Proving God from the concept of God to the object of God.

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
61

Please now formulate your questions as to be relevant to the two statements from yours truly:

  1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

  2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

For I cannot see any specific question the one you refer to but only a very general sentence, like this:

every answer for every question we have ever actually solved, has turned out to be, not goddidit it, but a completely and utterly rational and natural explanation.

Where is the question there?

You must produce a fact of science like say when you shoot someone in the head, there was no bullet passing through the head which killed him until someone did shoot the bullet; therefore that passing of the bullet has a beginning and wherefore some cause did it, made the bullet go through the head of the victim.

Please produce coherent and consistent questions, not some general sentences without any reference to anything of concrete reality at all.

So, everyone, take into account my two statements above, and present your concrete questions to show that neither of the two statements is true or factually corresponding to the reality of objective existence.

Ask this question, it is your favorite but to all appearances pure incoherency and inconsistency:

How do you account for the scientists who tell us that there are virtual particles popping in and out of existence from nothing, no cause at all, in the light of your two statements above (reproduced below):

[b]1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

  1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
    [/b]

You are all so enamored of that fact from scientists but forget to do coherent and consistent thinking, at all; and of course do some serious research into any texts from renowned scientists who are not talking like so-called science writers whose livelihood consists in media hype, but neglecting to take into account coherency and consistency to the two facts and truths of my statements #1 and #2 in their media hype exaggerations.

Okay, produce your questions that have a link to concrete reality of objective existence, instead of so much but empty media-hyping.

Susma

62

The question is this:

Since science has so far only found natural explanations for the phenomena that it studies, what reason is there to believe that the origin of the universe has anything but a natural explanation?

or if you like:

If God is not required to make things work INSIDE the universe, why should he be required to make things work OUTSIDE the universe?

I really can’t clarify the question any further than that.

Rigil

63

It has very little to do with being “enamored” (or enamoured, even) of the pronouncements of scientific authorities, except to the extent that they teach us a deep “I don’t know yet” humility in the face of nature’s knottiest mysteries. In fact, you’re missing the obvious, namely that it’s precisely the opposite: Hearty suspicion of the kind of authoritarian claims you are feverishly propounding.

You are still entirely lacking a convincing motivation for how your causality posit applies to the materialisation of a universe.

'Luthon64

64

http://youtu.be/q3MWRvLndzs found this nice video to try and explain all this cosmological stuff

65

If Suma needs an exact answer on the cause of the universe I need exact evidence for the existence of god. Science can explain the beginning of the universe (we don’t know the whole story yet, maybe we will never know it all, but we know some). Before I can disregard this evidence I will need better evidence to follow another theory.
So please give us the evidence for your god

66

In reality Susma argument is a God of the gaps argument. I really have no issue as to say that I have no idea,
why we see an expanding universe with a set of arbitrary set laws governing its formation, and I will probably never know.

And I can leave it at that till better evidence, but Susma would like to push God in that gap in my knowledge.

He’s not really considered any of my other counter points, and I’m starting to feel hes just repeating him self. :frowning:

67

Susma as I have said before is not capable of comprehending logic.(His memes are not geared to this. We have ad nauseam asked him to address our issues and he is unable to do so. Let’s accept the fact that he’s a troll and move on!

68

Well, if you had done some simple coherent and consistent thinking, you would have realized that you are into gratuitous assumptions, by which you have gone altogether out of orbit from the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Here again are my two statements which you cannot neglect to always keep in your mind as you do some genuine thinking and writing, instead of making assumptions founded on thin air:

  1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

  2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

Now, let you put your words into numerical items, like as below, and I will add after each item my annotation as needed that it is an assumption pure and simple, but most tragic on your part for not doing coherent and consistent thinking, keeping all the time in your mind and also heart my two statements above.

(a) Since science has so far only found natural explanations for the phenomena that it studies, [ Assumption ]

(b) what reason is there to believe that the origin of the universe has anything but a natural explanation? [ Assumption ]

(c) or if you like: [ Let it pass. ]

(d) If God is not required to make things work INSIDE the universe, [ Assumption ]

(e) why should he be required to make things work OUTSIDE the universe? [ Let it pass. ]

(f) I really can’t clarify the question any further than that. [ Let it pass. ]

See, what assumptions you make because you do not cohere your mind with the objective reality of my two statements, and conduct your thinking and writing consistently with them.

Go and do more thinking but always adhere to the principle of coherent and consistent thinking and writing, keeping all the time my two statements which you cannot deny nor gainsay without making yourself immune to scientific undertaking and a life founded upon logic and reality.

Forgive me, but please everyone here, as you think and write, read back what you have written, and see if you are making any gratuitous assumptions, but above all: keep in mind my two statements:

  1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

  2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

Ask yourselves, am I cohering my thinking consistently to the two facts and truths of existence and life within the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and therefore everything in the universe also has a beginning, and thus has need of a cause to bring it to the beginning of its existence.

Susma

69

You have already been given examples of causeless events, thus your above statement is demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, even assuming the universe has a cause, you have yet to show that the cause is any form of god, let alone specifically the Christian god.

70

If you disagree with its accuracy, then please give an example of a phenomenon with a scientifically verifiable supernatural cause.

A counterexample is a proper refutation of a statement. Simply writing [Assumption] or [Lies all lies!!] in the margin is not. Forgive me, but I expected a bit more mental effort on your part.

Rigil

71

Dear god…

1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
No.
2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
No.

So fuck your two statements. The parrot mentality you are so adequately displaying here gives an indication why you would swallow the horseshite that is the Holey Babble. ::slight_smile:

(a) Since science has so far only found natural explanations for the phenomena that it studies, [ [s]Assumption[/s] ] [ [b]Observation[/b] ]

(b) what reason is there to believe that the origin of the universe has anything but a natural explanation? [ Assumption ] [ Question ]

(c) or if you like: [ Let it pass. ] [ dafuc?? ]
(d) If God is not required to make things work INSIDE the universe, [ Assumption ] [ Observation ]

(e) why should he be required to make things work OUTSIDE the universe? [ Let it pass. ] [ Question ]

(f) I really can’t clarify the question any further than that. [ Let it pass. ] [ It really is very simple. no need to let anything pass, answer the two simple questions already ]


FTFY ~ no thanks necessary.

72

So, you know some examples of causeless events in the universe where we exist, and live, and operate, that universe that has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and therefore everything in it also has a beginning, as with the whole universe, wherefore it thus has need of a cause to bring it into existence.

Okay, produce your examples of causeless events in the universe where we exist and live and operate, and remember to think coherently and consistently to my two statements:

  1. Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

  2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

Yes, you are going to mention virtual particles which pop in and out of existence from nothing and without cause at all?

Didn’t I ask you folks to produce texts from renowned reputable physicists, not media hype science writers, telling us mankind that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing without cause, in this our universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Forgive me, but I have not read anyone coming with texts, or I must have missed them.

So, you be the one to produce some texts from renowned reputable physicists, not media hype science writers, telling us that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing without cause, in this our universe where we exist and live and operate, which universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

In the meantime, please abstain from bringing in God, we are now just into what you want to talk about, events which are causeless in the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Please keep to one issue at a time, when we are through with your causeless events, then we will proceed to another issue, and finally to the issue of the existence of God in concept as the cause of the universe; but until then let us concentrate on your causeless events or whatever uncaused entities, like say virtual particles which pop in and out of existence from nothing and without cause, but remind yourselves that these virtual particles are in the milieu and environment of the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Think coherently and consistently, and also look about and observe coherently and consistently, don’t be repeating without coherency and consistency that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing without cause, produce some texts from renowned reputable physicists, not media hype science writers.

Okay, everyone who knows causeless events, just give your name and tell readers here what are your uncaused events in the universe, and who are your renowned reputable physicists, don’t forget to bring forth texts from their writings, not reports by media hype science writers – and give the links if available online.

Susma

73

And, to the best of my knowledge, nuclear decay. Of course, such things may have some cause that we just don’t understand yet.

Didn't I ask you folks to produce texts from renowned reputable physicists, not media hype science writers, telling us mankind that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing without cause, in this our universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

If I’m not mistaken, Mefiante is a trained physicist, thus no need for “media hype science writers”. Keep in mind that many of these popular writers, such as Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku etc. are not just trained physicists, but some of the greatest physicists of our age.

Forgive me, but I have not read anyone coming with texts, or I must have missed them.

Well, you’ll find that debates here are mostly fairly informal, so people don’t provide long lists of sources for non-controversial statements. For example, if we talk about the shape and size of the Earth, we don’t have to go dig up the original paper by Eratosthenes as proof, because presumably everyone by now agrees that the Earth is a sphere of about 13000 km in diameter. The statement is non-controversial. I am no physicist, but as far as I know, causeless events are a well known phenomenon in quantum physics.

In the meantime, please abstain from bringing in God, we are now just into what you want to talk about, events which are causeless in the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

It was my understanding that YOU are the one who wants to bring in God.

Anyway, you may well find it easy to convince me that everything has a cause: as I state above, I am no physicist. Furthermore, when it comes to the causeless events thus far mentioned in this thread, I do not know whether they can be shown to be causeless, or whether we just cannot discern any cause, which would mean they may well have a cause that we just don’t know about yet. Perhaps our resident physicists can enlighten me.

Incidentally, where are you from? I ask because your writing style strikes me as rather unusual, and perhaps not that of someone who speaks either English or Afrikaans as first language?

74

Brian, he’s a Philistine sorry a Philipino I believe. He certainly has great difficulty understanding the responses we have been giving him…like a tape that operates in a continuous loop.
Susma, your first post stated that YOU had this earth shattering idea: i.e. to prove your god’s existence from the concept to the object of god (you are objectifying god???)…yet you have not ONCE explained your verifiable evidence for this theory except to talk nonsense. When we refer you to world renowned physicists, you ask for text…do your own homework and read. If this is too difficult please go to your local university and speak to the physicists there.

75

This statement is at best an inductive conclusion reached after considering our experiences in the everyday macroscopic world. You are still to provide good reason why the statement should also hold for all scales of size in the universe, and also, in particular, why it should apply to conditions before the beginning of time.

Rigil

76

This is circular reasoning. One is expected to be coherent and consistent with the very premises one is challenging!

Regarding Susma’s request for source references for the claims about quantum physics: Mefiante gave a link to an article on quantum fluctuation in Reply #5 (30 December) and Tweefo referred to Lawrence M Krauss’s excellent book A Universe from Nothing in Reply #6 (also on 30 December). It is sad that Susma is so in love with her flawed argument, that she never bothers to read any of the information presented to her.

Hermes

77

I wonder how he stumbled upon this message board, and what made him decide to convert a bunch of people halfway around the world from him…

78

Perhaps he’s a wise man from the east hailed by the recent nova in Centaurus. :wink:

Rigil

79

Allow me a prediction:[spoiler]Ons krapperige vriend gaan baie kortliks die Engelse woord vir “onveroorsaak” gelykstel aan die filosoof se “niks”. Hy sal begin om sy strooimannetjie op te sit en sê dat ons beweer dat die heelal uit “niks” ontstaan het in plaas daarvan om te verstaan dat “sonder (erkenlike) oorsaak” die eintlike punt is. Boonop gaan hy die filosoof en en die fisikus se “niks” met mekaar verwar maar sy fout sal hy ewemin agterkom as erken selfs nadat dit aan hom uitgewys is. Die fisikus se “niks” is eenvoudig ’n onbekende toestand gekenmerk deur die afwesigheid van enige fisiese eienskappe of gebeurtenisse wat gewoonweg gemeet of bespeur kan word, insluitende ruimte en tyd.[/spoiler]

'Luthon64

80

Allow me a further prediction:

[spoiler]Ons krapperige vriend gaan nou heel behendig raak met die gebruik van Google Translate… ;D[/spoiler]