RE: Proof of God: Rational Response to Atheism II

Stating a simple position your videos already support.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheist
• atheism
• rational
• response
• Muslim
• Islam
• responders
• squad
• God
• Jesus
• Bible
• Christian

[onijester56]

@ahmarsidd "Also, in order for BB to incur the laws are not required rather their requirement comes after the "explosion" has taken place."

This is in fact my last point. The thing is that it demonstrates that a first cause is not needed PRECISELY BECAUSE the "laws" were not 'required' until after, and hence a "first cause" would not be needed to break them.

Also, the "laws of thermodynamics" become "probabilities" and "generalizations" on the quantum scale, so they still aren't "required".

[ahmarsidd]

@onijester56 Your "argument" assumes that first cause is temporal and functions inside the natural laws. The reason I mentioned LoT breaking down at t=0 is precisesly to show that the first cause was atemporal. Also, in order for BB to incur the laws are not required rather their requirement comes after the "explosion" has taken place.

[onijester56]

@ahmarsidd Red-shift simply indicates that galaxies are moving away from the earth and each other. This would require an initial point for this universe to have began at, but says nothing on something existing before this universe.

That's not even going into how "any person who is knowledgeable in the field of quantum physics, cosmology, theoretical physics, etc" all state not an ABSOLUTE beginning to the universe at t=0.

And also scientists place authority under both reason and results. :P

[onijester56]

@ahmarsidd Even with the "fact that Laws of Thermodynamics break down at t=0" this doesn't prove any cause. In fact it makes the case for a "first cause" even less logical because the very "laws" that require the "first cause" in the first place would not be there to require the "first cause" in the first place.

Your argument destroys your own argument. Come on.

[davidbpearson2]

Now you know the futility of arguing with an historian. We even take the results of science with a grain of salt, and see all pre-history with a cynical eye. We certainly don't trust scriptures. They are written by men, and men are flawed indeed.

[ahmarsidd]

"All that they showed is that the current known universe all came from a central point billions of years ago. It is not proof of creation, or even a beginning. You will need to do better." LOL...LOL...LOL...just simply...well...LOL! :D

[davidbpearson2]

"Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Andrei Linde, discovery of red shift. All these people and findings believe the universe is not infinite and had a beginning."

All that they showed is that the current known universe all came from a central point billions of years ago. It is not proof of creation, or even a beginning. You will need to do better.

[ahmarsidd]

Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Andrei Linde, discovery of red shift. All these people and findings believe the universe is not infinite and had a beginning.

[davidbpearson2]

"Just ask about any person..."

That's not an answer, that's an evasion. If you have evidence of a "creation," present it please.

"But I see you are a lost cause though."

Yep, people who reason too well usually are lost causes regarding religion.

[ahmarsidd]

Proof? Just ask about any person who is knowledgeable in the field of quantum physics, cosmology, theoretical physics, etc. they will tell you that Universe had a beginning and it is not infinite. Forget this...you're even debating the very well establish fact that Laws of Thermodynamics break down at t=0 But I see you are a lost cause though