How did the Universe get here?
- Thread starter Blackrook
- Start date
Who made god?
Who made gravity? Who made energy? Who made light?
Excellent!!
See, now you are making up shit. You don't know. That doesn't equal that nobody knows.
Dude... if anyone knew, beyond their own faith, how the universe began and whether or not God existed, this would be a VERY short thread.
NObody knows. Many have solid faith in their assumptions, speculations and opinions, but NObody KNOWS.
Hence the FACT of the unprovable questions.
Excellent!!
See, now you are making up shit. You don't know. That doesn't equal that nobody knows.
Dude... if anyone knew, beyond their own faith, how the universe began and whether or not God existed, this would be a VERY short thread.
NObody knows. Many have solid faith in their assumptions, speculations and opinions, but NObody KNOWS.
Hence the FACT of the unprovable questions.
What kind of fool would not believe the WORD OF GOD?? GOD'S Word has been under attack by sily little sin loving,God rejecting man for thousands of years most of whom are long dead and in hell but GOD'S WORD lines on into eternity!!!PTL.
Dante
I have always been here
- Banned
- #925
[MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]
The mind like the soul is a human construct -- of the brain. Shut off the brain and where is the mind or the soul? Surely if it/they existed in and of itself/themselves it/they would reveal itself/themselves -- unless it/they is/are a god(s)?
The mind like the soul is a human construct -- of the brain. Shut off the brain and where is the mind or the soul? Surely if it/they existed in and of itself/themselves it/they would reveal itself/themselves -- unless it/they is/are a god(s)?
Last edited:
The real question is 'What kind of fool wastes what little Time he has trapped in fear of heroes and monsters living only in ancient Arab literature?'.
I live my life as a son of ALMIGHTY GOD,in his blessings and protection. GOD says I am a joint heir with JESUS and I know GOD has a lot of good "stuff" like trillions of worlds and stars!!!
But the same can't be true for God?
We can prove energy light and gravity exist. You can't prove god exists.
But the same can't be true for God?
Now Boss will tell me I can't prove my mom is real or that she is my mom. Boss can get real deep, in the doo doo.
I hope that works out for you. Truly I do.
In the meantime, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Too much Time have I wasted already on Abraham's God.
I hope that works out for you. Truly I do.
In the meantime, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
HOPE??? NO TRUTH!!! GOD says I am a son of GOD and HE must know!! GOD is not a liar!!! and you??
Boss
Take a Memo:
Who made them?
But the same can't be true for God?
One other thing. You constantly cry that I'm getting my ideas from an atheist website, well let me ask you something. Can you show me a site/link or anyone else in the world that agrees with your concepts or are you truly all alone on this?
Show me some kind of proof that you know who made them. Until then we'll just agree we don't know.
Doubletap
VIP Member
- Dec 28, 2012
- 451
- 132
- 78
Here's an interesting take on the universe & god, by Nathaniel Branden:
Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists:
There is nowhere else to go."
Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists:
There is nowhere else to go."
Boss
Take a Memo:
No, the truth is, nothing is proven. Science can't prove anything, it can only predict probability of possibility. Now, it may predict a very high probability of a possibility, and we may interpret that as "proof" of something, but that's not science, that is us drawing a conclusion.
Let me ask you this. Can you calculate the probability that you will wake up in the morning on Mars? Simple question, a yes or no will suffice.
Boy you really are a primitive man. 20,000 years ago when lightening or thunder struck primitive man didn't know science and they thought thunder and lightening were god(s). We have long put those thoughts behind us but clearly from your question you have not.
It is as if science doesn't exist despite all the proof around you. But god does exist despite all the lack of proof. You are truly an ignorant close minded simpleton.
But I don't get the feeling you really believe the shit you say. You'll argue despite the fact that you have no argument. Perfect example was when you tried to prove to me my mom doesn't exist. Yea, that's exactly like you not being able to prove your god exists. ******* idiot.
Yes. The probability is just as good as a god existing. It could happen. I can't say 100% sure it won't happen. But the chances I will is less than 1%. Way lower than 1%.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Unprovoked San Francisco stabbing exposes woke policy that critics say ‘shields’ suspects- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
-
ICE must 'immediately' release immigrant who was detained after calling 911 to help save someone else's life, judge says- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 1
