Atheists Want Proof Of God?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Poor ding...always on the wrong side of reason and evidence, and it's always everyone else's fault....

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Poor ding...always on the wrong side of reason and evidence, and it's always everyone else's fault....

I’m not the one arguing against science. I have an explanation for the origin of the universe. You don’t.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, yes but that is not really meaningful.

Agreed, save for saying it cannot be ruled out.

There is zero evedence to the contrary of Zeus but that is not something to be taken seriously.

But there are differences: the concept of zeus is not required to explain anything, nor does it explain anything, nor does anything about it align with any physics or math, and it involves magic. On the contrary, mutliverse theory, cyclical theory, and imaginary time can be useful explanations that do not require magic and align with math and physics. So, going forward, these concepts and that of zeus should not be treated the same way.

"Time before time"

Hawking demonstrated that real.time may, in our frame,have a beginning, while time in general does not then necessarily have to have had a beginning (using imaginary time, a useful concept ). I would say such a mathematical result should be taken seriously.

Fair enough. I would posit that multiverse theory is very close to major though and until it nets an observation that is predicted under it as a model and not other models I cannot put much stock in it. The core of multiverse theory relies on the idea that anything that is possible actually is (at least in some sense of the word) and that essentially allows you to explain anything. I do not know enough about Hawking's imaginary time to opine on how it relates to this conversation though

That is something that I will have to look into.

 

[Taz]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Why would it make me uncomfortable?

 

[alang1216]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Do you understand thermodynamics at all? Do you understand that heat flows from hotter objects to cooler object? What do you suppose would happen to the temperature of all objects as time approaches infinity?

If you left a glass of ice water on a table for long enough it would reach equilibrium with the room temperature. However if you changed the temperature of the room or put the glass in the fridge you've reset the equilibrium of the system.

You assume our universe is all there is. You may be right but we don't know one way or another. You may believe the universe was created from nothing but, again, we don't know one way or another.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. I do not know enough about Hawking's imaginary time to opine on how it relates to this conversation though

In a nutshell, hawking wanted to address the conflicting ideas of a boundless universe and a unierse with a "beginning". He reasoned that time cannot have a bkundary either, in a universe with the "boundless" condition. So, he posited that , while time itself may appear to have a beginning, imaginary time continues backwards, and can even unfurl into real time (travelling backwards).

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before.

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Why would it make me uncomfortable?

Because it upsets your worldview. Why else would you be blowing so much fartsmoke?

 

[ding]

The event itself reveals what was before. The beginning of the universe.

Sorry but that is just absurd. I can begin a trip to Chicago but that doesn't mean I didn't exist before my trip.

Do you understand thermodynamics at all? Do you understand that heat flows from hotter objects to cooler object? What do you suppose would happen to the temperature of all objects as time approaches infinity?

If you left a glass of ice water on a table for long enough it would reach equilibrium with the room temperature. However if you changed the temperature of the room or put the glass in the fridge you've reset the equilibrium of the system.

You assume our universe is all there is. You may be right but we don't know one way or another. You may believe the universe was created from nothing but, again, we don't know one way or another.

Now you are talking about adding energy to the system. Are you saying that energy is being added to the universe?

If the universe was created from matter that was already in existence then that matter has the same problem of thermal equilibrium. Which is it can’t exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

 

[Taz]

Then...what was before?

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Why would it make me uncomfortable?

Because it upsets your worldview. Why else would you be blowing so much fartsmoke?

How so?

 

[Ringtone]

and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time.

Haha...just kind of snuck that in there, didn't ya?

So, god is real, because...god is real.

Why did you isolate that phrase? That obviously is not the full argument.

Haha . . . just kind of ripped that from its context, didn't you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why did you isolate that phrase? That obviously is not the full argument

Because that is the point of contention. It amles it easier fpr you and for toher posters to understand to which statement I am directly responding. I am not here to broadcast you entire argument, as you have already done that in your post.

And nothing avbout the context affects the meaning of this claim. It is an assertion made by you, and then used as a premise. You know this. Anyone who can read knows this by reading your post.

This pseudo complaint by you is just an attempt to sidestep the obvious...you snuck in your conclusion as a premise, in a silly little Attempt at a logical parlor trick. You got called on it.

 

[Crepitus]

Doesn't bother me.

Why would it?

I don't take anything on faith. You want me to believe? Show me.

I don't believe it.

Now yer startin' ta get it.

 

[Ringtone]

It appears that the universe having a beginning makes some people very uncomfortable.

Indeed, it does seem to do that! Good eye on the imperative of thermodynamics. I always get a kick out of the typical new atheist who goes on about all those models posited to evade a beginning. There are of course conceivable cyclic scenarios that initially evade the imperative or that of the BGV theorem, but then we have all those messy singularities in the wake of their contraction phases . . . unless we reverse the arrows of time, only to wind up right back to a thermodynamic beginning at t = 0. But logic tells us from the jump that the material world is a continuously contingent entity of causality. The conceptual problem is insurmountable. For example, how would the cosmos begin as a contraction phase without first expanding from a bounce? Chicken or the egg? There are of course cyclic models that would, at least theoretically, continue to cycle into the future forever once they got started, but the wont of the naturalist is to devise one that is past-eternal. Absurdity! .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Summary of above post:

Scientists propose big bang model: "Spot on! Science has confirmed the existence of gods!"

The very same scientists, in light of new information, make proposals which modfy, replace or append parts of the big bang model: "Look at the desperate atheists!"

Stupid.

 

[Ringtone]

Because that is the point of contention. It amles it easier fpr you and for toher posters to understand to which statement I am directly responding. I am not here to broadcast you entire argument, as you have already done that in your post.

And nothing avbout the context affects the meaning of this claim. It is an assertion made by you, and then used as a premise. You know this. Anyone who can read knows this by reading your post.

This pseudo complaint by you is just an attempt to sidestep the obvious...you snuck in your conclusion as a premise, in a silly little Attempt at a logical parlor trick. You got called on it.

Absolute hogwash!

The core essence of the full argument:

The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is readily apparent, but atheists are just flatout irrational for all their guff to the contrary. Either the universe in some form or another has always existed (the absurdity of an infinite regress of contingent causality), it came into existence from nonexistence (an absurdity of ontological order) or the eternal ground of existence is immaterial, and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time. The effect of a mechanical cause would axiomatically be given from eternity, would necessarily be material, which leads right back to the first absurdity. Hence, God must be. The first two options are sheer madness. Atheism is madness. Faith in God's existence is firmly based on reason.​

You ripped the emboldened from its context; that is to say, you merely ripped the observation from its logical underpinnings and called it a bald assertion. Now you're stupidly calling it a premise, when it's obviously the conclusion.

Look, everybody, this is how Fort Fun Indiana argues. He reduces arguments to their conclusions and tells us that it's not his responsibility to actually refute the premises. Rather, his responsibility is to mangle arguments, INSINUATE THAT HIS BALD, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS ARE ARGUMENTS, and blissfully go on his way as if he actually did something.

LMAO!

 

[ding]

The laws of nature.

And no thing. Spirit is no thing. So are the laws of nature.

See? Just total dumbshit fartsmoke. Open a window.

Fartsmoke is when people like you and Alan an FF ignore science because the universe popping into existence makes your militant atheism uncomfortable.

Why would it make me uncomfortable?

Because it upsets your worldview. Why else would you be blowing so much fartsmoke?

How so?

You speak out of your ass which creates the fartsmoke.

 

[alang1216]

Now you are talking about adding energy to the system. Are you saying that energy is being added to the universe?

If the universe was created from matter that was already in existence then that matter has the same problem of thermal equilibrium. Which is it can’t exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Possible, I just don't know and I don't think anyone else knows for sure either.

 

[ding]

It appears that the universe having a beginning makes some people very uncomfortable.

Indeed, it does seem to do that! Good eye on the imperative of thermodynamics. I always get a kick out of the typical new atheist who goes on about all those models posited to evade a beginning. There are of course conceivable cyclic scenarios that initially evade the imperative or that of the BGV theorem, but then we have all those messy singularities in the wake of their contraction phases . . . unless we reverse the arrows of time, only to wind up right back to a thermodynamic beginning at t = 0. But logic tells us from the jump that the material world is a continuously contingent entity of causality. The conceptual problem is insurmountable. For example, how would the cosmos begin as a contraction phase without first expanding from a bounce? Chicken or the egg? There are of course cyclic models that would, at least theoretically, continue to cycle into the future forever once they got started, but the wont of the naturalist is to devise one that is past-eternal. Absurdity! .

No cyclical model can avoid a thermal equilibrium fate unless energy gets added to the system.

I agree with you that even cyclical models can’t avoid a starting position.

 

[ding]

Now you are talking about adding energy to the system. Are you saying that energy is being added to the universe?

If the universe was created from matter that was already in existence then that matter has the same problem of thermal equilibrium. Which is it can’t exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Possible, I just don't know and I don't think anyone else knows for sure either.

Thermodynamics says it isn’t possible for matter and energy to exist without approaching thermal equilibrium. Given enough time eventually everything will reach a uniform temperature.

So what we are left with is explaining how matter and energy can have a beginning without violating the first law of thermodynamics. Which is exactly what inflation theory does. So besides being the answer to how the universe popped into existence it also explains the observations we see that can not be explained by any other theory (i.e. flatness and monopole).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time.

Right, that's your magical horseshit premise to which I objected. This is, of course, useless, circular nonsense, as you are assuming as true and as a premise that which you are tasked to argue.

I pointed this out already. Your argument is usless , specious pap.