hinograce:
there is evidence of d great deluge. ie world wide flooding In stratigraphy and also evidence of the relic of Noah's Arc.

kevoh:
This question is for johnydon22 and I will gladly ignore any mentions except if it's from Johny until otherwise stated.

I often hear theists end statements with science has not been able to explain this mystery or that mystery.

Now here is my question, if we are to follow the subject of this thread which is the existence of a god, is it that science has so far truly not been able to explain the existence of god or the evidences put forward so far by theists for a god have failed the scientific methods of testing hypothesis.

TayserMahiri:


All that is backed by the Bible or where is it from?

It just seems like physics and the rationalization you are bringing are merging at the big bang (just before).

I really dont know maybe you can dig a scripture that explains that.

How God was chilling nowhere and at no point in time and then BANG

Assuming the Bible is a reliable guide.

Though I doubt. As far as your example, I dont think you can delink a movie space-time continuum from the normal spacetime. Even if you pause the movie. But I kinda KINDAAA get what you are trying to say.

johnydon22:
None of them are from the bible, those are simple implications of physics as we know them today.
The arguments were derived based on the consequences of the Big Bang model.
I don't have to, my argument had nothing to do with any scripture, not the Veda, Koran, Ma'at.
That is the consequences of no space and time. "Nowhere" is everywhere and forever is a moment.

My post didn't mention the bible and has nothing do with the bible.

I said, the movie space-time is dependent on our own 3d space-time continum but is different. So you are transcendent to the movie universe but confined to our own 3d universe and such analogy may be the case with God(s) extra dimensional beings transcendent from our own space-time continuum.

TayserMahiri:


Sounds like there is indisputable evidence for God as far as ur concerned. I dont remember reading your proof??

Would I be right then to say that if nowhere was everywhere, and forever was a moment then God was part of this nowhere and was therefore nothing?

Your point here is now appearing to show that part of that 'nothing' was God. Dont u think its a bad idea to try to explain these stuff scientifically?

I do understand the scientific explanation for the 'time' before the universe but the idea is usually to show that there was 'nothing' before the big bang, not that there was transcedent stuff.

You have now ventured into extrapolation. Dont force this line to fit.

johnydon22:


I never mentioned this as an evidence for God just an explanation of how God could create the universe without a forever being between then and creation. Wasn't this the original premise we were discussing, why drag a non sequitur premise into it now?
Learn to stay in premise, I'm not here to prove God so don't be so defensive.

reconcile this logic again

No I don't think it's a bad idea. My arguments were sorely based on the implications of physics. The question was answered just as I would when asked 'what happened before the Big Bang?"

johnydon22:
No the idea is usually not about nothing before the Big Bang actually.

-Multiverse theory
-Oscillating universe theory (this is recognized as the most likely case)
It means the universe is just a product of a previously dead universe. All these are implications of the big bang model.
Its not as simple as you thought.

johnydon22:
Or maybe you should think further on it, expand what you know about the Big Bang theory

TayserMahiri:


So God is already creating a universe without even proving he existed? No one is being defensive, you are the one who is jumping the gun.

Then you want me to reconcile bad premises for you. There is a reason why your initial statement was wrong but you cant see that.

So you stand for both sides of the argument? You want to be where you cant lose

You actually think you schooled me here! I know all that. Your point about extra dimensions is completely contrary to these. You dont even realize you brought in theories with completely different implications. Thats a whole new argument. This way we get cyclical and never ending, new arguments brought in when old ones fail.

Unfortunately my interest is not in showing where or if God lived before the big bang. That has to be your job. You said it!

You dont do research with the aim of proving something you preconceive. Otherwise, we would always be misled by our inherent age-old misconceptions about the universe. Preconceived notions are bad basis for research because none of the methodologies will ever work perfectly as results are already determined in your mind. There is an inherent problem with research aimed at showing God was existent in a different dimension. And it doesnt matter what side of the argument you fall, the problem is the same so long as you want to use the scientific method.

Again, the premise of the discussion was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on that premise there is a fundamental assumption that God exists. That is the way argument works.

further example: Peter and Paul of Psquare who is better singer?

mr A: Peter is a better vocalist.

You: You must first prove they both exist before the comparison.

That is not arguments work, they work in premises, you must argue within the premise of a discussion. You may go back to my first reply to you on this post and figure out the premise again.

This is a discussion, there is no trophy for who wins and who loses, i am on this sorely as an intellectual exercise not a who loses or who wins thing, that to me is grossly nonsensical. Its about finding out what is truth not about winning or losing.
Winning or losing worry is just another 21st century way of being petty and intellectually arrogant.

creatio ex nihilo
creatio ex materia

The idea of the universe creation was never creatio ex nihilo from the Big Bang model, and my explanation on this model since i mentioned you on this discussion have always applied the principles of ex materia. This is not about schooling you but correcting a naive impression on the fundamental idea being ex nihilo.
And not one argument i raised has failed, it wasn't even intended as a debate but an alternative to the explanation.

Nope it is not. where God lived is still not in the premise discussed. The basic premise you must remain consistent to is: The relationship between God-forever-creation. How they can be reconciled.

Assuming your opponents inherent preconceptions isn't really an argument.

TayserMahiri:


Well, if you had read the mood and intention of my post you would know I wasnt affirming God's existence or even the assumption.

I was simply trying to show how improbable, spurious and even comical that assumption is. You shouldnt have read it as affirmation for the assumption.

One sine qua non of any intellectual argument is that you must have a position or stand to argue for (or against).

I understand what you may be saying is you dont like being confrontational, which is surprisingly the case for me. Inevitably, whether we like it or not, our argument becomes meaningless if we cannot figure what it is we are disagreeing about. There is nothing arrogant about winning or losing an argument. Its actually better that way, lest we become sheep like.

I must say you are among the very rare breed I know that actively try to weave God into the big bang model.

Am not against it but somehow it is bound to fail. You do know God is a matter of faith while the big bang is a matter of evidence.

As far as am concerned the arguments you are making are philosophical and will not bode well with scientific matters (big bang model et al.). Am not even philosophical myself! But I have a lot of respect for philosophy for helping invent intellectual thought and scientific method. However, lets be honest, philosophy, due to its consistent failure to produce physical results (as a result of not building upon previous findings) has become largely irrelevant today. Few people recognize philosophy, when science produces visible results every day, things relevant to life for everyone regardless of intellectual status. To be fair, while science keeps progressing, philosophy has been stagnant. There isnt much of relevance to human life and discovery that is acquired from philosophy. Basically wat am trying to say is that I dont think philosophical arguments like Ex nihilo and ex materia will take us anywhere. It is only going to be an argument and thats it! Nothing more. In fact, philosophy is relying too much on scientific discovery and they need to style up.

I dont think that can be reconciled. Because it starts on the wrong footing. How would it sound if I told you to reconcile that A shot B given an assumption that is yet to be agreed upon? Consider my assumption being that A had a gun, something you disagree because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that A had a gun. But am insistent on you to assume he had a gun and reconcile the shooting, and there was none of us who was present so both of us are on an equal footing as regards this matter. So what if I was wrong and A had no gun, meaning the shooting of B was from another undetermined source?

Well, for the sake of taking the discussion a little further? I dont think thats a good idea

johnydon22:
Don't read to reply, read to understand so to avoid always answering things entirely different from my post. I said: the premise was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on such a premise, there should first be an assumption that God exists.

Can you point out where i implied your affirmation to this assumption? The assumption of "God exists" was an implication of the premise. Know the difference.

Arguments are meant to determine who is right, discussions are meant to determine what is right I am for the later.

And to this i still disagree. When its about winning and losing it becomes less of what is correct. If i argue to win i'd have more care about winning and less care about the validity and objectiveness of my points. Every point would be targeted at stumping my opponent.

This is another problem with reading to reply and not to understand, an implication of confrontational arguments, you have to assume your opponents intention at every point.

- My arguments here did not weave God into the Big Bang Model (even though i can do this still)

- My argument only showed that the explanation of what happened before the Big bang (as science today has it) can be reconciled with the answer of how God existed forever before creating the universe of which i provided two alternate answers that are in coincide with physics as we know it today.

The explanation for before the Big Bang is sorely speculative, hypothetical if you will just like my explanations for "God before the universe"

Science is in fact the philosophy of nature, most of the theories we have today are results of an imaginative mind, speculations and daring assumptions. Relativity, Big Bang model and so on. Carl Sagan once said: Imaginations may take us to worlds that never are but without it, we go no where.
Ex Nihilo and ex materia arguments are sorely reconcilable with science: Both terms simply means: Universe from nothing and universe from something. both sides can be a subject of scientific speculation which today it is.
Quite the contrary, Science and theology are both products of Philosophy or more so parts of philosophy.

Like i mentioned before, reconciling God existing forever and creating the universe is just like the answer for "What happened before the Big bang" it is sorely on a basis of scientific speculation and its implication. Checking for "what happened before the big bang is like checking for the edge of the earth, there is none cus there was no time therefore before does not exist" Stephen Hawkins.

Using God in this sense "Asking how God existed forever before creating the universe is like asking for the edge of the earth, there is none. There was no time, therefore forever becomes irrelevant and inconsequential"

I'm yet to grasp the validity of this your analogy to the above argument.

You have been assuming my underlying belief which keeps taking you off the purview of my argument. I have a feeling you have not the slightest idea who you are discussing with.

tamethem:
If life came by "Chance" ( the big bang) then "Chance" must be very very intelligent!.

Intelligent in that, everything Chance created works beautifully hand in hand.

To mention but a few , Chance created

the Sun,
the moon
the stars,
the Air,
the water
the man
the trees
And the Animals

But can "Chance" be intelligent?

Is Chance a living thing?

We need to know and come to the knowledge of this before we proceed on this matter.

The Big bang theory says a sudden explosion occurred and every thing both living and non living came to existence.

That means that the sudden explosion called the Big Bang was created by chance. Which eventually created the universe.

If the Big Bang is an explosion, it means it is a Non Living thing.
Uhhm. Abi?

So "Chance" is non living and can never ever be intelligent.
Only a Being with a Brain can be intelligent. And it could only be Someone.

Now if Chance created the Universe and everything there in, then Chance must be extremely intelligent to have known where and how to place or create each creation without any flaw that would have spelled doom for the world and its inhabitants.

Everyone knows that without the Sun, there is no life!
And the Scientists even claim that if the sun had been a little farther than it is, the earth would be frozen and if it had been placed closer than it is, no living thing would exist on the earth either for excessive heat.

Then this Chance must be intelligent!

but unfortunately it can not think?
It is not a living thing! Oops!


If there was no provision of Water, nothing will live on the earth also, What about the Air we breath
If there was no Air nothing would live on the earth. ( Man breaths in oxygen and breaths out carbon dioxide while plants breath in carbon dioxide and release oxygen) What a cycle!

The Big Bang is intelligent! but can not think?

It is non living

What about water. No water no life and yet the Big bang knew water is essential to life and so made provision for it.

What a smart non living thing!

Brainless but smart? is it possible?

The water Cycle nko.

The Sun does it job through evaporation and the rain does its own by pouring it down.

The Big Bang is wonderfully smart! Reasoning without a brain

Now come to think of we humans that the "Big Bang created" without a sense!

A non living thing creating living things. Wonders shall never end

What a awesome Irony !

The Big bang without a Brain gave us brain knowing so well we will need it to think.
the same thinking it does without a brain. Wow!

Now he gave us all the organs each for different tasks. And if by mistake you give the Nose the job of the Mouth or the Ear the job of the nose it is catastrophic.
The Big Bang made every one perfectly designed without an error. despite the fact that it is by Chance!

Lastly, Check the make of Man and see the wonderful work of "Chance".

The Digestive System. from one step to the order.

The Eye lense,

The Heart beat and the blood network

The brain sections controlling every part of the body to the smallest.
The body antibiotics etc.

All came through the Big Bang's intelligence! the same called " Chance"

Finally no Sensible human should believe Chance made all things working perfectly for the smooth running of life.

Because Chance or the Big Bang has no Sense because it is a non living.

And only a senseless beign would believe a Non living made a Living.

Chance is as good as a Mistake
and Mistakes don't make a living thing but rather it is a living thing that can make a Mistake



God Exists, He intelligently made all things.

It obvious Now. Think!


pls tell dem again

johnydon22:


If you are a being that supersedes every other being in the cosmos, as a matter of fact, you created these beings, of whom exactly could you be jealous of and why?

Spiye06:
man is Gods most preciouse creation so man must worship the creator and not a creation as himself.so if man worships a creation,he simply makes the creation his creator,and the creator get jealous

tamethem:
If life came by "Chance" ( the big bang) then "Chance" must be very very intelligent!.

Intelligent in that, everything Chance created works beautifully hand in hand.

To mention but a few , Chance created

the Sun,
the moon
the stars,
the Air,
the water
the man
the trees
And the Animals

But can "Chance" be intelligent?

Is Chance a living thing?

We need to know and come to the knowledge of this before we proceed on this matter.

The Big bang theory says a sudden explosion occurred and every thing both living and non living came to existence.

That means that the sudden explosion called the Big Bang was created by chance. Which eventually created the universe.

If the Big Bang is an explosion, it means it is a Non Living thing.
Uhhm. Abi?

So "Chance" is non living and can never ever be intelligent.
Only a Being with a Brain can be intelligent. And it could only be Someone.

Now if Chance created the Universe and everything there in, then Chance must be extremely intelligent to have known where and how to place or create each creation without any flaw that would have spelled doom for the world and its inhabitants.

Everyone knows that without the Sun, there is no life!
And the Scientists even claim that if the sun had been a little farther than it is, the earth would be frozen and if it had been placed closer than it is, no living thing would exist on the earth either for excessive heat.

Then this Chance must be intelligent!

but unfortunately it can not think?
It is not a living thing! Oops!


If there was no provision of Water, nothing will live on the earth also, What about the Air we breath
If there was no Air nothing would live on the earth. ( Man breaths in oxygen and breaths out carbon dioxide while plants breath in carbon dioxide and release oxygen) What a cycle!

The Big Bang is intelligent! but can not think?

It is non living

What about water. No water no life and yet the Big bang knew water is essential to life and so made provision for it.

What a smart non living thing!

Brainless but smart? is it possible?

The water Cycle nko.

The Sun does it job through evaporation and the rain does its own by pouring it down.

The Big Bang is wonderfully smart! Reasoning without a brain

Now come to think of we humans that the "Big Bang created" without a sense!

A non living thing creating living things. Wonders shall never end

What a awesome Irony !

The Big bang without a Brain gave us brain knowing so well we will need it to think.
the same thinking it does without a brain. Wow!

Now he gave us all the organs each for different tasks. And if by mistake you give the Nose the job of the Mouth or the Ear the job of the nose it is catastrophic.
The Big Bang made every one perfectly designed without an error. despite the fact that it is by Chance!

Lastly, Check the make of Man and see the wonderful work of "Chance".

The Digestive System. from one step to the order.

The Eye lense,

The Heart beat and the blood network

The brain sections controlling every part of the body to the smallest.
The body antibiotics etc.

All came through the Big Bang's intelligence! the same called " Chance"

Finally no Sensible human should believe Chance made all things working perfectly for the smooth running of life.

Because Chance or the Big Bang has no Sense because it is a non living.

And only a senseless beign would believe a Non living made a Living.

Chance is as good as a Mistake
and Mistakes don't make a living thing but rather it is a living thing that can make a Mistake



God Exists, He intelligently made all things.

It obvious Now. Think!

Gggg102:




chance means anything could happen.

if you were walking down the street and you met an old classmate you haven't heard from since your school days, would you say you intended to meet him?
no! you met by chance.
chance brought you to a favourable conclusion.

by chance, you were passing the same road as he. by chance, both of you met. you met accidentally. there was no deliberate effort into making you meet. it just happened.

same could be said of the origin of the universe. there could have been no deliberate effort into causing the Universe. it could have just happened accidentally by chance.

Butterflyleo:


By chance?

The laws of probability say you are wrong. You are the one who does not know how this works

Geofavor:
Johnydon22, do you believe supernatural beings exist?

Gggg102:


Which of the laws of probability?

johnydon22:


What do you mean by supernatural?

Geofavor:

Basically, above natural; not physical; of sth or a being that the laws of science do not apply to. E.g, demons.

[quote author=franky317 post=67038119]The believe in the existence of God is purly a mind game. It is one of the human psychological innovations that that makes man feel good about being here on earth

This whole idea about God is not really about God, its about man himself. This is why some people will hold unto it no matter the facts against the idea

Over the years man has been so comfortable with the God idea that he feels he can speak to it, kill for it and live for it... he has Gone ahead to even expect a reward from it.

Thats the power of the mind

But where really is this God? Why does he not appear? Why does he not speak? Why does he not do some obvious physical things that can leave all his creation in a position of certainty?

Many have lived in this earth and died... life has gone from the stone age to the age of information but man has refused to let go of this idea...

Does God exist? This is not for man to prove... it is simply Gods duty to make his existence obvious to his creation. If this is a task too hard for God, then man can comfortably say GOD DOES NOT EXIST without having to apologize.

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

franky317:
The believe in the existence of God is purly a mind game. It is one of the human psychological innovations that that makes man feel good about being here on earth.

This whole idea about God is not really about God, its about man himself. This is why some people will hold unto it no matter the facts against the idea.

Over the years man has been so comfortable with the God idea that he feels he can speak to it, kill for it and live for it... he has Gone ahead to even expect a reward from it.

Thats the power of the mind.

But where really is this God? Why does he not appear? Why does he not speak? Why does he not do some obvious physical things that can leave all his creation in a position of certainty?

Many have lived in this earth and died... life has gone from the stone age to the age of information but man has refused to let go of this idea...

Does God exist? This is not for man to prove... it is simply Gods duty to make his existence obvious to his creation. If this is a task too hard for God, then man can comfortably say GOD DOES NOT EXIST without having to apologize.

Geofavor:

Basically, above natural; not physical; of sth or a being that the laws of science do not apply to. E.g, demons.

TayserMahiri:


You are some piece of work. All that previous post of mine and you still cant comprehend that the assumption is only sound with you and not with me?

Anyway, it seems like we will have to go with your assumption because it has to be your way. What about my assumption that there is no god?

I probably have more backup for it than you. The only reason you cannot see this is because it has to be your way.

But you went ahead and started lecturing me without understanding what premise there is. The premise you are going with is the one you want, not one that was agreed upon. The topic of the thread should tell you that! The topic is whether God exists or not, you have already concluded he does without proving anything! In fact you're playing with two assumptions;

1. He exists
2. Forever

Is this even possible? Unless you say arguments determine WHO WINS. Otherwise if the word is 'right' for both cases then there is no difference between them. Is it possible for me to be right and what am saying to be wrong? Argument and discussion is more about tone. And arguments are 'sweeter' due to the vigor while discussions are less so because of lack of heated exchanges.

Well then, lets have a discussion! But stumping an opponent sometimes is necessary to take care idiots who say nothing very loudly just for the sake of it.

Then dont mention the big bang in your case about forever/existence. They dont belong together.

The difference is that while science will work its ass off to find out what indeed, if anything, preceded the big bang, religion will be sitting pretty, waiting for anything science discovers to hang on and throw in all possible speculations including where and how to weave in God into the newest discovery.

How does ex nihilo and ex materia reconcile scientifically? Is it at the quantum level?

It is not the same. In your case, you are one step further afield. You need to make an extra assumption before getting to the same level with science. You see, science is at the big bang level on account of evidence, and speculating what was there before, if anything, is only ONE assumption. In your case, you need first to gain help from science to get to the big bang model level, then make the assumption that there was a 'before' the big bang, and follow it up with another assumption that 1. there was a god 2. who existed forever. Not the same! Somebody here needs to face Occam's Razor.

I cant believe that! In my analogy, equate shooting to creation and the assumption of A having a gun to the assumption of a god existing forever. You really have to be blind not to see the that.

Who am I discussing with? Am assuming its a human being worth discussing with?

Butterflyleo:
..

Gggg102:


Which of the laws of probability?

Gggg102:


Which of the laws of probability?

Butterflyleo:



In a nutshell, if you repeat THE SAME EXPERIMENT over and over again, it means you are likely to get a closer or an expected result eventually. But that would only happen if you repeated the process in exactly the same way and with exactly the same tools every time.