The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

[Ringtone]

I'm saying you jumped from "something exists" to "something intelligent exists", with no justification.

Well, you repeat, essentially, the same idea here. My response stands and stays. Laws imply unembodied mind. I ask again:

Where, precisely, are these laws of physics ontologically hanging out . . . prior to the existence of the physical world?​

crickets chirping

The law of gravity define how mass warps space. The law can exist just fine in the absence of space, it would just be hard to prove it. 1 + 1 = 2 The concept of '1' does not require a physical object.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm saying you jumped from "something exists" to "something intelligent exists", with no justification.

Well, you repeat, essentially, the same idea here. My response stands and stays. Laws imply unembodied mind. I ask again:

Where, precisely, are these laws of physics ontologically hanging out . . . prior to the existence of the physical world?​

crickets chirping

The law of gravity define how mass warps space. The law can exist just fine in the absence of space, it would just be hard to prove it. 1 + 1 = 2 The concept of '1' does not require a physical object.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

.

As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

.
- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

 

[Ringtone]

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

 

[BreezeWood]

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.
excuse me, was that an answer ... what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

 

[Ringtone]

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.
excuse me, was that an answer ... what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

Yes.

 

[alang1216]

As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

I would think the laws of physics must exist before all else.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Ringtone]

I would think the laws of physics must exist before all else.

Before all else?

Ontologically prior to the existence of the physical world, what is the medium of their existence?

 

[alang1216]

I would think the laws of physics must exist before all else.

Before all else?

Ontologically prior to the existence of the physical world, what is the medium of their existence?

I don't think space or time is physical.

 

[BreezeWood]

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

.
excuse me, was that an answer ... what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

Yes.

.

Yes.

.

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

.
no, you did not give an answer your explanation is lacking. a foundation ... at best, being generous.

 

[Ringtone]

.
no, you did not give an answer your explanation is lacking. a foundation ... at best, being generous.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't think space or time is physical.

So general relativity is nonsense, and the measurable vacuum energy of space is an illusion, eh?

 

[alang1216]

I don't think space or time is physical.

So general relativity is nonsense, and the measurable vacuum energy of space is an illusion, eh?

Is general relativity a physical thing or a property of something? (Not my area of expertise.)

 

[BreezeWood]

.
no, you did not give an answer your explanation is lacking. a foundation ... at best, being generous.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

.
just admit you are unwilling to explain your position - there ever existed a time without a physical presence ... and how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Ringtone]

.
no, you did not give an answer your explanation is lacking. a foundation ... at best, being generous.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

.
just admit you are unwilling to explain your position - there ever existed a time without a physical presence ... and how you came to that conclusion.

Are you claiming that the physical world has always existed? Speak plainly.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
no, you did not give an answer your explanation is lacking. a foundation ... at best, being generous.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

.

As I've told you before, I don't speak gibberish. Apparently, English is your second language.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

.
just admit you are unwilling to explain your position - there ever existed a time without a physical presence ... and how you came to that conclusion.

Are you claiming that the physical world has always existed? Speak plainly.

.

Indeed, the laws of logic and mathematics are immaterial. As for the laws of physics, are saying that they precede the physical world in time and being as well?

Are you claiming that the physical world has always existed? Speak plainly.

.
well, you first, you made the statement and have repeatedly refereed to a first cause being the introduction of the "physical world" -
.

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

.
the monotony of your statement drove me to inquire what proof you have there has not always been a physical state of one form or another - where by inference that might only occur, empty space at the moment of transition where compressed energy explodes into matter, the moment of singularity of the cyclical bb. or that in fact there has never been a time without a "physical world".

 

[Hollie]

- what makes you think there was ever a time without a physical presence of some form or another.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles / imperatives of ID’iot creationer claims to supernaturalism, metaphysics and “... because I say so”, nothing presented by the ICR or the Disco’tute groupies leads to your polytheistic gods.

And your next bit of spam poetry is.....

 

[zaangalewa]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

And why is not only nothing?

 

[zaangalewa]

I would think the laws of physics must exist before all else.

Before all else?

Ontologically prior to the existence of the physical world, what is the medium of their existence?

I don't think space or time is physical.

Eh? Whatelse do you think what it is?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's from St Anselm's ontological proof of God's existence. Very similar to what you posted.

Yes. I'm familiar with Anselm's ontological argument. I just wasn't sure what, precisely, you were suggesting or proposing about the "next step". That's all. Thanks.

That hard to read sentence was saying
to DEFINE the nature of "God"
which nothing is greater than.

If this "God" is greater than we can define, then good luck with that.
Insert crickets chirping, bullfrogs croaking, and little girls rolling their eyes
and giggling....

 

[emilynghiem]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Have you noticed yet that all of your attempts at arguments for the gods all suffer from the same failures?

Bullfrogs croaking

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

Zero argument . . . again.

The many voices that saturate the airwaves,
The talking heads that float atop the breeze
Crawl inside my weary head and eviscerate my dreams. . . .

This is why Christians are increasingly despised, they can't defend their religion when confronted by legitimate questions about whether their god exist or not.

Again the real issue is coming to acceptance and peace with the realization that neither view of God,
as existent or nonexistent, can be either
proven nor disproven, but all views of
God remain faith based.

The definitions, meanings and representations of God are also relative.

Once we come to understanding and peace, then we can deal with everyone's different approaches to God as universal
truth or laws of life and forces of nature.

We all believe in certain truths in life.

We just have different ways of expressing them. All are faith based.

PS My true will for you is to be at peace and happy at this realization. Although some may laugh and take this lightly how silly it may seem to argue over things that are relative and can never be proven, the sense of frustration and disturbance or offense caused to others is sad to me. I wish you could see humor in this, but if you only take insult and affront, this is more tragic and grievous.

People cannot always help or change their beliefs. Is it not better to accept that, and just love and appreciate this beauty in life and diversity in how each person perceives and expresses what they see?