The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

Correct, in your paradigm where everything had a cause.

Ok, I see where your problem is. You are STILL misquoting (or misunderstanding) the argument. Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause. Get that through your head. The argument (which, btw, I have not even stated that I agree with) is that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Do you see the distinction? Or as I said in my last post, are you merely claiming that there is no such thing as something that has always existed?

I'm curious. Where do you get the idea everything begins to exist? In physics we have the big bang theory in which a singularity exploded which became the universe. That is not a creation, it is a transformation. There is nothing which indicates the singularity began to exist. In fact, the lack of time in this makes the very concept of "begin" meaningless.

Where did you get the idea there was a transformation?

 

[ding]

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

Me? No way. I'm just some guy on a computer. Nothing special about me.

Where do you go when you die?

No one knows their fate. So how can I know?

[ off topic ]

You've said that before, and as I mentioned to you before, that is not actually biblical. Please look into "assurance of salvation." I was thinking of maybe starting a new thread on this, if I have time. For believers, I think it's an interesting and important topic.

[ / off topic ]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[ding]

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

I dont blame god, Im being internally critical of the belief.

Id have to believe in God to blame him/her/it, for something, and Ive never been presented with a good enough justification to believe in such a thing.

I know. But if you did meet god you wouldn’t spit in his face. I would think your reaction would be shock that he really does exist. Because religions were all clearly made up.

We have to understand that humans debated gods existence long before Moses lied and said he saw god. If god exists that doesn’t mean he ever visited Moses, Mohammad, Mary or Joseph Smith

If I met the Christian God that I dont believe exists, Id explain to it the error of its ways.

If I met some other entity we might call a "God," and it wasnt THAT god, then I'd have no ill will towards it. I'd probably enjoy picking its brain, so to speak.

I would suggest that you sit yourself down and humbly read the book of JOB.

I did. It was very interesting. It is a fairly solid demonstration that God is not omniscient.

How so?

 

[Ringtone]

Sean carrol is a moron, jim bowie on the internet is a genius!!

On Sean Carroll. . . .

Atheist laymen routinely misconstrue the observations made by classical theists who are in fact steeped in the pertinent science. They typically do this for two reasons: (1) they don't know the science themselves and the varying contexts and language thereof; (2) they blindly rely on the interpretations of proofs tendered by atheist scientists whose worldview is predicated on metaphysical naturalism. Additionally, there are a handful of atheist physicists who are especially hostile to theistic belief, and dishonestly imply or arrogantly assume in debate that theist apologists fail to agree with the philosophically dogmatic and obtuse expectations of metaphysical naturalism because they don't understand the science. These same atheist physicists occasionally engage in cheap antics or ascribe ungenerous interpretations to theists' observations. Of course, there are atheist laymen, who, like me, have studied the pertinent science as well, but in my experience most of them are no more conscious of their metaphysical biases than the sheep. In the meantime, learned classical theists are continuously conscious of the disparate metaphysical presuppositions that underlie, respectively, each camp's worldview.

The Carroll-Craig Debate at the Greer-Heard Forum (2014):

In recent years, the camps have clashed over Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's theoretical purview, which is not strictly limited to the cosmological models of classical spacetime as physicist Sean Carroll (yes, the Carroll of the ill-conceived Carroll-Chen model) seemed to suggest in 2014 at the Greer-Heard Forum, where he debated William Lane Craig. In the debate, Carroll states:

So I’d like to talk about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem since Dr. Craig emphasizes it. The rough translation is that in some universes, not all, the space-time description that we have as a classical space-time breaks down at some point in the past. Where Dr. Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says. What it says is that our ability to describe the universe classically, that is to say, not including the effects of quantum mechanics, gives out. That may be because there's a beginning or it may be because the universe is eternal, either because the assumptions of the theorem were violated or because quantum mechanics becomes important.​

This is all rather slippery of Carroll, as Craig didn't argue that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin asserts an absolute beginning of the cosmos in the sense that Carroll means. Also, his description of the theorem is less than forthright. We expect this sort of equivocation between combatants in a political debate, but in a forum such as this we have every right to expect that the interlocutors will relate the science as accurately as possible and, in good faith, alert the audience to the exact nature of the caveats, not simply vie to win points with rhetorical devices that leave the wrong impression about the science itself in the minds of the audience. From the scientific literature in general, there is absolutely no good reason to doubt that the universe (our metagalaxy or spacetime) in which "we live and move and have our being" began to exist at a point of time in the finite past! And the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is the exclamation mark, as it were, at the end of the previous sentence. Then Craig goes on to show why putatively eternal, cosmological models must necessarily have either a geometric or a thermodynamic beginning. Craig does not base the entirety of his argument on Borde-Guth-Vilenkin! The fact of the matter is that Carroll did not directly refute any of this! Why? Because, sans an entirely new and unknown scheme of physics such that everything we think we know from general relativity and quantum mechanics is tossed into the trash bin, the findings of the proofs cited by Craig in toto are incontrovertible. Rather, what Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't say is that our universe is necessarily the one and only to have ever existed, for while the theorem and others rule out most of the cyclic cosmogonies that entail an epoch of contraction prior to expansion, it doesn't rule out all of them, such as the thermodynamic-time-reversal models of Aguirre-Gratton and Carroll-Chen for which no natural mechanism can be given for their low-entropy state at the bounce.

Guess what else is doesn't say. . . . It doesn't say—despite what Dr. Carroll implies, if I may be so impertinent—that the universe might be or could be eternal! How could it? And despite of what the materialist Carroll seems to believe, in vain, a theory of quantum gravity is not going to yield a proof that the universe is eternal either, even if it did somehow provide a natural mechanism for the initial state of low-entropy for either direction of thermodynamic time ( ∞- ← t → +∞ ). That's the ultimate injunction of Wall (2013). Carroll's dream theory would merely nail down a material cause for the initial state, and I'm not even sure that such an animal is a coherent expectation. In any event, we would then want to know what the natural mechanism is that accounts for the quantum mechanism and so on ad infinitum. Again, a contingent entity of causality cannot account for its own existence, and the answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing is beyond the ken of science.

(Likewise, learned theist apologists are fully aware of the fact that it may not be possible to scientifically demonstrate beyond all doubt that the material realm of being had an absolute geometric beginning out of no previously existing material substance—whether it be a single universe, a multiverse or a cyclic configuration. Hence, theists are certainly not arguing that the preponderance of scientific evidence absolutely proves God's existence as such, but since 1931 the evidential noose has gotten tighter and tighter. Indeed, unlike most atheists, theists understand the limits of scientific inquiry. It is the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic propounded by the philosophical KCA, for example, that prove God's necessity and put the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a coherent account for how actual infinities could exist or how existence could arise from nonexistence. The scientific KCA is a probability argument of the most likely case and the best explanation for that case. In fact, the reason the typical atheist confounds the actualities of the scientific KCA is precisely because he doesn't grasp the limitations of scientific inquiry, because he's willing to be mislead by scientific "authorities" who affirm his biases and because he's mired past his eyeballs in metaphysical naturalism. It's all nonsense, of course, the stuff of "atheists in the gaps" projecting their thought processes on theists, whereby they impulsively leap over the potentially real and numerous cosmological histories that might obtain and land on the either-or option of ultimate origin. In other words, there's no "beginning and middle" in their calculus. They don't regard the feasibility of the various cosmological histories. They don't weigh the statistical probabilities relative to the preponderance of the rational and empirical evidence. All they hear is a bald God did it! opposing their evidentially vacuous The cosmos did it! )

 

[ding]

Correct, in your paradigm where everything had a cause.

Ok, I see where your problem is. You are STILL misquoting (or misunderstanding) the argument. Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause. Get that through your head. The argument (which, btw, I have not even stated that I agree with) is that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Do you see the distinction? Or as I said in my last post, are you merely claiming that there is no such thing as something that has always existed?

I'm curious. Where do you get the idea everything begins to exist? In physics we have the big bang theory in which a singularity exploded which became the universe. That is not a creation, it is a transformation. There is nothing which indicates the singularity began to exist. In fact, the lack of time in this makes the very concept of "begin" meaningless.

From CERN...

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

Correct, in your paradigm where everything had a cause.

Ok, I see where your problem is. You are STILL misquoting (or misunderstanding) the argument. Our "paradigm" does not say that everything has a cause. Get that through your head. The argument (which, btw, I have not even stated that I agree with) is that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Do you see the distinction? Or as I said in my last post, are you merely claiming that there is no such thing as something that has always existed?

I'm curious. Where do you get the idea everything begins to exist? In physics we have the big bang theory in which a singularity exploded which became the universe. That is not a creation, it is a transformation. There is nothing which indicates the singularity began to exist. In fact, the lack of time in this makes the very concept of "begin" meaningless.

ohhh gosh...you just wound the ding wind up toy back up!

What can I say, everyone should know space and time were created from nothing.

 

[xband]

The Democrats did it again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sean carrol is a moron, jim bowie on the internet is a genius!!

On Sean Carroll. . . .

Atheist laymen routinely misconstrue the observations made by classical theists who are in fact steeped in the pertinent science. They typically do this for two reasons: (1) they don't know the science themselves and the varying contexts and language thereof; (2) they blindly rely on the interpretations of proofs tendered by atheist scientists whose worldview is predicated on metaphysical naturalism. Additionally, there are a handful of atheist physicists who are especially hostile to theistic belief, and dishonestly imply or arrogantly assume in debate that theist apologists fail to agree with the philosophically dogmatic and obtuse expectations of metaphysical naturalism because they don't understand the science. These same atheist physicists occasionally engage in cheap antics or ascribe ungenerous interpretations to theists' observations. Of course, there are atheist laymen, who, like me, have studied the pertinent science as well, but in my experience most of them are no more conscious of their metaphysical biases than the sheep. In the meantime, learned classical theists are continuously conscious of the disparate metaphysical presuppositions that underlie, respectively, each camp's worldview.

The Carroll-Craig Debate at the Greer-Heard Forum (2014):

In recent years, the camps have clashed over Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's theoretical purview, which is not strictly limited to the cosmological models of classical spacetime as physicist Sean Carroll (yes, the Carroll of the ill-conceived Carroll-Chen model) seemed to suggest in 2014 at the Greer-Heard Forum, where he debated William Lane Craig. In the debate, Carroll states:

So I’d like to talk about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem since Dr. Craig emphasizes it. The rough translation is that in some universes, not all, the space-time description that we have as a classical space-time breaks down at some point in the past. Where Dr. Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says. What it says is that our ability to describe the universe classically, that is to say, not including the effects of quantum mechanics, gives out. That may be because there's a beginning or it may be because the universe is eternal, either because the assumptions of the theorem were violated or because quantum mechanics becomes important.​

This is all rather slippery of Carroll, as Craig didn't argue that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin asserts an absolute beginning of the cosmos in the sense that Carroll means. Also, his description of the theorem is less than forthright. We expect this sort of equivocation between combatants in a political debate, but in a forum such as this we have every right to expect that the interlocutors will relate the science as accurately as possible and, in good faith, alert the audience to the exact nature of the caveats, not simply vie to win points with rhetorical devices that leave the wrong impression about the science itself in the minds of the audience. From the scientific literature in general, there is absolutely no good reason to doubt that the universe (our metagalaxy or spacetime) in which "we live and move and have our being" began to exist at a point of time in the finite past! And the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is the exclamation mark, as it were, at the end of the previous sentence. Then Craig goes on to show why putatively eternal, cosmological models must necessarily have either a geometric or a thermodynamic beginning. Craig does not base the entirety of his argument on Borde-Guth-Vilenkin! The fact of the matter is that Carroll did not directly refute any of this! Why? Because, sans an entirely new and unknown scheme of physics such that everything we think we know from general relativity and quantum mechanics is tossed into the trash bin, the findings of the proofs cited by Craig in toto are incontrovertible. Rather, what Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't say is that our universe is necessarily the one and only to have ever existed, for while the theorem and others rule out most of the cyclic cosmogonies that entail an epoch of contraction prior to expansion, it doesn't rule out all of them, such as the thermodynamic-time-reversal models of Aguirre-Gratton and Carroll-Chen for which no natural mechanism can be given for their low-entropy state at the bounce.

Guess what else is doesn't say. . . . It doesn't say—despite what Dr. Carroll implies, if I may be so impertinent—that the universe might be or could be eternal! How could it? And despite of what the materialist Carroll seems to believe, in vain, a theory of quantum gravity is not going to yield a proof that the universe is eternal either, even if it did somehow provide a natural mechanism for the initial state of low-entropy for either direction of thermodynamic time ( ∞- ← t → +∞ ). That's the ultimate injunction of Wall (2013). Carroll's dream theory would merely nail down a material cause for the initial state, and I'm not even sure that such an animal is a coherent expectation. In any event, we would then want to know what the natural mechanism is that accounts for the quantum mechanism and so on ad infinitum. Again, a contingent entity of causality cannot account for its own existence, and the answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing is beyond the ken of science.

(Likewise, learned theist apologists are fully aware of the fact that it may not be possible to scientifically demonstrate beyond all doubt that the material realm of being had an absolute geometric beginning out of no previously existing material substance—whether it be a single universe, a multiverse or a cyclic configuration. Hence, theists are certainly not arguing that the preponderance of scientific evidence absolutely proves God's existence as such, but since 1931 the evidential noose has gotten tighter and tighter. Indeed, unlike most atheists, theists understand the limits of scientific inquiry. It is the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic propounded by the philosophical KCA, for example, that prove God's necessity and put the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a coherent account for how actual infinities could exist or how existence could arise from nonexistence. The scientific KCA is a probability argument of the most likely case and the best explanation for that case. In fact, the reason the typical atheist confounds the actualities of the scientific KCA is precisely because he doesn't grasp the limitations of scientific inquiry, because he's willing to be mislead by scientific "authorities" who affirm his biases and because he's mired past his eyeballs in metaphysical naturalism. It's all nonsense, of course, the stuff of "atheists in the gaps" projecting their thought processes on theists, whereby they impulsively leap over the potentially real and numerous cosmological histories that might obtain and land on the either-or option of ultimate origin. In other words, there's no "beginning and middle" in their calculus. They don't regard the feasibility of the various cosmological histories. They don't weigh the statistical probabilities relative to the preponderance of the rational and empirical evidence. All they hear is a bald God did it! opposing their evidentially vacuous The cosmos did it! )

Nonsense. The scientists, atheist or otherwise, simply have no use whatsoever for "god did it". It's as useless to them as tits on a boar. And this bothers you, because they pay no mind to your magical fetish. So you attack, like a toddler not getting enough attention.

And that's all. It's not complicated.

 

[Third Party]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

1.1. Something exists.

1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

1.3. Something has always existed.
​

2. The universe began to exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


The Vertical Cosmological Argument​

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 or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Your're trying too hard. Let everybody think for themselves.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion.

Much better

 

[james bond]

From CERN...

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN's astrophysicists are lying because they haven't created anything from nothing. They created something from something and spent a lot of money to buy parts and build their collider. The matter in your body isn't billions of years old. The big bang is bullshit because the temperature of space is uniform, about 2.75 K, from the point of expansion to the outer reaches of its expansion.

 

[buttercup]

You want to talk about magical... the "multiverse" and all of existence putting itself together by dumb luck I'd say is infinitely more "magical" than theism, or any other viewpoint for that matter.


So it's quite amusing that a certain someone here uses the word "magical" in every single one of his posts.

 

[ding]

Sean carrol is a moron, jim bowie on the internet is a genius!!

On Sean Carroll. . . .

Atheist laymen routinely misconstrue the observations made by classical theists who are in fact steeped in the pertinent science. They typically do this for two reasons: (1) they don't know the science themselves and the varying contexts and language thereof; (2) they blindly rely on the interpretations of proofs tendered by atheist scientists whose worldview is predicated on metaphysical naturalism. Additionally, there are a handful of atheist physicists who are especially hostile to theistic belief, and dishonestly imply or arrogantly assume in debate that theist apologists fail to agree with the philosophically dogmatic and obtuse expectations of metaphysical naturalism because they don't understand the science. These same atheist physicists occasionally engage in cheap antics or ascribe ungenerous interpretations to theists' observations. Of course, there are atheist laymen, who, like me, have studied the pertinent science as well, but in my experience most of them are no more conscious of their metaphysical biases than the sheep. In the meantime, learned classical theists are continuously conscious of the disparate metaphysical presuppositions that underlie, respectively, each camp's worldview.

The Carroll-Craig Debate at the Greer-Heard Forum (2014):

In recent years, the camps have clashed over Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's theoretical purview, which is not strictly limited to the cosmological models of classical spacetime as physicist Sean Carroll (yes, the Carroll of the ill-conceived Carroll-Chen model) seemed to suggest in 2014 at the Greer-Heard Forum, where he debated William Lane Craig. In the debate, Carroll states:

So I’d like to talk about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem since Dr. Craig emphasizes it. The rough translation is that in some universes, not all, the space-time description that we have as a classical space-time breaks down at some point in the past. Where Dr. Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says. What it says is that our ability to describe the universe classically, that is to say, not including the effects of quantum mechanics, gives out. That may be because there's a beginning or it may be because the universe is eternal, either because the assumptions of the theorem were violated or because quantum mechanics becomes important.​

This is all rather slippery of Carroll, as Craig didn't argue that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin asserts an absolute beginning of the cosmos in the sense that Carroll means. Also, his description of the theorem is less than forthright. We expect this sort of equivocation between combatants in a political debate, but in a forum such as this we have every right to expect that the interlocutors will relate the science as accurately as possible and, in good faith, alert the audience to the exact nature of the caveats, not simply vie to win points with rhetorical devices that leave the wrong impression about the science itself in the minds of the audience. From the scientific literature in general, there is absolutely no good reason to doubt that the universe (our metagalaxy or spacetime) in which "we live and move and have our being" began to exist at a point of time in the finite past! And the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is the exclamation mark, as it were, at the end of the previous sentence. Then Craig goes on to show why putatively eternal, cosmological models must necessarily have either a geometric or a thermodynamic beginning. Craig does not base the entirety of his argument on Borde-Guth-Vilenkin! The fact of the matter is that Carroll did not directly refute any of this! Why? Because, sans an entirely new and unknown scheme of physics such that everything we think we know from general relativity and quantum mechanics is tossed into the trash bin, the findings of the proofs cited by Craig in toto are incontrovertible. Rather, what Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't say is that our universe is necessarily the one and only to have ever existed, for while the theorem and others rule out most of the cyclic cosmogonies that entail an epoch of contraction prior to expansion, it doesn't rule out all of them, such as the thermodynamic-time-reversal models of Aguirre-Gratton and Carroll-Chen for which no natural mechanism can be given for their low-entropy state at the bounce.

Guess what else is doesn't say. . . . It doesn't say—despite what Dr. Carroll implies, if I may be so impertinent—that the universe might be or could be eternal! How could it? And despite of what the materialist Carroll seems to believe, in vain, a theory of quantum gravity is not going to yield a proof that the universe is eternal either, even if it did somehow provide a natural mechanism for the initial state of low-entropy for either direction of thermodynamic time ( ∞- ← t → +∞ ). That's the ultimate injunction of Wall (2013). Carroll's dream theory would merely nail down a material cause for the initial state, and I'm not even sure that such an animal is a coherent expectation. In any event, we would then want to know what the natural mechanism is that accounts for the quantum mechanism and so on ad infinitum. Again, a contingent entity of causality cannot account for its own existence, and the answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing is beyond the ken of science.

(Likewise, learned theist apologists are fully aware of the fact that it may not be possible to scientifically demonstrate beyond all doubt that the material realm of being had an absolute geometric beginning out of no previously existing material substance—whether it be a single universe, a multiverse or a cyclic configuration. Hence, theists are certainly not arguing that the preponderance of scientific evidence absolutely proves God's existence as such, but since 1931 the evidential noose has gotten tighter and tighter. Indeed, unlike most atheists, theists understand the limits of scientific inquiry. It is the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic propounded by the philosophical KCA, for example, that prove God's necessity and put the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a coherent account for how actual infinities could exist or how existence could arise from nonexistence. The scientific KCA is a probability argument of the most likely case and the best explanation for that case. In fact, the reason the typical atheist confounds the actualities of the scientific KCA is precisely because he doesn't grasp the limitations of scientific inquiry, because he's willing to be mislead by scientific "authorities" who affirm his biases and because he's mired past his eyeballs in metaphysical naturalism. It's all nonsense, of course, the stuff of "atheists in the gaps" projecting their thought processes on theists, whereby they impulsively leap over the potentially real and numerous cosmological histories that might obtain and land on the either-or option of ultimate origin. In other words, there's no "beginning and middle" in their calculus. They don't regard the feasibility of the various cosmological histories. They don't weigh the statistical probabilities relative to the preponderance of the rational and empirical evidence. All they hear is a bald God did it! opposing their evidentially vacuous The cosmos did it! )

Nonsense. The scientists, atheist or otherwise, simply have no use whatsoever for "god did it". It's as useless to them as tits on a boar. And this bothers you, because they pay no mind to your magical fetish. So you attack, like a toddler not getting enough attention.

And that's all. It's not complicated.

The universe literally popped into existence ~ 14 billion years ago.

Sounds like magic to me.

 

[ding]

Because clearly what exists outside of space and time must be magic because it can’t be something that naturally exists outside of space and time.

Talk about fairytales.

 

[ding]

From CERN...

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN's astrophysicists are lying because they haven't created anything from nothing. They created something from something and spent a lot of money to buy parts and build their collider. The matter in your body isn't billions of years old. The big bang is bullshit because the temperature of space is uniform, about 2.75 K, from the point of expansion to the outer reaches of its expansion.

Yes. The atoms in your body are 14 billion years ago. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

From CERN...

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN's astrophysicists are lying because they haven't created anything from nothing. They created something from something and spent a lot of money to buy parts and build their collider. The matter in your body isn't billions of years old. The big bang is bullshit because the temperature of space is uniform, about 2.75 K, from the point of expansion to the outer reaches of its expansion.

Ok, how old do you believe the atoms in your body are?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone. Would you put complete trust in something or someone without good reason?

Without good reason...break that down for me.

 

[ding]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone. Would you put complete trust in something or someone without good reason?

Without good reason...break that down for me.

Do you believe in God?

If so, do you believe you have a good reason to believe in God?

 

[idb]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone. Would you put complete trust in something or someone without good reason?

Without good reason...break that down for me.

Do you believe in God?

If so, do you believe you have a good reason to believe in God?

If you have faith, then why do you need to empirically prove the existence of a god?
If you have faith then...god exists because you believe she does.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

If you need justification for a God then you are missing the point of the exercise.

Exactly!!
What happened to Faith?

The definition of faith is putting complete trust in something or someone. Would you put complete trust in something or someone without good reason?

Without good reason...break that down for me.

Do you believe in God?

If so, do you believe you have a good reason to believe in God?

Either you do...or you don't...no 'reason' required....reason...lol!

And if you don't, then get on up the road with it.

 

[james bond]

Yes. The atoms in your body are 14 billion years ago. Deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it b/c I just said the astrophysicists at CERN were lying. Furthermore, your link to CERN is badly dated. How do you know the atoms in our bodies are 14 B years old? The atheists here know more than you about science and the believers know more than you about religion because you listen to neither side. Deal with that.