Atheists Want Proof Of God?

[ding]

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.

Actually, no. He didn’t get within 100 miles of God. Besides until you can define what God is and discuss God in those terms you can’t even begin to have a serious discussion on the subject.

Which is why you deny the reality that the universe did indeed pop into existence. You don’t want to have the next discussion which is philosophical in nature.

 

[Hollie]

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!

I always get a chuckle when the xtian Taliban rattle on with nonsense such as the stereotypical, “The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is readily apparent,“ yet they’re never able to provide such evidence.

Irrational.fears and superstitions are virtually the inverse of empirical and rational evidence, which is why the religious extremists always lack for empirical and rational arguments.

LMAO

 

[ding]

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.

You say it is magical from the position of a material being confined by the laws of space and time.

You can’t perceive what could possibly exist outside of space and time so you shout magic as your only argument.

Whatever it is that exists outside of space and time I can assure you it’s existence isn’t magical, it is quite natural for whatever it is that exists outside of space and time.

So what can exist outside of space and time?

 

[OnePercenter]

Faith is something I believe. How would I prove I believe it?
Why would I lie about it? Why does it bother you?

What a fool believes.....That's why religious and atheists are equally stupid.

btw; one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

 

[ding]

Faith is something I believe. How would I prove I believe it?
Why would I lie about it? Why does it bother you?

What a fool believes.....That's why religious and atheists are equally stupid.

btw; one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Why not?

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It is possible to evade the BGV theorem with an oscillatory/cyclic model that globally on average has an expansion rate equal to zero, though the latter, of course, is still conceptually absurd; but, then, in order to evade the singularities left in the wake of the contraction phase, the arrows of time must be reversed at t = 0 as in Aguirre-Gratton (2001). This constitutes a thermodynamic beginning!. It's unavoidable. A cyclic model that globally an average has an expansion rate greater than zero cannot be past-eternal either, even though it can, theoretically, cycle into the future forever once it gets started. The fundamental issue with cyclic models is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which essentially states that entropy continuously increases in closed systems. To avoid heat death, the universe must get bigger and bigger in each cycle so that the amount of entropy per volume doesn't increase, but this means that the universe, as extrapolated backwards, was smaller and smaller in each cycle—converging to a point of zero volume and time, i.e., the very beginning that the cosmologists of cyclic models are trying to avoid. Either way, either the generalized principle of thermodynamics or the standard principle of thermodynamics stands and stays, and cyclic models, as you say, must have "a starting point."

 

[ding]

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.

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It is possible to evade the BGV theorem with an oscillatory/cyclic model that globally on average has an expansion rate equal to zero, though the latter, of course, is still conceptually absurd; but, then, in order to evade the singularities left in the wake of the contraction phase, the arrows of time must be reversed at t = 0 as in Aguirre-Gratton (2001). This constitutes a thermodynamic beginning!. It's unavoidable. A cyclic model that globally an average has an expansion rate greater than zero cannot be past-eternal either, even though it can, theoretically, cycle into the future forever once it gets started. The fundamental issue with cyclic models is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which essentially states that entropy continuously increases in closed systems. To avoid heat death, the universe must get bigger and bigger in each cycle so that the amount of entropy per volume doesn't increase, but this means that the universe, as extrapolated backwards, was smaller and smaller in each cycle—converging to a point of zero volume and time, i.e., the very beginning that the cosmologists of cyclic models are trying to avoid.

Entropy can be stated a number of different ways. We can say it is a measure of disorder but what is that really saying other than it is expanding. We can also say that for every matter to energy conversion or energy to matter conversion that useable energy is lost because there is no exchange that is 100% efficient. Hence the phrase there’s no such thing as a free lunch. So when the universe reaches maximum disorder or entropy the useable energy of the universe is zero. Mind you none of this violates the first law of thermodynamics because no matter/energy was destroyed along the way. It’s still there but it is unusable as all objects have equilibrated. That’s the consequence of not having perfectly efficient exchanges between matter and energy.

 

[Ringtone]

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It is possible to evade the BGV theorem with an oscillatory/cyclic model that globally on average has an expansion rate equal to zero, though the latter, of course, is still conceptually absurd; but, then, in order to evade the singularities left in the wake of the contraction phase, the arrows of time must be reversed at t = 0 as in Aguirre-Gratton (2001). This constitutes a thermodynamic beginning!. It's unavoidable. A cyclic model that globally an average has an expansion rate greater than zero cannot be past-eternal either, even though it can, theoretically, cycle into the future forever once it gets started. The fundamental issue with cyclic models is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which essentially states that entropy continuously increases in closed systems. To avoid heat death, the universe must get bigger and bigger in each cycle so that the amount of entropy per volume doesn't increase, but this means that the universe, as extrapolated backwards, was smaller and smaller in each cycle—converging to a point of zero volume and time, i.e., the very beginning that the cosmologists of cyclic models are trying to avoid.

Entropy can be stated a number of different ways. We can say it is a measure of disorder but what is that really saying other than it is expanding. We can also say that for every matter to energy conversion or energy to matter conversion that useable energy is lost because there is no exchange that is 100% efficient. Hence the phrase there’s no such thing as a free lunch. So when the universe reaches maximum disorder or entropy the useable energy of the universe is zero. Mind you none of this violates the first law of thermodynamics because no matter/energy was destroyed along the way. It’s still there but it is unusable as all objects have equilibrated. That’s the consequence of not having perfectly efficient exchanges between matter and energy.

So it seems we agree.

 

[Ringtone]

btw; one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

So says the person who has never regarded the first principles of ontology relative to the problem of existence.

 

[Taz]

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.

`So you have nothing except a word I invented. I think I just won.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

btw; one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

So says the person who has never regarded the first principles of ontology relative to the problem of existence.

Just one problem: ontology is a philosophical parlor trick, not a guide to empirical knowledge. Oh, sorry, it appears your enture foubdation is just a cheap trick with no intellectual substance....

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It is possible to evade the BGV theorem with an oscillatory/cyclic model that globally on average has an expansion rate equal to zero, though the latter, of course, is still conceptually absurd; but, then, in order to evade the singularities left in the wake of the contraction phase, the arrows of time must be reversed at t = 0 as in Aguirre-Gratton (2001). This constitutes a thermodynamic beginning!. It's unavoidable. A cyclic model that globally an average has an expansion rate greater than zero cannot be past-eternal either, even though it can, theoretically, cycle into the future forever once it gets started. The fundamental issue with cyclic models is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which essentially states that entropy continuously increases in closed systems. To avoid heat death, the universe must get bigger and bigger in each cycle so that the amount of entropy per volume doesn't increase, but this means that the universe, as extrapolated backwards, was smaller and smaller in each cycle—converging to a point of zero volume and time, i.e., the very beginning that the cosmologists of cyclic models are trying to avoid. Either way, either the generalized principle of thermodynamics or the standard principle of thermodynamics stands and stays, and cyclic models, as you say, must have "a starting point."

.

but, then, in order to evade the singularities left in the wake of the contraction phase, the arrows of time must be reversed at t = 0 as in Aguirre-Gratton (2001).

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Actually, no. He didn’t get within 100 miles of God. Besides until you can define what God is and discuss God in those terms you can’t even begin to have a serious discussion on the subject.

Which is why you deny the reality that the universe did indeed pop into existence. You don’t want to have the next discussion which is philosophical in nature.

Precisely! The empirical evidence for a beginning of the universe is clear. The issue is not whether or not our spacetime is the first and only to have ever existed sequentially or concurrently. The theist does not deny the possibility of the latter, let alone suggest that mere science can demonstrate God's existence.

Why does something exist rather than nothing? How did the material world begin to exist?

The answers to these questions are beyond the ken of science. Science itself is necessarily predicated on metaphysical assumptions, i.e., logical necessities beyond the ken of its methodology.

The fact of the matter is that most scientists do not take cyclical models seriously in terms of eternality. There's just no way to get there physically. But of course logic has told us for centuries that actual infinities are absurd! Classical theists have always understood this, as opposed to the religionists of materially contingent "gods." Atheists routinely and quite foolishly conflate the divinity of classical theism with that of the latter, as if created immortals, magically invisible material beings, were comparable to an eternally self-subsistent and immaterial ground of existence.

Hence, scientists, for example, have turned to the notion of a quantum tunneling event from "nothing," i.e. the laws of physics sans time, space, matter or energy. Maybe it's just me but that implies disembodied mind, but of course science can't emphatically assert that.

It is the first principles of ontology per the problem of existence that tells us what the fundamental attributes of divinity would necessarily be, but the typical new atheist evades the logical implications of a beginning of the material world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The empirical evidence for a beginning of the universe is clear.

For the beginning of non imaginary time for our local universe, to be correct.

 

[Ringtone]

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

What in the world are you talking about? The standard Big Bang model is not a cyclic model at all, so of course there's no contraction, and the cosmological singularity of general relativity is a relic. The singularities I'm alluding to are those produced by the perturbations of contracting spacetimes. They arise in the wake of the contracting volume and, therefore, are "block" the expanding path of the rebound. On the Aguirre-Gratton scenario (2001), the arrows of time are reversed at t = 0 in order to avoid them. It seems you're working off dated theory. The old oscillating models of the '60s, for example, assumed the theoretical effects of quantum gravity, which are thought to give, not a singularity, but a repulsive force such that there is a maximal compaction of ordinary matter at the Planck scale. On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase, which was asserted as a brute fact, though it be paradoxical. The idea was to evade the thermodynamic ramifications of cyclic cosmogonies that begin with an expansion phase. But all of that was before inflationary theory. It's cosmic inflation that puts the bang in the Big Bang. The notion of an initial, cosmological singularity at the boundary is passé.

 

[ding]

Is it just me but doesn’t it seem silly to use the phrase non-imaginary time

 

[Ringtone]

Just one problem: ontology is a philosophical parlor trick, not a guide to empirical knowledge. Oh, sorry, it appears your enture foubdation is just a cheap trick with no intellectual substance....

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

That's sophomoric drivel, baby talk, piffle, la-la, the snot leaking from your nostrils, the drool hanging off your chin. Ontology is the metaphysics of being and becoming, essentially, the study of existence. Metaphysics, particularly ontology and epistemology, are indispensable to the sciences, you idiot. Look, you braying jackass of an atheist twit, don't talk to me, okay? I don't truck with fools.

 

[BreezeWood]

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

What in the world are you talking about? The standard Big Bang model is not a cyclic model at all, so of course there's no contraction, and the cosmological singularity of general relativity is a relic. The singularities I'm alluding to are those produced by the perturbations of contracting spacetimes. They arise in the wake of the contracting volume and, therefore, are "block" the expanding path of the rebound. On the Aguirre-Gratton scenario (2001), the arrows of time are reversed at t = 0 in order to avoid them. It seems you're working off dated theory. The old oscillating models of the '60s, for example, assumed the theoretical effects of quantum gravity, which are thought to give, not a singularity, but a repulsive force such that there is a maximal compaction of ordinary matter at the Planck scale. On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase, which was asserted as a brute fact, though it be paradoxical. The idea was to evade the thermodynamic ramifications of cyclic cosmogonies that begin with an expansion phase. But all of that was before inflationary theory. It's cosmic inflation that puts the bang in the Big Bang. The notion of an initial, cosmological singularity at the boundary is passé.

.

On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase ...

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

you repeated what the post had clarified as being an inaccurate assumption - there is no contraction.

the trajectory angle of matter's expulsion without changing direction en-mass at the same time returns matter to the original point of expansion. the recompaction back to energy maintains the cyclical event.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

 

[BreezeWood]

Just one problem: ontology is a philosophical parlor trick, not a guide to empirical knowledge. Oh, sorry, it appears your enture foubdation is just a cheap trick with no intellectual substance....

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

That's sophomoric drivel, baby talk, piffle, la-la, the snot leaking from your nostrils, the drool hanging off your chin. Ontology is the metaphysics of being and becoming, essentially, the study of existence. Metaphysics, particularly ontology and epistemology, are indispensable to the sciences, you idiot. Look, you braying jackass of an atheist twit, don't talk to me, okay? I don't truck with fools.

.

Ontology is the metaphysics of being and becoming, essentially, the study of existence. Metaphysics, particularly ontology and epistemology, are indispensable to the sciences ...

are indispensable to the sciences ...

music for the choir, though not quit as established as you imply ... certainly the metaphysical for theists.