The universe existing is proof of God or atleast a Godlike entity existing.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence
4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
5. Therefore a timeless, spaceless, beginingless creator exists
>but OP if everything needs a cause to exist then how did "space daddy" come to be
God never began to exist. He was always there.
If you wrote the entire history of the universe as a line, then God would be the paper you drew on.
This argument was first created Aristole and expanded on during the Middle Ages by Christian and Islamic theologians (Mind you, during the 800s the Arabs were expericing a golden age)
Religion is just explaining what God is, and our place in the world.
Why can't the universe be the thing that was always there without a cause?
>>77515541
so wait, you're saying that god, of which we know nothing, can break this rule that 'something has to have a beginning'... but the universe, of which we know much, which indubitably exists, can't break this 'rule of having beginnings'.
yeah that's bullshit. its just circular logic and much more likely that that universe itself is uncaused and uncreated.
>>77516094
Because we have scientifically proven there was a cause.
Examples such as the Big Bang.
>>77516448
That's a theory
>>77516420
That's what I thought when I first heard it.
We can't (for right now at least) "prove" a God
But if you go through every single action, cause etc
This is the only logical conclusion.
The universe can't of created itself.
That literally breaks the laws of physics.
>>77515541
It always makes me laugh when christfags try to use logic. There is no reason the universe can't have always existed, there are many theories about this, that even include the big bang. If everything needs a cause, you can't have a god either. Grow up and out of your delusions.
There was no time before the universe, therefore there can't be a cause before the effect, because BEFORE didn't exist. It's an effect without a cause.
>>77515541
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
[citation needed]
inb4 big bang
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
Quite a fucking leap.
>>77516448
the big bang is just a theory, it's considered entirely plausible that no matter what time or place you're in, it 'looks' like the universe is moving away from you and the big bang happened about 12 billion years ago.
furthermore, there's no explanation for how a big bang happens that isn't mystical. and the most reasonable idea is that existence, or reality, or whatever, just keeps going bang and expanding and then crunch back down and going bang again on and on for eternity.
>>77516694
cause and effect is only human perspective. there's evidence coming to light that things may cause themselves retroactively. memes for example. but it's been known for a long time.
there's a good chance that if gods exist, then they were created out of the universe.
but the universe doesn't need to have been created. its called 'primacy'.
the concept of the universe always having existed has been the predominant form of thinking for milllenia.
its an argument but one that doesn't bear up under examination.
>>77516701
Well Mr. Neckbeard, if we want to use your logic, then the Big Bang created the universe.
>then what caused the Big Bang
If you say another thing, then what caused that
Eventually you lead to something that was always there without a cause
>>77516717
I think I may have fucked up my words, but exactly, an effect without a cause. It may be God or even just a universe spawning cloud. But it is there.
>>77515541
Sage this post went full retard
>>77517165
>an argument that has been around for 2.5 thousand years has been refuted by a 4channer.
Things can't cause themselves. Give me on example.
If things caused themselves then why don't we have horses spawning in our beds.
It's because that's simply not plausible.
>>77516863
Use your brain kraut.
>>77517186
its ironic how christians who are supposed to think that god created the universe in 7 days are so willing to use the satanic big bang theory when it suits them!
cause and affect is apparential.
we have no evidence of final cause, only interaction. for example, a man carves a cup. but we can't say that in the end there was "a cause". he made the cup because he was thirsty because he needs water because he's an organic being because water is a universal solvent that allows proteins to intermingle and form life because of atomic theory etcetera, in the end there is no 'first cause'.
cause and effect in this abstract sense is just a theory. and one that's looking worse for its age.
>>77515541
>germanics believe augustus was a blond haired pale skinned man
>>77517463
>Use your brain kraut.
>events that predate the existence of physical laws have to follow these laws
Get fucked mate.
>hurr durr newtonian physics is where it's at
>>77517541
I never said the earth was created in seven days. And you implied I'm Christian.
Aka Strawman fallacy
The man created the cup because he was thirst. That was his cause. He was thirsty because of his biological need. Why does have have the biological need? He needs it to live and reproduce etc etc
You keep unraveling all the events logically until this conclusion
>>77517463
there is no 'thing' that has a 'cause'. it's simpleminded to think that 'you exist because your mother gave birth to you'. because also, 'you exist because she was 10 minutes late for work and met your dad' etc.
we've never found a cause for ANYTHING. there's no actual evidence of causes, and there's no actual evidences for things-in-themselves as *product*. everything is becoming something else, forever. only a gradient in a process of change.
the argument that 'god created the universe' has only really ever been popular with arabs up until the recent cucking. the greek, pagan, roman, and asian thought was that the universe existed before all.
and none of that even addresses the fact that before you even started, you were positing a being that defies a rule you deem so absolute that nothing can defy it... which is a contradiction in terms. such a god is impossible. i'm not saying there might or might not be such a god, i'm saying that it is proven beyond doubt that any such being with such properties is impossible. if it was possible, cause and effect would be negated and you'd be back at square one.
lol this argument is literally the opposite of an axiom.
>>77515541
there is no god, never was, never will be
the existence of the universe from nothing has to do with the fact that it is balanced (there was a Black Science Guy video that explained it with physics) and that since it was balanced at zero, existing and not existing could occur or be destroyed since the balance remained zero.
either way, there is no god.
>inb4 1 post by this ID
this is my first and last post in this thread, just wanted to drop in my opinion
>>77517541
> yfw the universe is most likely a simulation
> yfw when Christcucks were right all along
>>77517865
there is zero evidence that a conclusion would ever be reached. you're assuming that you'd find such a conclusion, when no one has ever found one of those before or even gotten close.
furthermore its a limited perspective. what if having created the cup caused him to be thirsty in the past?
biological life is conditional. so for us it's necessary to identify patterns. but matter (latin mater = mother) is unconditional. the existence of matter and energy is without condition. mothers love is unconditional.
>>77518199
the same rules would apply to the universe we were being simulated in. and if one universe is simulated, they're all simulated.
i think that reality is simulated by infinite numbers of ghosts hallucinating in an infinite abyss of nothingness. real reality is just ghosts in nothing, but they're hallucinating our simulation.
>>77518604
A simulation implies intelligent design
>>77515541
If the universe can exist infinitely into the future in some form or another, it can also exist infinitely into the past. There is not necessarily a beginning or an end.
>>77518140
Do everyone a favour and don't "drop your opinion" in here again you fat heretic
The universe has always been, and will always be.
If we're going by cause and effect then each moment of the universe existing is the cause for the next moment, going to infinity
>>77518672
no, if we were living in a simulation, it'd be proof that no god exists, because if there was a god, or at least anything remotely like a christian one, then only he can create a soul, and souls are created for their trial and eventual salvation or damnation. if that god exists and this is a simulation, than we have no souls and the point is moot.
the ghosts that are hallucinating that reality exists are intelligent but not sophisticated.
>>77516701
Delusions?
Everything that is came from nothing.
That nothing exploded for some reason.
The explosion created order.
The order created life.
Life created consciousness.
Consciousness created morality.
From NOTHING.
>>77515541
ITT:
Amerifats try to claim ideas thought out thousands of years ago.
Nice.
You guys will develop a culture one day. Keep trying lads.
>>77517165
Cause and effect is reality. You're clearly not ready to deal with reality yet.
>>77517541
Watching the universe get stretched out by God would look very much like what we observe today.
Very much indeed.
>>77519184
Culture's for faggots.
>>77515541
existence of conciousness inside universe prooves only one thing:
universe doesn't know shit about itself and it developed mind and thought to understand itself.
we are the gods, because we're able to push our will over matter.
>>77515541
I can believe there's a god, I just doubt we would ever learn what it is really like, what it's reason for making us is or its purpose for us
>>77515541
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
What is your evidence for this?
>2. The universe began to exist
The universe didn't necessarily "begin" to exist. The big bang "began" a state of rapid expansion in the universe but that's not to say that the universe didn't exist before it, albeit in an infinitely dense state.
>God never began to exist. He was always there.
By the same logic, you could argue that the universe (or the non-sentient mechanics that lead to its formation) were also "always there."
You're a grain of sand on a vast beach of people who've been trying to find definitive answers to the problem of our origins. You'll have to do better than watching a WLC debate.
>>77519203
cause and effect is apparent reality. you're clearly not ready to deal with substratitative epistemology.
>>77519285
'what it looks like' is more in line with scientology than christianity.
>>77518940
> if there was a god, or at least anything remotely like a christian one, then only he can create a soul, and souls are created for their trial and eventual salvation or damnation. if that god exists and this is a simulation, than we have no souls
I'm not really following
>>77515541
The universe did not begin at any point and nor will it ever end. God is the universe.
>>77517463
>Things can't cause themselves
>God is the thing without a cause
>>77519720
the basic theory of abrahamic religion is that life in the universe is the result and intent of god. therefore, if god created a universe with life in it, with souls, and those people created a simulation universe (us) then we wouldn't have souls. our creator was not god, but man. if there is an afterlife then it's the product of mens imagination.
>>77519819
thanks for showing up, spinoza. this is a reasonable argument. if somewhat superfluous.
>>77515541
with that logic what created god ? if he exist what brought this about ? if you always need a creator then you end up with super god who made god and super gods creator was mega god who was made by ultra god
its like reading the book of genesis in the bible with the so and so begot so and so shit for like 2 pages
>>77515541
ITT: First year philosophy course discussion that hasn't expanded on the most common argument and counterargument
>>77519819
God doesn;t need to exist within time and space, even if the universe is infinite in time and space, since its creation by definition would have occurred in a manner extrinsic to the properties which now constitute its being.
>>77520251
Infinite regression? Never works with them, because "everything that exists has a cause" always excludes god because ... reasons.
>>77515541
Shitty bait.
>>77520021
Why wouldn't we have souls in a simulation though?
>>77515541
It exists because sun. Without it, no life. Maybe a different life, but not this life as we know it.
>>77516664
FOR U
>>77520869
>eskinigger doesn't know the difference between the universe and the solar system
Go have a vitamin D deficiency somewhere else.
>>77520659
because only god can create souls. only god can create life. or so they say.
>>77515541
The truth is there are multiple gods. No god is the best at everything.
Your one god religions are Jewish myths.
>>77515541
String theory supports this.
The definition of the 10th dimension matches the definition of a traditional "God."
If the 10th dimension has a consciousness (in order to negate paradoxes) it would literally be God.
Example: In one universe, I made a machine that destroyed all other universes. Or, I made a machine that I used to travel to other universes to give myself a high five.
Those didn't happen, but an infinite amount of possibilities means it happened.
Something had to make the choice to allow or deny certain universes to exist.
>inb4 laws of physics means you can't do that
There are an infinite amount of universes with infinitely different laws that govern them.
This is just what I believe though.
>>77521245
Go get raped by mudslime dick to another solar system, you fucking cuck
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
Compelling.
>>77521333
Yeah the premise is god created everything. Souls are what we now call subconscious mind though
>>77520339
>exist within time and space, even if the universe is infinite in time and space, since its creation
Under Spinoza's interpretation though, God IS time and space. There cannot be anything that exists outside of God, because it is everything in its entirety. God is not limited to being within or outside of anything, because God is not limited. Even if the universe was created at some point and has a definite beginning, it's still God.
How long after attending church should I approach the priest to inquire about baptism? (Not roman catholic, so no RCIA or anything like that).
Tired of being unbaptized heathen.
>>77519679
I so hope your butchered word there isn't a reference to that retarded "bare particulars" theory.
>>77516094
thats illogical are you really that dense to think that?
>>77516701
That's incorrect though.
Let's use the big bang theory. The explosion should have created equal parts matter and antimatter that would have annihilated each other. This didn't happen. For every billion atoms of antimatter, there was a billion and one atoms of matter.
We can assume a force acted upon the big bang either before, or during the initial explosion in order to disrupt the homogeneity of particle creation.
However, if the big bang is the entire known universe at the time, then you could assume a force outside the known universe acted upon it.
I will admit, this only applies to our limited understanding of antimatter, but if it has an opposite (anti) effect on gravity, there should be an equal distribution of antimatter pushing the universe away from it.
Something to think about.
>>77522202
first you have to follow the example of your pope and wash muslims feet.
>>77515541
You're a slave of your own nature as a human being and our hugely limited capabilities of understanding things. We can not apprehend what the true nature of the Universe is, and the fact that you present an explanation is absurd.
>>77515541
No. John Mackie. He's your man. Argued the universe couldn't have been otherwise . No need for god.
>>77517165
>Just a theory
There's a difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
>>77520441
>because "everything that exists has a cause" always excludes god because ... reasons.
>"everything that exists has a cause"
There's the problem, you've set up a strawman.
The premise is "Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause."
>>77516094
never mind misread your post i thought you where refuting the creation of the universe with its always been their argument
im the dense one
So you read som Aquinas foo im still balls deep in your mom
>>77522472
"beginning" implies a point in time and a progression from that point onward.
Since time is did not exist before the universe, it is utterly meaningless in this context.
>>77522587
This. Welcome to 800 years ago faggot.
>>77515541
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
>God never began to exist. He was always there.
nice try fag
>>77515541
>look at my logic chain
>God never began to exist. He was always there.
Way to throw it overboard.
Why do you try to argue with logic when at the next step you offer something way beyond that realm?
>>77515541
OK...who made the paper then?
>>77522378
I said I'm not roman catholic.
>>77516094
The universe is not eternal. Even if we ignore the big bang and say it might not have been the beginning, if an infinite amount of time had passed then entropy would have made all the energy unusable by this point.
>>77515541
Not even a fedora but
> Implying time is empirical.
>>77519679
I'm still curious what the fuck it was that you were trying to stutter up there. Could you explain your "substratitative" epistemology in human words, maybe?
>>77515541
If God is the paper who is the pen?
>>77523877
> The universe is not eternal
What does it mean? When the universe ceases to be, what will "be" there? And "beyond" it? An "empty" universe is still a universe and potentially suitable for life forms different from those dependent on a certain proximity of yellow dwarves
>>77523877
>Two lesbos in charge in charge of the Multiverse.
Fucking scary
>>77522793
What are you saying? Because time didn't exist before the universe, the universe therefore didn't have a beginning?
>>77515541
>whatever begins to exist has a cause
>except god
HURRR DURRRR BLFBLFBBLFLBLFLBLFF ZNGNNGNZNGNZNGNZNG HGYHGYHGYHGHgHY
>>77524374
you think that "putting hot pocket in microwave = cause" and "hot pocket gets hot = effect" while we're discussing the existence of god and the universe. you're not ready to discuss epistemology. you're just not cut out for it. you're not at at that level. you're not smart enough.
>>77524760
>failing to understand causality
Here let me spell it out and reinforce OP.
Temporalism is a property of space-time insofar as time is a measure in the change of the state of entities within a spatial dimension.
That which caused spatialism and therefore temporalism to come into existence MUST exist without these characteristics.
That which is non-temporal cannot, by definition, have a cause.
>>77524758
Well, wouldn't you say it's a bit illogical to claim that temporal changes (a shift from nonexistence to existence in this case) could exist *prior* to there being a time?
>>77524523
It may last forever into the future but it has not lasted forever into the past. If you go back far enough you will reach the beginning.
>>77525029
>blah blah blah
Seriously, define "substratitative" for me, you embarrassing windbag.
>>77525066
What "was" before the beginning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0QDc7baQfk
The only thing I needed to see to become Christian desu.
>>77520211
God is not a created being.
God had no beginning.
God is eternal.
>>77515541
>making assumptions
This is all we know of, we don't know why we're here or what caused us to be here, everything else is hearsay or a meme.
Most of you are in your 20s and just barely getting used to adult life, me included.
If we believe a god happens to exist, he is intrinsically outside of the universe. As far as we know (based off the big bang theory), the creation of time, space, and matter was caused by the big bang.
You're attempting to apply a set of laws that may only exist in our universe to an entity that by definition exists outside those laws. It's useless, that's why the whole "Yeah but who caused the thing that caused the thing that cause god?" argument is retarded and never gets anywhere.
>>77525049
>That which is non-temporal cannot, by definition have a cause.
And that has to be god right? Because, it cannot possibly be anything else.
>Reinforce OP
The only thing you're reinforcing in him is his dick. How about you go choke on it faggot.
>>77519679
Professing to be wise, they became as fools....
>>77519151
Its a process anon. Rome wasn´t built in one day. 12 billion years is long fucking time to develop all those things in a evolutionary manner.
>>77515541
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
0/10 kys
>>77515541
Weak copypasta.
>>77525209
having to do with substance, you illiterate eunich.
next in line please.
>>77516094
This. Who's to say something can't emerge from nothing? Why must it have a beginning? Is the Big Bang really the beginning or just another stage in an endless loop?
>>77525290
Whatever person or thing created the universe.
>>77525049
>That which caused spatialism and therefore temporalism to come into existence MUST exist without these characteristics.
But it CANNOT exist without them, because you've already attributed them to it by describing it as an entity that creates something. An act of creation is already a temporal act according to your very own definition of temporalism.
>>77515541
>Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
that's a huge leap of faith and very illogical. you never proved a creator is necessary
>>77522278
It's illogical because our sense of logic comes from the world that surrounds us. There is nothing wrong with assuming that something has always existed. Time is a relative concept.
>>77515541
you're like thomas aquinas but stupider
>some things come into existence
>other things always existed
>but only the things I say can break the laws of physics
>>77525579
Jesus Christ, man, it's not a fucking word. It means nothing, and certainly not what you think it means. Seriously, is this a shtick or something? Are you *playing* a childish, wikipeducated pseudo-intellectual? If so, congrats. It's fleshed out enough for the stage.
>>77515541
1. Actually there are no natural laws saying,"what begins to exist has a cause" because matter can neither stop, or begin existing.
2.seeing how we know exactly how the univers was up to the second it began, as all matter and engery in a signal point. The second before that we do not know if it "began" or simply expanded.
3.read a book.
Friendly reminder that we can say with certainity that our physical laws did not apply for about the first 5*10^-44 of existence, and thus any guess we make based on these physical laws is bound to be wrong.
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
>God never began to exist. He was always there.
Pick one, friendo
i just wish we could prove the simulation theory and be done with it
life would be so much simpler if we learned to treat it like a video game
Just don't think about it and go to work then come home and have a drink to calm down, goys
>>77525625
Where did he exist?
>>77515541
an elegant demonstration of sophistry.
OP is a faggot who sucks his OWN cock.
>>77516448
The " Big Bang" prove the universwas once a signal point in time and space where all matter and energy were paced into a singularity. It does not mean the universe ever "began"
Such a worthless topic to debate. No one is right or wrong. Nothing changes. Focus on something else
>>77525477
Only living things evolve.
>>77515541
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
What is the cause for your autism?
>>77526172
To be fair, there is no logical contradiction in those two claims. The second one is just materially wrong.
>>77516694
> deep thoughts
> doesnt know the difference between "of" and "have"
dumb people often think they are smart.
it's the tragic irony of stupidity.
>>77515541
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
False, spontaneous events happen frequently on the subatomic level
>2. The universe began to exist
False, no reason it couldn't be eternal just changing form
>3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence
False due to 1/2
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
False, even if you pretend 1-3 are true, that violates 1 and even 4
>>77526281
Someplace outside the universe obviously
>>77517186
He didn't say the Big Bang created anything.
So buy your logic
>god shit out the universe because HE JUST HAD TO OK!!!
>>77515541
Lemme destroy that Mandala for you:
http://efukt.com/20918_The_Trolling_Of_Wannabe_Pornstars.html
http://efukt.com/20954_The_Trolling_Of_Wannabe_Pornstars_II.html
http://efukt.com/21002_The_Trolling_Of_Wannabe_Pornstars_3.html
http://efukt.com/21094_The_Trolling_Of_Wannabe_Pornstars_4.html
http://efukt.com/21132_The_Trolling_Of_Wannabe_Pornstars_5.html
>>77519151
>No
>No
>No
>No
>No
>Yes
1/6 kill yourself
applying human thinking/logic to the universe is erroneous in itself. your entire argument is invalid because of this simply fallacy.
>>77521562
> quantum theory = Majick!!
> shit morons actually believe
>>77526820
Yeah, human thinking has never helped us understand anything about the universe.
>>77515541
>God doesn't need a cause to exist
>He is there because he is
>Universe can't just be there because it was there
christcucks are delusional.
>>77526941
You're dealing with an entity that by definition has to exist outside the universe, and therefore outside of all laws we know of.
In this case, no. Human thinking will not help shit.
>>77526439
This, in a sense Universe has always been. And Universe = eveything that exists, has existed and will exist. So by definition there can be nothing outside Universe, and there is no way to measure how long Universeeexisted as singularity before Big Bang.
>>77515541
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scotus_Eriugena
>>77515541
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Interesting choice of words there m8.
>The universe began to exist
Still waiting for that proof that the Big Bang wasn't just a remnant of an older Universe.
>Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence
Ooook....
>Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
So like how a child that begins to exist has an uncaused creator. Oh wait....
>Therefore a timeless, spaceless, beginingless creator exists
Aaaaa....and that follows from....what? WHAT?!
>God never began to exist
Any proofs for that?
The Kalam cosmological argument is crap and has always been crap. If you want to believe then believe but don't try to use logic since, you know, belief and logic are like diferent like really a lot. Like.
>>77527095
I wouldn't disagree with you there, actually. I don't believe in any god myself, but I do find the "God does SEEMINGLY implausible and impossible shit because He is outside of human understanding" argument compelling in terms of internal consistency.
That's not what the guy I responded to said, though.
>>77521562
Too much Bioshock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
>>77527497
GB2REDDIT
>>77525059
The shift from non-existence to existence happened as time began to exist. That's the beginning.
>>77517463
>an argument that has been around for 2.5 thousand years has been refuted by a 4channer.
Except the Kalam "argument" has been refuted since a long time ago and only intellectually dishonest fags still use it. You know them, the crocoduck kind of fags.
>>77527573
nice meme autist
>>77517728
Underrated post.
>>77527786
Give me a non-meme reply to support theism
>>77525290
God
>>77527884
No.
Go back faggot.
>>77525468
Romans 1
>>77527619
I get that, but this shift is in itself already a change of state in the temporal sense, isn't it? I mean, you can determine a "before" state and an "after" state. I honestly don't understand how this is different from any normal change of (temporal) state in a universe where time already exists.
>1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
What caused your "God" to begin to exist?
>>77527884
Here's an argument.
>>77528238
He always has, not bound by laws of the universe
>>77528332
Any proofs faggot?
>>77528302
Gods magnificent power can be seen in the universe, to bad the universe is fallen
>>77528332
>He always has
Then your statement ">1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is false, you have no argument.
>>77526941
the point totally went over you head. if you think humans can begin to comprehend what the universe is or how it began, you are mistaken.
>>77526838
I will admit, assumptions were made, but only logical assumptions.
Until extra dimensions are proven it's all just an exercise in thinking.
>>77528487
Ok corocoduck. I have a question for your imaginary friend's magnificent power: can he/she/it/nigger create a rock so big it can't lift it?
>>77528418
We are saying that is an aspect of his nature, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so it has a cause, there must be an original cause that did not begin to exist, we call this God
>>77528666
>the point totally went over you head.
No, it didn't. You expressed yourself poorly and I made fun of you for it.
Cheers.
>>77528545
God didn't begin to exist, so it doesn't apply to God
>>77527412
Look into Superstring theory.
Not much supports it, but CERN is testing to see if extra dimensions exist.
I still haven't played any of the bioshocks.
>>77528776
>if
You even sayed it yourself.
Now prove that.
>>77528871
>God didn't begin to exist
At least we can agree on one thing.
>>77528749
Here you go
http://carm.org/can-god-make-rock-so-big-he-cant-pick-it
>>77528776
>there must be an original cause that did not begin to exist
Any proofs of that?
Also I can't find the logic in that, could you point it out to my feeble mind?
How's about anything that exists within linear time, has a cause.
>>77528993
i really don't use the cosmological argument much, I'm more of a presupp
>>77528776
>if everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so it has a cause, there must be an original cause that did not begin to exist, we call this God
To be fair, I don't know why you even need to stipulate a god (or any ultimate, uncaused cause) at this point. You might as well just say that it's an infinite chain of cause and effect.
In my opinion, "infinite causality" or whatever you might wanna call it isn't any more abstract or difficult to conceptualize than an uncaused god.
>>77529036
Is that supposed to be proofs? Dude!! Like dude!!1
A rock that big is impossible? Are you fucking kidding me? You're arguing for god's omnipotence with an argument against? Dude!1!!@!
>>77528994
God is eternal the Alpha and Omega
>>77529314
that is sound like snackbaring to me
>>77525290
The question doesn't make sense, there cannot be 'before' without time, and there is no time until beginning.
>>77529072
Sure. Just that it is a useless statement, because linear time only became possible after the universe already was existent.
>>77529314
Not an argument.
>>77529071
If something begins to exist, it has a cause.
What breaks the circle Anon,
>>77529388
Linear time is only possible because we perceive it.
>>77529388
If multiverse is true then time might have been before. And there is a high possibility of a multiverse or/and so-called dark matter/energy.
You must understand that this life you are living now, is not a new beginning nor the end. Its always now and forever will be now.
>>77529479
can you rationally apply cause and effect to something as grand as the universe? even the very laws of physics we take for granted were different in the early universe.
>>77529277
Not my preferred argument, but if you want to ask me any questions about Christianity, I'll try to answer or find someone who will
>>77527395
>Still waiting for that proof that the Big Bang wasn't just a remnant of an older Universe.
There could have been an older universe, but that universe would also be contingent.
>So like how a child that begins to exist has an uncaused creator. Oh wait....
Category error. The "creation" of a child is merely the rearrangement of existing matter. The matter itself began to exist at some point and needs an uncaused creator.
>>Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
>Aaaaa....and that follows from....what? WHAT?!
From the fact that matter and spacetime are contingent. If there are no uncaused creators, then you have the problem of an infinite regression of creators.
>>God never began to exist
>Any proofs for that?
God is the timeless, spaceless, beginningless creator mentioned in the conclusion.
>>77529479
Any proof that god did not begin to exist (if exists at all...not)?
>>77529715
>God is the timeless, spaceless, beginningless creator
Not an argument.
>>77529036
This can be explained via>>77521562
>>77529505
Again, an useless statement. Anything is only possible because there is a observer.
>>77529625
Universe could then be exchanged with multiverse, and it would still stay true. The important thing was that there is no point 0, only a point 1 and onwards.
>>77529950
It's only useless because you can perceive it to be such.
>>77529295
God is absolute power in the universe, but is subject to his nature, Logic is transcendent to the mind of God, so he can't make a square circle, both exist and can't exist, or Lie
>>77529842
How convenient that you decontextualised that quote.
>>77529380
No it's biblical read Revelation
>>77530086
Not an argument.
>>77526610
So you're admitting God doesn't exist in our universe, but outside of it?
Just like Superman.
There's a word for a place outside the universe, it's called fiction.
>>77530163
Same thing.
>>77529680
Big Bang, the universe began to exist
>>77515541
>God never began to exist. He was always there
This is special pleading and it's a logical fallacy.
>Declare a universal, absolute rule
>Not 15 seconds later, declare an exception
Lmao. Nice """'"logic"""""
>>77515541
Why can the universe not be causeless, yet god can?
>>77516094
One shot kill.
>>77529715
There could also be a multiverse.
The universe/s could be infinite.
The birth of this universe could have been a mere rearrangement of matter.
You don't need any regression of creators when you have the law of conservation of mass.
Still no proofs of your personal friend.
PS: Abrahamic religions are from the jews, they are not european and are not beneficial to the existence of our society. I'd believe in Zalmoxis or Odin before believing in some jew invention without any proofs.
>>77515541
agreed
>>77530050
And that changes anything because of what? I mean it's nice that you think you say something smart, but you are gravely mistaken if you think you said anything earth-shattering.
>>77515541
the idea of "cause" is human-made. It's something that as animals makes us find out what's making noises behind a bush and to investigate
Mathematics is probably the closest thing to objective truth. There is no such thing as "cause" in math.
I do hope there's a god though, because that would blow my mind
>>77529739
I only have what he has revealed to me, but you won't accept that as evidence
But in accordance with the argument, there has to be an original Cause that didn't begin to exist, and I call that God
>>77530529
It doesn't change anything, I never claimed it did.
>>77526610
> someplace
But a place has to "be" to be
And if a place "is", it's a universe
>>77529388
Why? We exist within linear time. That does not mean other time forms cannot exist.
What if you could go back in time at will, or sideways. Or perhaps without time whereupon you occupied all time, at the same moment. Imagine you where a creature of thought. In our imagination we travel beyond the bounds of space and time. Visualise the big bang, how far away, how long ago was that.
Not a useless statement
>>77530568
>I only have literally nothing, but you won't accept that as evidence
Not an argument.
>>77529884
I'm not a physicist, but that is interesting
>>77530209
but we can use our minds (spirit) in their relation to our brains (matter) as an analogy. therefore it isn't absurd. the argument is because we can't detect God then He can't possibly exist but that doesn't follow.
>>77528749
Yes, and he can still lift it. Somewhat good analogue to omnipotence is qm superposition.
>>77530601
Great, then that is cleared up, too.
>>77530568
>In accordance to the the rules I made up it has to be so
Great arguing.
>>77530076
So the only proofs you've got are sophistry...ok m8. Nice logic, much true, so real.
>>77530658
The Force outside the universe
>>77530671
>What if
Useless, if you want to make any proveable claims.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but nothing more than that.
>>77530342
>This is special pleading and it's a logical fallacy.
If you read the actual argument, you will find that the that the creator's attribute of eternality was derived.
>>77515541
Thanks, aquinas. Highly encourage everyone to look up the five ways, very simple, very logical.
>>77530708
Thanks, just an idea I've been floating after studying a little Superstring theory.
I just wished I got more serious replies to discuss it, instead of 200 posts discussing causality.
>>77530860
Good, now see
>>77521562
>>77529980
You understand
>>77530568
I'll accept your evidence if you accept that I AM GOD. As evidence I present this post.
>>77521562
>This is just what I believe though.
>>77530995
>Who do I not get more replies?
Kek
>>77530706
The first cause didn't begin to exist, in accordance with the logical argument, call that first cause God
It it is a logical argument
>>77531164
>The first cause didn't begin to exist
Then it cannot cause anything, thus it is not a cause, just a delusion.
Not an argument.
>>77530772
It's logic, but I guess as an atheist, you don't know what that is
>>77529980
>that image
Please excuse while I go and vomit my internal organs
>>77515541
Who did that Putin bust?
>Christian Mental Gymnastics
>>77531136
Did you begin to exist?
>>77530860
The universe, by definition, contains everything that can possibly interact with each other. We know that the universe can start and maintain itself without outside influence. There's no point for anything outside the universe to exist from our perspective
>>77531164
Only inside the set of conditions you decided on. Especially your alligation that there has to be a first cause is unfounded. You are setting up rules that rule any explanation except yours out from the beginning.
>>77531152
Well, it's far more interesting than purely philosophical debates that are unknowable and unanswerable with flawed logic derived from causality.
CERN is actively testing for extra dimensions, which leads more credence to my theory.
Nobody has refuted it thus far in this thread either.
>>77530742
So he can create a rock so big he couldn't lift it but he could still lift it. But he can create a rock so big he couldn't lift it. But he could still lift it.
In other news 1+1=3 and that's a-fucking-ok.
GOD! sage this bullshit already.
>>77531309
So which premise do you have a problem with
>>77531523
I did not begin to exist since I am the one and only eternal god.
Proof is this post.
>>77524610
They're cute and sexy pretty Japanese teenagers though―they know what they're doing.
>>77531673
Your premise that you are making arguments.
>>77531607
Does everything that begins to exist have a cause?
>>77531821
Now you imply that the universe had to begin to exist.
Again unfounded.
Try again.
>>77531536
Is logic in the universe?
Can I find it under a rock
Can you give be a bucket of the number 1
>>77530944
Haven't you worked out proof is a social construct.
A false conception, no good scientist believes anything is proved. To believe a thing is proved you would have to know everything about it. All there is possible to know. Learning must end, but learning never ends.
>>77531741
Well if you came to a lab, I can proove that you began to exist
>>77531612
Because your brain farts barely even deserve to be called hypothesis - let alone theory.
>>77532062
Don't test me faggot or I'll smite you!
God is real. If you pray, then maybe you will see.
>>77531984
This is a fair point.
Most scientists will agree that our definition of the laws that govern the universe are "good enough" but not absolute understandings.
However, this does not mean people can ignore them for their arguments, as our understanding of these laws have had practical applications.
>>77531910
According to our current evidence we have, the Hubble/big bang the universe began to exist
>>77531963
logic probably doesn't exist either, but it's the best tool we can use to discover objective truth
that said, truth may not exist either. everything could just be an illusion thats incomprehensible to primate brains
>>77532185
That's a real good argument.
Tell me what's wrong with my theory?
>>77531984
Proveable means varifiable via experiment, which, if the results are positive and no mistake in the setup were made, mean that you assume whatever claim was tested to be true, until either the experiment or the result is proven as false.
Of course nobody believes in eternal truths, but in order to make things work you assume things to be true, until truer things come around.
>>77532199
Can you demonstrate that you are God
>>77531984
So why stop the learning process by going directly to sky daddy to explain everything? That's the untermensch way, the manly way is to go forth into the darkness and bring it to light.
>>77532350
Cheese pizza sleeps faster under the bridge
>>77532445
Did you miss the previous posts where I revealed myself to you? My saying so is proof enough.
This post is also proof of me being the one and only eternal god.
>>77531613
Omnipotent being existing outsidn Universe is not bound by same laws as us, be it laws of physics or logic. That's why I brought up superposition as an anloogue to somehow wrap brains around it. Also omnpootence, literally the ability to do fucking aything.
>>77532445
Can the God you believe in demonstrate that he is God?
Religions like christianity show a kinda moraly ambiguous entitity that it´s pretty bored with its existence so it passes its time playing around, specialy considering the fact that god its omnipresent and omniscient (God had to drown all of the living creatures including humans with a few exceptions for a "purification" that didn´t lasted at all for example).
The universe only exists when we observe it. Therefore before we observed the universe, it did not exist. Therefore we caused the existence of the universe, therefore we are god.
>>77532279
But that is wrong. Both point to the universe existing, at some point, as a superdense mass. It is, for a varity of reasons, not least because of the Planck time and Planck lenght, impossible to make any statements about the state of the universe in the first 5*10^-44 seconds of existence.
>>77532664
Can confirm, I only have what he revaled to me though, and you won`t take that as proof
The big bang was when time started. If there was no existing time there cant have been a cause, because cause implies that its an act that influences something in the future.
>>77532664
Jesus performed signs wonders, and fufiled prophecy, he add eye witness accounts we can cross examine, do you have any of these
>>77532279
Began to expand, not exist, you dumb fuck.
>>77532715
So again since he is omnipotent can he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? And quantum superposition is not a proof of existence AND lack of existence, it's only proof of uncertainty of existence.
>>77532722
There is evidence for the case of Christ if you want me to give you some sources
It's mostly historical and archaeological,
>>77533222
There is evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed, and he believed he was the son of Yahweh, there is no evidence he actually was and there is no evidence Yahweh is real.
>>77532927
So your argument against my premise is that the universe is the uncaused cause
Okay
>>77530415
>There could also be a multiverse.
That multiverse would also be contingent since it is made of matter and spacetime.
>The universe/s could be infinite.
In what sense? Spatially? Temporally? I don't think it can be actually infinite spatially or temporally if it had a beginning. It could be arbitrarily large, but not infinite.
>The birth of this universe could have been a mere rearrangement of matter.
It is possible if the universe was cyclic, but contemporary physics indicates that even in such cases, there would be an absolute beginning. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
>You don't need any regression of creators when you have the law of conservation of mass.
I don't see how the conservation of mass is connected to creators creating creators. Plus, the law of conservation of mass is only applicable to ordinary processes in our universe. You don't know if it applies in any other ones with other contingent creators.
>>77533015
One guy writing about Jesus many years after and noone else (except christians) mentioning him at the time is not proof.
Also Jesus is not god, he's the son and he's separate from the father with the father being the one and only god.
Which is me btw.
Proof is this post, prove me wrong.
>>77533338
>I can`t read
That would be enough to destroy your reasoning tho`. Unless you have anything other than "anything uncaused has to be caused by god who was uncaused".
>>77532927
I have also revealed myself to you just second ago. I have also brought forth proofs such as this post and the posts before. Why u not believe sinner? Do you want me to smite you?
>>77533325
Again I have evidence, but your pressupostions make you view the evidence differently
>>77533605
>I have evidence
"I believe" is not evidence.
>>77533586
All hail the great gypsi
Fuck hungary
Pls no bully
>>77533434
Do you want some sources or not?
In order to have an adequate conversation of causation, one must define it. Do we mean causation in a deterministic way? If so, quantum mechanics refutes this. Do we mean causation can be indeterminate? Does this undermine our understanding of perfect randomness?
>>77533698
Look this up if your so bold
Cold case Christianity
Tektontv
Inspiring philosophy
>>77515541
>anything that exists has a cause
Ok
>the universe exists
Ok
>therefore it has a cause
Ok
>since everything that exists needs a cause, an uncaused creator must cause it
No
>therefore a creator exists
No
Read up on some quantum theory,string theory, m-theory, multiverse theory, brane theory, and other physics topics to understand stuff.
Things just pop into existence with no warning all the time. The universe is one of them. Any god could be one of them.
Could something have created the universe? Sure. Some people think were in a simulation. But were they necessary? Absolutely not
>>77533928
It's everything that begins to exist has a cause
That makes a difference to the argument
>>77532838
>nigger logic
>>77533894
3 literal non-arguments
>>77533751
You have no sources except the ones coming from people directly interested in their shit being true.
Also I am the one and only eternal gypsy god. Get with the program and believe or I'll command the german true believer >>77533702
to smite you in my name and reward him with 77 well versed whores in the turk-free afterlife.
>>77534462
I'm giving you sources on evidence, look at them or don't
>>77533217
And still be able to lift it. Superposituion was not mentioned as proof but ANALOGUE, to help comprehend the concept of omnipotence. An omnipotent being can bend, change or simply ignore all the laws that restrict us. That's why such being could
>create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it
>lift it up
>have 7 arms
>have no arms
>make rock 2 times heavier than 1st
>still be able to lift it with his arms when he has no arms even if he has 7 of them
Omni-fucking-potence.
>>77532257
They work for now, till we find better.
But back to time, linear time of Newton, works. But Einstein's time works better. He touch's on time as a perception, it speeds or slows as we perceive it. Time as a perception of the observer. Yet also existing out side of our perception. Time changing its nature, due to gravitational forces.
From this we see the possibility of non linear time. Wherein the speed of light is limited.
Who knows time may tell on non linear time.
>>77515541
>2016
>Still using the Kalam Cosmological principle as an argument
At least use the Aurelius shit to TRY to seem educated.
>>77515541
>Islamic theologians
>>77532509
The point was, if a thing is proved you can learn no more about it, that's why you stop.
>>77534464
Your proving psalms 14, Gods wrath is upon you and you know it (Romans 1:18-22) if given you sources for the reliability of the New Testament, you can either look at them or keep going about your life, but I tell you now, that you will have a harsher judgement for refusing this opportunity today
>>77534726
RARE
A
R
E
>>77534616
Except superposition is not very analogous since it's not about YES-NO. It's literally proof of MAYBE.
And maybe is never evidence of an absolute no matter how much vocabulary and imagination you employ.
That's why logic leads you to the truth - the content does not matter - 1 arm or 7 he still can't make a rock that he couldn't lift.
>>77534981
Then you go use the proof of the 1 thing to prove other things. The ride never ends.
Unless you choose to "prove" 1 and only 1 thing and then stop because that 1 thing "explains" everything.
>proved
How old or how british are you? And don't blame the autocorrect. Just don't.
>>77533763
Building on this: suppose we have probabilistic causality.
Quantum mechanics tells us there is an inherit uncertainty in the universe (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
Furthermore, things frequently have multiple causes.
As a consequence, the existence of the universe doesn't point the idea that there is one cause, but perhaps many causes (and perhaps many gods).
The inherit uncertainty in the universe means that the probability that each of these causes combined cause the universe is arbitrarily close to, but not equal to one. Thus there will always be AT LEAST an arbitrarily small chance that the universe was not caused by god or other universe causers.
Thus not everything has a cause.
>>77516094
Because science says so.
>>>>77515541
1. Sure, whatever began to exist has a cause.
2. No, you don't know that the universe "began" to exist rather than always did. Stop making stuff up.
3. No, there does not need to be a cause for the universe to exist. You said so yourself, when you said that the creator didn't need the cause.
4. This makes no sense whatsoever. If there can be an uncreated creator, why can there not be an uncreated anything else, such as a universe?
5. No. You are arbitrarily saying some things can be timeless, spaceless, and beginningless, and that other things cannot, yet you have failed to lay out a single reason as to why you believe that.
Face it. You believe in God based on faith, or you're a bad logician. You sir, are a bad logician, apparently.
>>77534983
According to the Bible I am kinda innocent and can go to heaven by repenting accepting god ONCE I SEE HIM AFTER DEATH.
The 1 and only sin that is unforgivable is denying the holy ghost and only demons can do that.
There - you go and believe without proofs, I'll just live as I please and still get heaven if I was wrong and sky daddy is real.
>>77535785
Verse?
>>77515541
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
>uncaused
Are you implying that Go never began to exist?
>>77515541
>4. Since everything that has began to exist needs a cause, then an uncaused creator must of caused it
>uncaused
Are you implying that God never began to exist?
>>77535998
To be consistent with the argument, the uncaused cause is what we call God
>>77536025
That's exactly what he's implying.
>>77515541
>everything that began to exist has a cause
>except this one thing in the next point
Go back to bed, William Lane Craig
>>77535785
Romans 1:18-22
Says that you will be held without excuse
John 3 you must be born again/ believe in God
John 14 no man comes to the father but through Jesus.
>>77535112
Superposition is actually good analoge for omnipotence, it just would have include other possible answers to the question.
My posts were nnot intended to proof anything else but supposedly omnipotent entiity is beyond logic, which emphasized with satire for you clearly misses my point.
To demonstrate the superposition analogue, following answers are all true at the sam time
>yes
>maybe
>propably
>no
>never
>>77536611
If everything that began to exist has a cause.
What part of this do you have a problem with
>>77535884
Mark 3:28 and others.
I don't have the time now to look for the exact explanation but the only unforgivable sin of denying/blaspheming the holy spirit can only be committed by someone that has known the spirit so only demons or a human that has already witnessed god. I have not, you have not so even if god is real no human can ever commit such a sin.
>>77515541
Belief is a choice. He exists if you choose. But to a higher power...your opinion on his existence is irrelevant.
What is crazy is the idea that the higher power cares if you eat fish on friday, pork on tuesday, touch your balls, etc.
The idea that a superpowered being cares if you live or die is rediculous.
S bring that has every power, and lives forever..to him we're inconsequential gnsts, once you understand this you realize every religion is just a cult trying to control each other.
Burning bushes? Virgin Birth? Cmon an astral deity has better things to do.
Some cultures believe gods are in the stars of the skies, they tend to be overly philosophical and soon fail.
Some people believe gods are contained in the nature of the earth. They culture soon becomes stagnant.
Some find god in themselves. They become consumed as their need for power overwhelms them.
Some don't seek god. They realize that life didn't originate from imagination.
Imagination evolves into creations. This allows ideas of creators to shape societies.
Societies then seek information about the creation. They designate a leader to help communicate with the creator.
Through curiosity and conflict societies spread. As the spread occurs interpretations change.
Perception of reality empowers the concepts that control you.
Empower creativity, let go of preconceptions, explore, and reshape reality.
>>77515541
By no means was Aristotle the first to realize this.
It was Hermes Trismegistus.
>>77536616
>Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter.
Even if your bullshit god is real no human can ever be guilty of denying him.
If god is real we're all going to heaven, if not the worms will have a feast. I'm betting on the worms unless we invent some anti-aging vaccine.
I think a better argument for a Creator is how so many things are connected in order for life to survive.
I mean, it's not enough to have the Earth, we had to have the Sun too. The Sun gives warmth and light to the Earth. Everything is like that, it's not enough that something is there, it has to interact with something else.
All these complex relationships had to have been caused. How else could the universe "know" how to sustain life?
>>77535426
We find what works, then try to work out how it works, then use that knowledge to make other things work. But nothing's proved.
Basics, reality can not be proved by science or logic. You can only experience it.
Acceptance of science and logic, is a leap of faith.
I can show that logically, but it's boring and long.
But as you have to start somewhere that will do.
I am much older than you, speak in a Cheshire dialect, thee, thy, thou, but translate.
How English, since it was spelt with an A, well the family not me personally.
>>77537074
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit would be to believe that Jesus's powers came from the Devil.
Who told you that explaination?
All I can tell you is that, if you don't Repent and put your trust in Christ, you will be guilty before a just and holy God
>>77537372
Col 2:14 Jesus paid the sin debt of the elect on the cross, who ever does not have Christ, will Go to hell.
>>77536620
They are not all true at the same time and superposition does not say that something can be and not be at the same time. It says that it could be. That's a maybe only not an absolute. Maybe all, maybe nothing. That's not an absolute and it's no proof of an absolute being.
>>77537618
Ancient of Days must also be the Author of Sin.
>>77537827
You know what's coming to you lest you put your trust in Christ
>>77535740
>2. No, you don't know that the universe "began" to exist rather than always did. Stop making stuff up.
It is backed up by contemporary science. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
>3. No, there does not need to be a cause for the universe to exist. You said so yourself, when you said that the creator didn't need the cause.
The creator doesn't need a cause because they didn't begin to exist. It is the contraposition of the first premise which you agreed with. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist, see the difference?
>4. This makes no sense whatsoever. If there can be an uncreated creator, why can there not be an uncreated anything else, such as a universe?
The universe is made out of contingent matter and spacetime and contemporary physics indicates that there was a beginning to our universe.
>5. No. You are arbitrarily saying some things can be timeless, spaceless, and beginningless, and that other things cannot, yet you have failed to lay out a single reason as to why you believe that.
The eternality and immaterial properties of the creator was deduced in premise 4, otherwise, the only other alternative to an uncaused creator is an infinite number of creators which were created by other created creators.
>>77537747
For fucks sake! For omnipotent being they can be true at the same time. Forget the superposition, it clearly hinders your comprehension on this subject. And yes, it does prove absolutely nothing.
Did you even read my posts before replying?
>A species that invented toilets a few generations ago
>Thinks they are smart enough to unravel everything that happened for the previous 14,000,000,000 years.
>>77538673
>ad hominem
>>77537932
Does Sin originate from other source or from God?
