Vanceastro:

Look at this man.
In your previous post you claimed that God could not have been caused because CAUSALITY requires TIME which didn't exist before the universe.
In the same way the universe could not have been caused because CAUSALITY requires TIME which didn't exist before the universe.

The Cosmological Argument precludes a causeless universe. As such, its Cause must exist.

And science has proven that the universe began.

This argument from time is my own invention, anyway. I just brought it up here to be criticized.

KingEbukasBlog:


Very false
1. The Cosmological Argument was not from Thomas Aquinas . Aristotle and Plato were the first to propose the existence a first cause . Thomas Aquinas only re-introduced it to Christian theology .

Read through the lines carefully bro. I didn't say Aquinas proposed the existence of a first cause. His five proofs, of which the cosmological argument is one, are what Christian apologists uses as defence for the existence of God.

3. The First Cause which is self existent is God . 'God' is just an appellation for the first cause .

Lolz. Saying God is the first cause is ludicruos. Is there a verifible fact for this? Please, don't quote any passage from your storybook. Just give proof that God is the first cause.

4. If you are repulsed by the word 'God' , we can go with the befitting description of the First Cause: an extremely powerful uncaused necessarily existing non-contingent non physical immaterial eternal being who created the universe and everything in it.

Bro, I ain't got no issues with the word God.

felixomor:


It means the word means as it is written.

And as u wrote it, all your evidences need to be seen with the eyes .
U cant "point to" what u cant see.

No. When they say something is literal it means exactly.


I said when they say something isn't literal what does it mean?

Vanceastro:

This is stupid. Creation/causation requires a TIME difference. So if there was no TIME before the universe then the universe was not created.

Na wa oo . There are ways to look at this and they mean the same

1 . Time began with the universe's cause - God is timeless without the universe and in time with the universe i.e God became temporal at the moment He created the universe.

2. Time was non existent or if you like to address it in a more human perspective God exists in infinite time

DoctorAlien:


The Cosmological Argument precludes a causeless universe.

And science has proven that the universe began.

This argument from time is my own invention, anyway. I just brought it up here to be criticized.

Science did not prove that the universe began to exist. It also proved that the universe began to expand from certain point. So your arguments are null and void.
Read a Physics textbook, not articles.

dalaman:


No. When they say something is literal it means exactly.


I said when they say something isn't literal what does it mean?

I already explained what literal means above.

So u r settling for "metaphorical" or at best "non literal"
ie: Sight is not compulsory for evidence.

Right? I

Atheism is not just the belief that there's no god... It's also the rejection of the belief that there's god, both the dictionary meanings and the strictly philosophical definitions reveal this... And they don't mean the same thing....
Believing that God does not exist is stating categorically that God does not exist, but rejection of a belief simply states that until there is ample proof or evidence of the existence of God, u are not going to believe...
For example, if I say, " I believe Ronaldo is better than Messi"... Is different from saying "I don't believe Messi is better than Ronaldo".... The first statement is a claim in itself while the second is a stance of indecision or inconclusiveness until you are persuaded otherwise...

Vanceastro:

Science did not prove that the began to exist. It also proved that the universe began to expand from certain point. So your arguments are null and void.
Read a Physics textbook, not articles.

The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. A finite amount of energy couldn't have brought the universe through an eternity of time. Therefore the universe is not eternal.

jimmyjenseng:


Read through the lines carefully bro. I didn't say Aquinas proposed the existence of a first cause. His five proofs, of which the cosmological argument is one, are what Christian apologists uses as defence for the existence of God.

What I have there is the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God I'm not sure why you brought Thomas Aquinas to the argument

Lolz. Saying God is the first cause is ludicruos. Is there a verifible fact for this? Please, don't quote any passage from your storybook. Just give proof that God is the first cause.

Stop throwing words upandan and try to comprehend bro

God is the title (appellation ) of the First cause . That means we can say First Cause or God .

Bro, I ain't got no issues with the word God.

Obviously you do

felixomor:


I already explained what literal means above.

So u r settling for "metaphorical" or at best "non literal"
ie: Sight is not compulsory for evidence.

Right? I

Where did I mention sight anywhere?

KingEbukasBlog:


Na wa oo . There are ways to look at this and they mean the same

1 . Time began with the universe's cause - God is timeless without the universe and in time with the universe i.e God became temporal at the moment He created the universe.

2. Time was non existent or if you like to address it in a more human perspective God exists in infinite time

îñfinite time? Like WTF!
You do realise that the emboldened words imply an already existing TIME dimension.
Dude get your sh.it together.

randomperson:
Atheism is not just the belief that there's no god... It's also the rejection of the belief that there's god, both the dictionary meanings and the strictly philosophical definitions reveal this... And they don't mean the same thing....
Believing that God does not exist is stating categorically that God does not exist, but rejection of a belief simply states that until there is ample proof or evidence of the existence of God, u are not going to believe...
For example, if I say, " I believe Ronaldo is better than Messi"... Is different from saying "I don't believe Messi is better than Ronaldo".... The first statement is a claim in itself while the second is a stance of indecision or inconclusiveness until you are persuaded otherwise...

Stop twisting definitions to fit your life.

Using ur example, ur 2nd statement is also a claim on its own.
"I dont believe Messi is better than Ronaldo"

Also means

"Ronaldo is not inferior to Messi"
Its a claim too.

Vanceastro:

Science did not prove that the began to exist. It also proved that the universe began to expand from certain point. So your arguments are null and void.
Read a Physics textbook, not articles.

That's not true .

Three physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that the universe had a finite past with the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem . This theory proves that spacetime cannot be extended to an infinite past but must reach a boundary at some time in finite past .

DoctorAlien:


The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. A finite amount of energy couldn't have brought the universe through an eternity of time. Therefore the universe is not eternal.

Where is the energy reducing to. You do realise the total energy of the Universe can be taken as zero as measurement of Energy is relative.

dalaman:


Where did I mention sight anywhere?

I claim u meant sight and u debunked it.
Right?

Let me rephrase so that u come out clear.

Sight is not a must to verify existence,
Yes/No?

Vanceastro:

Where is the energy reducing to. You do realise the total energy of the Universe can be taken as zero as measurement of Energy is relative.

Don't tell me you have not heard about the second law of thermodynamics.

felixomor:


Stop twisting definitions to fit your life.

Using ur example, ur 2nd statement is also a claim on its own.
"I dont believe Messi is better than Ronaldo"

Also means

"Ronaldo is not inferior to Messi"
Its a claim too.

Logic is obviously not your strong suit... I don't think anything is...
Are u equating "Ronaldo is not inferior to Messi" to "I don't believe Ronaldo is inferior to Messi"... Are they exactly the same statement??

Vanceastro:

îñfinite time? Like WTF!
You do realise that the emboldened words imply an already existing TIME dimension.
Dude get your sh.it together.

What the ... smh

Calm down and comprehend . You'll get it .

KingEbukasBlog:


That's not true .

Three physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that the universe had a finite past with the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem . This theory proves that spacetime cannot be extended to an infinite time but must reach a boundary at some time in finite past .

That does not mean the Universe began to exist at that boundary. Unless you believe that anything that is SPACELESS and TIMELESS does not exist, then in that case GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

DoctorAlien:


The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. A finite amount of energy couldn't have brought the universe through an eternity of time. Therefore the universe is not eternal.

Excellently put .

DoctorAlien:


Don't tell me you have not heard about the second law of thermodynamics.

Yea right, because Entropy is equal to energy. 8-)

randomperson:

Logic is obviously not your strong suit... I don't think anything is...
Are u equating "Ronaldo is not inferior to Messi" to "I don't believe Ronaldo is inferior to Messi"... Are they exactly the same statement??

We are all talking within the context of your belief.

Everybody's claim is is his belief.
Theist: I believe there is God
Atheist: I believe there is no God

U only putting "i believe"/ "i dont believe" before sentence in this discussion is tautology.

Vanceastro:

That does not mean the Universe began to exist at that boundary. Unless you believe that anything that is SPACELESS and TIMELESS does not exist, then in that case GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

That's it na

God is spaceless timeless beginless immaterial uncaused and all that .

God transcends the universe .

KingEbukasBlog:


That's it na

God is spaceless timeless beginless immaterial uncaused and all that .

God transcends the universe .

Dude, spacetime collapses at a certain point in the "past" doesn't mean the universe began to exist at that point. How you dey reason sef?

Vanceastro:

Dude, spacetime collapses at a certain point in the "past" doesn't mean the universe began to exist at that point. How you dey reason sef?

Sorry bro. It means
Go and search for and read "The origin of time"

felixomor:


We are all talking within the context of your belief.

Everybody's claim is is his belief.
Theist: I believe there is God
Atheist: I believe there is no God

U only putting "i believe"/ "i dont believe" before sentence in this discussion is tautology.

It's not tautology and I already showed u... You are only repeating arguments because you don't know where to go from there...
I believe Messi is better than Ronaldo is different from I don't believe Ronaldo is better than Messi.... So when a theist says I believe there is god, I simply say I DON'T BELIEVE there is god...
If u or any of your friends can equate both these statements to mean the same thing, logically, then no problem

Vanceastro:
Yea right, because Entropy is equal to energy. 8-)

Entropy is not energy.

felixomor:

Sorry bro. It means Go and search for and read "The origin of time"

The origin of time by whom. Is that book used in universities?

DoctorAlien:

Entropy is not energy.

Sarcasm..duh

Vanceastro:

Sarcasm..duh

Thank you for criticizing my argument from time.

Let me go back to the drawing board.

KingEbukasBlog:


I was expecting someone to mention quantum mechanics though you did so tacitly before I asked you to be explicit . Quantum mechanics just describes what takes place at the quantum level. It does not make any reference to causes, and this does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.

The description of what happens at quantum level is what is important here. At quantum level, well defined classical physical laws most definitely do not hold. Causal order is reversibly interchangeable at atomic scales because of 'superpositioning', this makes it possible for effects to essentially be their cause and vice versa. This goes against every understanding of the macro world, and good understanding of physics should tell you that the universe was operating at a quantum state over 15 billion years ago. With this only a complete merging of both quantum and macro world can offer a plausible explanation of how the universe became the way it is now.

There are no conjectures here . As far as something has a beginning it obviously implies that it was caused .

It is unknown whether the universe itself began or not. It's only known that this current state of the universe took shape some 14 billion years ago

Vanceastro:

Dude, spacetime collapses at a certain point in the "past" doesn't mean the universe began to exist at that point. How you dey reason sef?

Physicist Alexander Vilenkin said

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning .

Even Stephen Hawking admitted that the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

Read Stephen Hawking article on the beginning of time here : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html