accurate prophecy, and an abnormal exposure to super sensory information can all help to validate 3 due to it's uniformity.
DragolJanzovnik 2 years ago
The improbable set of coincidences should be obvious to everyone. Most just aren't looking hard enough. And the ones who find it and reject it do so out of the anger of their own heart.
Our heart is our 6th sense, but unlike the other five it is in an incomplete state so most consider it a function of our mind. This is odd considering out of all our senses, it controls us the most.
Ironically it is the first reason why an atheist will become an atheist only to deny it's existence as well.
DragolJanzovnik 2 years ago
"reflect7", can you for only a short time, pretend to be an evolutionist? It would be nice to have a conversation or debate with an evolutionist whom, even though his overall view is incorrect, may at least present thinking that is not so broken that it makes wrong within a wrong. Usually "Created" or "evolved" becomes a moot point due to all the illogically irrelevant, tautological oxymorons coupled with incomprehension
I'm convinced, ones mind on crack is better than on evolution