xtervaganza:
see dem. Religious zealots.



You guys are dinosaurs who should well and truly become a relic.



How has worshipping your fake God helped Nigeria? You all sleep and wake up in a mess of a country calling in a god who is not there

You just showed a high level of infancy.
Quit spewing thrash and get a life..

Are you sure is your brother or is just you dats confused about who is God, whether he exist.. Cos I see dat ur confused from ur comments

smite:


they're discussing best ways to indoctrinate and imprison the mind of that smart kid.

that is infringing on his human rights!

To be honest, I wasn't expecting so many people to agree with me. You have no idea how happy this makes me. I'm happy that people are finally seeing things this way.

coolebux:
You just showed a high level of infancy.
Quit spewing thrash and get a life..

coming from a fool who believes in the bible and all human being came from 2 white guys in one garden of Eden.



Oh you also believe snakes and donkeys talk.



You must be very bright

xtervaganza:
coming from a fool who believes in the bible and all human being came from 2 white guys in one garden of Eden.



Oh you also believe snakes and donkeys talk.



You must be very bright

If I am to judge your faith by your post, then I'll classify you as anti-christian which makes you a total stranger on this topic

Oh I get it, you're only here to pick on people with your offensive quotes. . abi?

Whatever believe you represent can only make you poke-nose and eavesdrop on things that doesn't connect with your diabolic philosophy, especially when it has to do with Christianity.

Quit now and get a life

I believe in God, I also believe in science(study of what is). When someone asks me why I believe in a God, I ask why do you believe in Cartesian Coordinate Systems.

Seriously, there is no absolute position but every position is relative to an non absolute reference frame.

If I can believe that then I am not dumb to believe in God as well.

dueal:
I believe in God, I also believe in science(study of what is). When someone asks me why I believe in a God, I ask why do you believe in Cartesian Coordinate Systems.

Seriously, there is no absolute position but every position is relative to an non absolute reference frame.

If I can believe that then I am not dumb to believe in God as well.

You have every right to believe and no one can take that from you.
Others too have every right to disbelieve. The issue here is a six year old boy. Should six yearolds be MADE to believe before they learn how to think? It seems to me that what ever belief 6 yearolds are fed depends on the geography of their birth

aribisala0:
You have every right to believe and no one can take that from you.
Others too have every right to disbelieve. The issue here is a six year old boy. Should six yearolds be MADE to believe before they learn how to think? It seems to me that what ever belief 6 yearolds are fed depends on the geography of their birth

I'm glad u came at it in this manner. For your question, I dnt think anyone should force the child or see the child as being odd because he isn't accepting of the concept of a noncreated God.

People just like to feel everyone must accept their ideas and belief without question. Which is unnatural and wrong...we are not programmed zombies. If you can't address the questions the child throws at you, then you don't understand what you claim to believe.

And yes, our environment shapes the ideas and concepts we now possess as "our own", and as we grow older we build fences against ideologies that threaten to change those concepts we hold.

joe4christ:


And you believe the Biblical account of creation is real
It sounds more like a myths. How do you explain about 8 billion human population being descendants of two parents within the space of 7000 yrs.

dont put words in my mouth sir/ma as I never mentioned anything about biblical account. You're avoiding my question

oglalasioux:


It's been 400 years since Galileo turned his telescope to the heavens and changed our view of the universe. In those 400 years science has been able to disprove thousand years old beliefs and speculations. Since science takes a procedure; investigate and verify, it's normal for it to take it's time in unravelling the rest of the wonders of the cosmos. The ones we can't explain today will be left for our children tomorrow just as Darwin and the rest gave us theories which we've been able to verify even if their proponents died hundreds of years ago.

However, the origin of life is not far from being unravelled. The fusion that goes on inside the cores of stars made carbon, the most important component of life. Amino acids, which carbon is a key component, has the ability to copy itself and that's the origin of life.

Everything that exist on earth was made in the core of stars. Stars themselves are clusters of hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms were made within the first 3 minutes of the big bang and, just as you and I agreed, a God is possibly behind the big bang. What I stand to counter is that this God behind the big bang can never be the same gods of the religions.

no sweat only pointing out that whatever the big banger was, it does not seem in the purview of science to unravel it. You see if science had told us that the answer to the question of the origin of all life is still inconclusive and stopped there, it would have been a very dignifying thing to do but science tries to explain the origin of life in a flawed/unscientific manner by equating the bang and the banger so to say and has stuck to it pending when a clearer picture is obtained and this is what I disapprove of.....just saying (don't get it twisted, I too am a huge fan of science)

wirinet:


Because the the question is unanswerable. Nobody was there at the start of the universe.

Your own explained is as illogical as it is stupid. You want to use emotional blackmail to force the senseless argument that the universe was spoken into being by a Jewish or Jewish bias man who is uncaused, but the universe itself cannot be uncaused. Sounds very silly.
You guys say all sorts of nonsense;
My God lives outside space and time because he created space and time. - any evidence?

My God is eternal because the universe is internal ( has beginning and end) - any evidence?

My God is perfect, complete, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but get angry and vindictive if his ego is not continuously and permanently massaged by humans.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Never mentioned anything about Jewish or Islam or whatever. You say the question is unanswerable because nobody was there at the start of the universe. I do not think so. Through the years science has been able to find out knowledge of events and happenings thousands of years prior so it ought to be doable and so the excuse of 'nobody was there' doesn't hold water. It's also interesting that science does not admit that it cannot answer that question (which is not a bad thing) and so it's not unfair to throw the question at science. At the end of the day we all are seeking for knowledge.

chrmn1:
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Never mentioned anything about Jewish or Islam or whatever. You say the question is unanswerable because nobody was there at the start of the universe. I do not think so. Through the years science has been able to find out knowledge of events and happenings thousands of years prior so it ought to be doable and so the excuse of 'nobody was there' doesn't hold water. It's also interesting that science does not admit that it cannot answer that question (which is not a bad thing) and so it's not unfair to throw the question at science. At the end of the day we all are seeking for knowledge.

It is annoying when people who know nothing about a subject pretends to be a authority on said topic and therefore spew ignorance all over the place.

Astrophysicists and cosmologists say that they have no idea what was or what happened before and immediately after the big bang, because the laws of physics do not hold or apply under such conditions. This simply translate to it is unknowable.
Where did you read that scientists admitted they can answer the question of where the universe came from? ( I am not talking about the material universe).

[

I can't believe the out of 268 post made. only just two post made sense and more useless post keep adding up. I need people with deeper understanding of how to explain God in a practical way and pls atheist stay out from this post.

chrmn1:
dont put words in my mouth sir/ma as I never mentioned anything about biblical account. You're avoiding my question

And you are avoiding the truth which is "the Bible is not without flaws as we were made to believe".

Gpdwise:
I have been trying for the past three (3) hours now to explain the concept of God to my six year old half brother. who recently just returned from the states. I tried reading using the bible and he asked me the most difficult but simple question. Big brother where did God come from if you said there was nothing in world!! I dropped the bible immediately.

I tried using nature to explain that the beautiful flowers, birds and sea were created by God. Then he asked me who created God because mama bird and papa bird will have junior bird and for the flowers I need to plant its seed for them to grow.. so big brother who is papa God

I very sorry for your current predicament, guess the trip did him more harm than good. But not despair just visit this link http://livingwordmedia.org/ you will find messages that will answer every and any questions you ever had.

And by the way it's completely free.

Take care

I understand whats going on,brother.
First,i will like to clarify an issue,i want u to know that,you cant give what you dont have,for you to be able to prove to your brother that God exist means you have to KNOW GOD yourself,and dont misquote me,am not referring to the religious dimension of go to church on sunday and read your bible every morning...NO..that's not practical,if that's your perception about God,then,you faith can be questioned by even the freshest atheist out there,that's the first question you need to ask yourself?
I am more than persuaded that God does really exists,most of the things we call nature are very spiritual but to those who are on the other side of the stage,its a new world entirely,their eyes are been blinded to see whats going on
what i suggest you do,is pray to God asking him to reveal himself to u
and when i say pray not the religious type but an expression of the longing of your soul in words backed up with faith.
God is a faithful and just God,once you do that in sincerity of heart,you will know him better
just approach him like a father and he'll fill your hunger
i suggest you try it first before recommending it to your younger brother.
"and he said unto me,it is done. Iam the Alpha and Omega,the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life FREELY
he that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God and he shall be my son."
(Rev 21:6-7)

God love mankind so much till the point that when man fell through satan just like satan fell earlier.
God didnt cast him away,he saved man through his own son called JESUS,that's why we approach God in the name of JESUS
by that,we bring ourself under the price he paid to bring man back to God and when that is done,the debt of iniquity that the normal man inherited from adam is cleansed away
that's why we must believe in his death and ressurrection first,that's the forwarding of our own consent that we accept what he did,see how much love that must have been!
God loves everybody even inclusing your brother.

God love mankind so much till the point that when man fell through satan just like satan fell earlier.
God didnt cast him away,he saved man through his own son called JESUS,that's why we approach God in the name of JESUS
by that,we bring ourself under the price he paid to bring man back to God and when that is done,the debt of iniquity that the normal man inherited from adam is cleansed away
that's why we must believe in his death and ressurrection first,that's the forwarding of our own consent that we accept what he did,see how much love that must have been!
God loves everybody even inclusing your brother. The way is still open,as long as you are willing to approach him with a clean and sincere heart,He will answer and which is what i am advising you to do,just a try?
note:its what i have practised and has worked for me many times over. What used to cause the breach many times is a dirty heart. A heart that devises evil and the rest once you can handle that by approaching him with a clean,sincere and thirsty heart,He will answer you.
Shalom!

God love mankind so much till the point that when man fell through satan just like satan fell earlier.
God didnt cast him away,he saved man through his own son called JESUS,that's why we approach God in the name of JESUS
by that,we bring ourself under the price he paid to bring man back to God and when that is done,the debt of iniquity that the normal man inherited from adam is cleansed away
that's why we must believe in his death and ressurrection first,that's the forwarding of our own consent that we accept what he did,see how much love that must have been!
God loves everybody even inclusing your brother. The way is still open,as long as you are willing to approach him with a clean and sincere heart,He will answer and which is what i am advising you to do,just a try?
note:its what i have practised and has worked for me many times over. What used to cause the breach many times is a dirty heart. A heart that devises evil and the rest once you can handle that by approaching him with a clean,sincere and thirsty heart,He will answer you.

joe4christ:


And you are avoiding the truth which is "the Bible is not without flaws as we were made to believe".

I asked a simple question and all you did was attack the bible which I never made mention of since my first post on this thread...Oga calm down abeg

joe4christ:


Then how do you prove this your god, cos there ought to be a rational means of doing that, just as u were able to rationalize the car illustration, I expect u to do same in explaining God. Or is he too complexed to be rationalized? Then he is not the source of rationale, it simply prove the possibility of another deity being the source of rationality. Cos your god seems to be anti rational.
And lastly, which among the thousands of gods is the true God, since you seem s to know him on a personal level

OK here we are phylosophical and scientific:

The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by a being. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to a being. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.


But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God. And this also prove that God is not within this universe just like a designer and manufacturer of car not being part of the car.

Now after you digest the above I can show you, if you are interested:

1. where the above description of God is in our scripture

2. where we have the big bang in our scripture

So what brought God into existence. What created God

Gpdwise:
I can't believe the out of 268 post made. only just two post made sense and more useless post keep adding up. I need people with deeper understanding of how to explain God in a practical way and pls atheist stay out from this post.

What exactly do you mean in a practical way?

If you are talking about of how God looks like then you have to understand that God is unlimited while the Universe is limited. Therefore unlimited being cannot be contained within limited universe. In the same way Man being limited with limited mind cannot comprehend how God looks like because he does not have unlimited mind to do that. That is why man can only use what he can comprehend, i.e Man, Life and Universe, to prove the existence of God. This is called rational thinking.

If on the other hand you want Philosophical and Scientific explanations then please go through below and please take your time to digest it:

The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by a being. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to a being. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.


But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God. And this also prove that God is not within this universe just like a designer and manufacturer of car not being part of the car.

Now after you digest the above I can show you, if you are interested:

1. where the above description of God is in our scripture

2. where we have the big bang in our scripture

Gpdwise:
I have been trying for the past three (3) hours now to explain the concept of God to my six year old half brother. who recently just returned from the states. I tried reading using the bible and he asked me the most difficult but simple question. Big brother where did God come from if you said there was nothing in world!! I dropped the bible immediately.

I tried using nature to explain that the beautiful flowers, birds and sea were created by God. Then he asked me who created God because mama bird and papa bird will have junior bird and for the flowers I need to plant its seed for them to grow.. so big brother who is papa God

your six year old brother is more intelligent than you.


he is curious, he knows something is off with the claim of God, at that age he already knows religion is stupid


you should learn from that boy, the American education is obviously doing him well

robinicule:
For my ways are not your ways! He is using human knowledge to think of God! so tell him, God is not man and he doesnt think like us, hence he should stop trying to understand him.

I love this! To me, that write-up ends every discussion. It is accurate

This is quite hilarious! Listen! I don't claim to know, but I have gone through almost everybody's post! Some have meaning while some are just composed by people that lack common sense( those who still don't want to believe that jah exists) . Yhu cannot fathom how God almighty came into existence even if yhu hoodwink your self by posting grammar just to hornswoggle the onlookers.God is not dead. The reason y God didn't give man the knowledge to decipher him is to test your faith! Be wise and stop fooling your selves

musicwriter:


The case for God makes sense to me because there's intelligence in nature. Intelligence does not come from a non intelligence.

nature is evidence for nature.

Explain your God..

MutantMetahuman:
nature is evidence for nature.
Explain your God..

God is evidence for God.
Explain your atheism.

musicwriter:


God is evidence for God.

Explain your atheism.

Go and learn the meaning of atheism and then rephrase your meaningless question

macof:



your six year old brother is more intelligent than you.


he is curious, he knows something is off with the claim of God, at that age he already knows religion is stupid


you should learn from that boy, the American education is obviously doing him well

What about people who grow up in an atheistic family only to abandon it when they understand the truth, they are foolish too right??

promise10:

What about people who grow up in an atheistic family only to abandon it when they understand the truth, they are foolish too right??

of course not, nobody is foolish for understanding the truth

problem here is, Christianity is far from truth