Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Free Enterprise]

What I want to know is, if it is possible for God to have always existed, then how come it isn't possible for the universe to have always existed? Why do things all need to be created by something/from something/from nothing?

The universe is a contingent fact that is a result of a process. The result is not its own cause. The universe shows many details of being a result. Ergo, it is a contingent caused fact.

 

[King Alexander]

Also, what's the point of God existing now! He's done his job,

I don't think that he's done his job! Creating humans with the faults they have? If he worked for me, I'd have fired him!
Either:
1) he wasn't care at all for doing a good job,
2) he was unable to do his job because he wasn't that good himself,
3) he could do his job, but wanted to "evil-play" with his "unperfect/silly" beings, and watch them destroy each other,
4) he thought that I didn't paid him enough for his services and he didn't care of doing a good job.
Take a pic.

EDIT: I can now see how the believers view me: :devil2:

 

[the mormegil]

So, answer me this, who or what created the effect of time?

Why can't time just exist by itself?

 

[the mormegil]

Alexander, if God didn't make everything than what/who/how was it made?

Same as above.

Why does it have to be created? Why can't it just exist?

 

[King Alexander]

Same as above.

Why does it have to be created? Why can't it just exist?

Wow! You're a genius! You reply with the same logic the believers have

 

[the mormegil]

My reply to PGE3 is the same as my reply to PGE2 (first quote) and PGDE1 (second quote). Hopefully you all realize this is a dead-end discussion...

I know, great fun isn't it?

To all those people who disapprove of these threads: If you don't like them don't post in them, just ignore them. Surely that's not too difficult?

EDIT: Thanks King Alexander

 

[Mise]

The universe is a contigent fact that is a result of a process. The result is not its own cause. The universe shows many details of being a result. Ergo, it is a contingent caused fact.

Well, there's a theory that the Universe is expanding now, but will eventually stop, and begin collapsing back to a singularity. Hence, all energies that exist in "this" universe will continue to exist in the "next" universe. So the result could be its own cause. For example, you could say that for a pendulum to swing back and forth under gravity, it requires an initial displacement from equilibrium, but who's to say that the pendulum didn't always just have that initial displacement? Why does it need to be "given" that first push?

Personally, I see no reason for the universe to have a start and an end, and no evidence that it was just created by something/someone.

 

[Iggy]

Have you seen it? Seems a silly to give a test if you haven't the answers with which to grade a response!

If God exists outside time, then he has been created & he has not yet been created! He is his own son. As far as I can tell, this is what happens when you have no time.

So, answer me this, who or what created the effect of time?

The problem is here that a believer has faith that God created everything, (including atheists ). As the mormegil said "Why can't it just exist?" ie there is a natural order which has no creator other than its own causes and effects.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Science and religion go hand in hand. If you don't believe me go and look at the works of gravity and plant biology.

Please note Ham is trying to keep a low profile!

 

[HamaticBabylon]

As the mormegil said "Why can't it just exist?" ie there is a natural order which has no creator other than its own causes and effects.

So this natural order exist and governs these laws of nature by it self? But is that not like saying the creator existing since these laws obey the master being?

 

[King Alexander]

So this natural order exist and governs these laws of nature by it self? But is that not like saying the creator existing since these laws obey the master being?

Wrong: the creator obeyd the laws; the laws just existed.

 

[Iggy]

So this natural order exist and governs these laws of nature by it self? But is that not like saying the creator existing since these laws obey the master being?

Nah, nature may not have laws, it may just be a regular pattern of the repeated anarchy of cause and effect.

 

[newfangle]

Science and religion go hand in hand. If you don't believe me go and look at the works of gravity and plant biology.

Good gravy young one! How bizarre!

So you're saying that because we don't have a 100% firm, complete understanding of those two phenomena, they MUST (irrefutably) be the direct byproduct of divine intervention!?!?

I thought you said you worked in a lab!? With that sort of deductive prowess, I'm sure multitudes of important discoveries will be in short order for you my lad!

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Nah, nature may not have laws, it may just be a regular pattern of the repeated anarchy of cause and effect.

So how do you justify the laws of gravity and DNA replications?

 

[Iggy]

So how do you justify the laws of gravity and DNA replications?

You justify those laws by saying it all down to God?

 

[IglooDame]

So how do you justify the laws of gravity and DNA replications?

Gravity - it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Gravity - it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

I don't understand why you are laughing. When I said gravity I meant that laws governing the forces working in nature, and those laws work in order not pandemonium, also they do not change their natural state when you find them. You can manipulate these laws but never can you evolve them!

Also laws come in pairs i.e. gravity and anti-gravity.Go figure!

 

[Free Enterprise]

Well, there's a theory that the Universe is expanding now, but will eventually stop, and begin collapsing back to a singularity. Hence, all energies that exist in "this" universe will continue to exist in the "next" universe. So the result could be its own cause. For example, you could say that for a pendulum to swing back and forth under gravity, it requires an initial displacement from equilibrium, but who's to say that the pendulum didn't always just have that initial displacement? Why does it need to be "given" that first push?

This is an infinite regress of events which is incoherent and unintelligible. It is incoherent because of the fact that every event keeps being said to have a cause and it keeps getting pushed back thus never solving the problem of how the casual chain started in the first place. It is unintelligible because humans would be unable to comprehend the workings of such a infinitely regressing chain. When was an incoherent concept ever a true concept? It sounds somewhat reminiscent of making an exception to a generally accepted rule in one (possible multiple) case(s).

 

[romelus]

As a Christian i can only say this: God sent Jesus at the perfect time at the perfect place that could in change, glorify him the most.

why does god have the need to glorify himself?

 

[CivCube]

What God are we trying to prove? Just the one that would correspond to the Bible's descriptions?