The following premises of argument has been carefully arranged to help the atheists and agnostics to have a perfect belief in the existence of God.

PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old)


Why ; If there was absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old. So what is this very something that is eternal ?


There are only two options; Universe (i:e the entire nature) OR any hypothetical Being outside the Universe. Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the Universe as God.
Of course it would not make sense to assume that both Universe and God are eternal. So only one thing must be eternal.

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; for anything to CHANGE, an EXTERNAL cause is required to trigger this change. But as we have established above in premise 1, only one thing (i:e either Universe or God) must be eternal. Therefore, in the long past, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Consequently, there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.


OBJECTION ; Why is it only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ? What of INTERNAL cause or causes within the eternal entity ?



REPLY ; if "all the cause" necessary to trigger a change in an eternal entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state.
For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkaline solution from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished putting the third drop, the color of the alkaline solution will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops of indicator" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkaline solution). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already inside the alkaline solution right from the beginning of its production (i:e INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkaline solution would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkaline solution is already pink not colorless. That is to say, the final state has preceded the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.
Therefore, it is only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ( or in anything )

But there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in an ETERNAL entity because in the long past nothing exist beside this eternal entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.



PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; In the long past, no part of Universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak, can think and can move voluntarily . But now some part of the Universe (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think and can move voluntarily. Therefore, Universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical being depicted as God actually exist ? If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then Premise 1 would be wrong.

But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

Abdulgaffar22:
The following premises of argument has been carefully arranged to help the atheists and agnostics to have a perfect belief in the existence of God.

Lol, is this the evidence of existence of God? Which God by the way?

PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old)


Why ; If there was absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old. So what is this very something that is eternal ?

Of course something cannot come from nothing, we have not experience nothing, even in logic something must come from something. Atheists don't claim something comes from nothing, it's the theists that are making this claim.

Now if something is infinite, has no beginning nor end then such thing exist out of nothing, it has no creator nor cause. Now again, can something exist without a cause?

Secondly, if God created the universe, out of what did God created the universe from?, there must be pre-existing material God use.

There are only two options; Universe (i:e the entire nature) OR any hypothetical Being outside the Universe. Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the Universe as God.
Of course it would not make sense to assume that both Universe and God are eternal. So only one thing must be eternal.

Why must you assume a being outside the universe?(good it's just your assumption). Why can't the universe be infinite?

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?

You will have to provide evidence for this God, or your assumptions will lead to absurd conclusion.

PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.

How did you know this?!

Why; for anything to CHANGE, an EXTERNAL cause is required to trigger this change. But as we have established above in premise 1, only one thing (i:e either Universe or God) must be eternal. Therefore, in the long past, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Consequently, there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

The universe is bound by natural laws, natural laws as we know are not cause by anything.

Stop making absurd assumptions, your premise; "anything that's eternal would not have a change" is nonsensical and this even make your God argument worsen. You mean God doesn't change?

OBJECTION ; Why is it only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ? What of INTERNAL cause or causes within the eternal entity ?

[quote]REPLY ; if "all the cause" necessary to trigger a change in an eternal entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state.
For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkaline solution from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished putting the third drop, the color of the alkaline solution will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops of indicator" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkaline solution). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already inside the alkaline solution right from the beginning of its production (i:e INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkaline solution would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkaline solution is already pink not colorless. That is to say, the final state has preceded the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.
Therefore, it is only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ( or in anything )

So your logic is, the eternal cause doesn't require a change, not triggered but what follows it must be triggered to cause a change? Is this how your logic works?

You keep committing fallacies in every premise of yours.

But there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in an ETERNAL entity because in the long past nothing exist beside this eternal entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

Oga how did you know?

PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; In the long past, no part of Universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak, can think and can move voluntarily . But now some part of the Universe (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think and can move voluntarily. Therefore, Universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic.

Ok, so from your argument, humans can speak, hear, think, talk, can move etc, does this also apply to God?

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic, then God must be eternal.

You need to answer if God also talk, think, speak, move etc. If this is yes then what makes God different from your argument of the universe?

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical being depicted as God actually exist ? If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then Premise 1 would be wrong.

But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

There are two types of logical argument, deductive argument and inductive argument, you need to understand how it works.

You can't be making assumptions in your premises then come into conclusion that this is certainly true.

Secondly, your argument about God is not even evidential, it's base on assumptions, something that exist must have sufficient evidence.

I can as well assume or claim invisible aliens created the universe, does it make it true and factual? Won't you ask for evidence?

The universe as suggest by scientists can be eternal.

Here is another irrefutable version of the argument

PREMISE 1; SOMETHING must be ETERNAL (i:e always exist and infinitely old)

Why ? See the logical argument explained below;

(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.

(b) Popping of SOMETHING into existence from absolutely NOTHING is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".

(c) But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.

(d) Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something.

(e) Hence, popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

Therefore, if there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

This simply shows that something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.

So what is this very something that is eternal ?

There are only two options; the entire Universe itself (i:e the entire nature) OR any HYPOTHETICAL Being outside the entire Universe.

Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the entire Universe as God.

[ note; there is nothing wrong to introduce an "hypothetical being outside the universe" because we are dealing with possible and reasonable options. Calling this hypothetical being God or alien does not make any difference]



Of course it would not make sense to assume that both the entire Universe and God are eternal. So it is reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal ( see Occam's razor principle)

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe (i:e the entire nature) that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not exhibit any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


Why ? See the logical argument explained below

(a) Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning

(b) And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing.

(c) And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an endless time.

(d) Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


PREMISE 3 ; But Universe (or nature) has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.


Why ? See the reason cited below

(a) In the long past, NO PART OF UNIVERSE ( matter, space, time, forces, energy or radiation ) can see, can hear, can speak any language, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably

(b) But now SOME PART OF THE UNIVERSE (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably.

(c) Therefore, Universe has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of the very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of the great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?

If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

Abdulgaffar22:
Here is another irrefutable version of the argument

PREMISE 1; SOMETHING must be ETERNAL (i:e always exist and infinitely old)

Why ? See the logical argument explained below;

(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.

(b) Popping of SOMETHING into existence from absolutely NOTHING is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".

(c) But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.

(d) Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something.

(e) Hence, popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

Therefore, if there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

This simply shows that something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.

So what is this very something that is eternal ?

There are only two options; the entire Universe itself (i:e the entire nature) OR any HYPOTHETICAL Being outside the entire Universe.

Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the entire Universe as God.

[ note; there is nothing wrong to introduce an "hypothetical being outside the universe" because we are dealing with possible and reasonable options. Calling this hypothetical being God or alien does not make any difference]



Of course it would not make sense to assume that both the entire Universe and God are eternal. So it is reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal ( see Occam's razor principle)

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe (i:e the entire nature) that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not exhibit any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


Why ? See the logical argument explained below

(a) Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning

(b) And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing.

(c) And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an endless time.

(d) Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


PREMISE 3 ; But Universe (or nature) has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.


Why ? See the reason cited below

(a) In the long past, NO PART OF UNIVERSE ( matter, space, time, forces, energy or radiation ) can see, can hear, can speak any language, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably

(b) But now SOME PART OF THE UNIVERSE (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably.

(c) Therefore, Universe has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of the very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of the great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?

If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

Circular reasoning fallacy, you're just beating round the bush.

Oga did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

tintingz:
Circular reasoning fallacy, you're just beating round the bush.

Oga did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

Are you saying premise 1 is totally wrong ? I have given you logical argument to prove that premise 1 is true. Now give us your own argument to prove that it is false

Abdulgaffar22:


Are you saying premise 1 is totally wrong ? I have given you logical argument to prove that premise 1 is true. Now give us your own argument to prove that it is false

I just asked you a question.

Here is it again:

Did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

tintingz:
I just asked you a question.

Here is it again:

[i]Did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

No ! God or anything eternal does not have a cause . Yes it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause.

tintingz:


Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

I am saying it again it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause

Abdulgaffar22:


No ! God or anything eternal does not have a cause . Yes it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause.

I am saying it again it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause

Are you not contradicting your premise, something must have a cause to exist? So we can also argue the universe exist without a cause, since according to you there's the possibility of something existing without a cause.

With your argument, then something can exist from nothing if it's eternal.

- Cause = Effect

Or

- No cause(Nothing) = Effect

Secondly, you said something that talk, think, move etc must have a cause to change, does this also apply to God?

tintingz:
Are you not contradicting your premise, something must have a cause? So basically you are saying something can exist from nothing?

I am not contradicting my premises in any way. When did I say something must have a cause ? Pls show me.
I am only saying something cannot pop into existence from nothing . They are two different cases; For "something to exist without a cause" is totally different from "something popping into existence from nothing". But you think they are the same.

tintingz:



Secondly, you said something that talk, think, move etc must have a cause to change, does this also apply to God?

It does not apply to God because He did NOT LATER acquire all these abilities. They are part and parcel of Him. But human being ( being part of the universe) LATER acquire all these abilities. Therefore, a change has occurred. Hence a cause is required.

First case ; something exist without a cause.

Second case; something pop into existence from nothing.

They are two different cases. First case is possible but the second case is impossible.

Abdulgaffar22:

I am not contradicting my premises in any way. When did I say something must have a cause ? Pls show me.
I am only saying something cannot pop into existence from nothing . They are two different cases; For "something to exist" is totally different from "something popping into existence from nothing". But you think they are the same.

So something can exist without a cause. Wow. All this for apologetic argument and pleading.

Here is from your premise:

(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.

https://www.nairaland.com/5369550/right-time-all-atheists-agnostics#81585918

"Change" is a property of "Something".


Later they will say atheists believe something can exist without a cause, meanwhile this theist also believe something can exist without a cause.

No cause(nothing) = Effect

Can you tell the difference between something that exist without a cause and something exist from nothing?

It does not apply to God because He did NOT LATER acquire all these abilities. They are part and parcel of Him. But human being ( being part of the universe) LATER acquire all these abilities. Therefore, a change has occurred. Hence a cause is required.

Whether it's part of him or later acquire it is irrelevant, God can talk, think, move etc to do all this, something must trigger God to do so.

For God to think, it has to have a beginning and as well have pre-experience of something higher.

For God to move, something must move him.

God must be bound in a domain, not necessary our universe but in another universe where there's space and time.

tintingz:
So something can exist without a cause. Wow. All this for apologetic argument and pleading.

But I did not apply it only to God. I equally applied it to both God and universe (see the last part of premise 1 in my original post).

tintingz:


Here is from your premise:


https://www.nairaland.com/5369550/right-time-all-atheists-agnostics#81585918

"Change" is a property of "Something".


Later they will say atheists believe something can exist without a cause.

No cause(nothing) = Effect

Can you tell the difference between something that exist without a cause and something exist from nothing?

Change is not always a property of something; it could implies from non- existence to existence (see the 2nd case explained below)

FIRST CASE
"Something that exist without a cause" remain the same as it ever was. Therefore, it has NEVER undergone any change. Hence no cause is required to bring it into existence because it was not began to exist.


SECOND CASE
But "something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence. Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

These are two different cases. We have proved the second case to be impossible. But there is no way we can falsify the first case.

This simply shows that SOMETHING we have presently in the universe came through the first case.

tintingz:


Whether it's part of him or later acquire it is irrelevant, God can talk, think, etc to do all this, something must trigger God to do so.

Yes what triggers God to do all these abilities is His "free will" just like our "free will" trigger us to talk, to think etc

Abdulgaffar22:


But I did not apply it only to God. I equally applied it to both God and universe (see the last part of premise 1 in my original post).

You have problem with the universe being independently existing without a cause but when it comes to God you suddenly become apologetic that something can exist without a cause. This a special pleading fallacy.

Change is not always a property of something; it could implies from non- existence to existence (see the 2nd case explained below)

Non-existence cannot have a change, change is only applicable to something that exist!

Going back evolution of everything, there's no time everything is non-existence, we have not experience nothing so far.

FIRST CASE
"Something that exist without a cause" remain the same as it ever was. Therefore, it has NEVER undergone any change. Hence no cause is required to bring it into existence because it was not began to exist.

Can you provide evidence of something that exist without a cause? Give one empirical evidence.

SECOND CASE
But "something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence. Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

But you claim something can exist without a cause, which is something can exist from nothing a.k.a no cause.

These are two different cases. We have proved the second case to be impossible. But there is no way we can falsify the first case.

The first case begs for evidence. You can't make a claim and can't provide evidence.

Provide just one evidence of something that exist without a cause.

This simply shows that SOMETHING we have presently in the universe came through the first case.

Like an invisible alien?

Yes what triggers God to do all these abilities is His "free will" just like our "free will" trigger us to talk, to think etc

Everything that moves, think must have an initial cause. It's called determinism. Freewill is an illusion.

Your "thinking" is base on initial experience or information, your movement is triggered by a force or energy. Did you study physics at all?

You can't stand and suddenly start moving, something must trigger you to move either by your thoughts or by a force.

God cannot just start creating, his thoughts or a force makes him start creating except you agree he's frozen or non-existence.

tintingz:
You have problem with the universe being independently existing without a cause but when it comes to God you suddenly become apologetic that something can exist without a cause. This a special pleading fallacy.

I don't have problem with the universe being existing without a cause just like I don't have problem with God being existing without a cause. This is the reason why I said in my Premise 1; it is either Universe is eternal or God is eternal (pls check it)

tintingz:



Can you provide evidence of something that exist without a cause? Give one empirical evidence.

The first case begs for evidence. You can't make a claim and can't provide evidence.

Provide just one evidence of something that exist without a cause.

The evidence is as follows;

1. Presently there is SOMETHING (i:e the universe)

2. This very SOMETHING must either (a) pop into existence from absolutely nothing i:e just BEGAN to exist without any cause OR (b) exist WITHOUT BEGINNING i:e always exist without any cause. Pls do you know about any conceivable THIRD option (c) ?

3. But option (a) is impossible because of the following reason;
"something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence. Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

And we have NO WAY of falsifying an option (b) as we have done with option (a).

4. Therefore, the only option left to account for the existence of SOMETHING made mention in point number 1 is option (b) which says that something must exist without beginning i:e always exist without any cause. In other words, something must be eternal without any cause.

5. The only way for you to refute this evidence is to provide any conceivable THIRD option (c) made mention in point number 2 above.

tintingz:


Everything that moves, think must have an initial cause. It's called determinism. Freewill is an illusion.

You can't stand and suddenly start moving, something must trigger you to move either by your thoughts or by a force.

God cannot just start creating, his thoughts or a force makes him start creating except you agree he's frozen or non-existence.

What is the difference between the "free will" that you called an illusion and the "thought" you believed to trigger our movement?

Abdulgaffar22:


I don't have problem with the universe being existing without a cause just like I don't have problem with God being existing without a cause. This is the reason why I said in my Premise 1; it is either Universe is eternal or God is eternal (pls check it)

So what exactly is your argument?

The evidence is as follows;

1. Presently there is SOMETHING (i:e the universe)

Ok

2. This very SOMETHING must either (a) pop into existence from absolutely nothing i:e just BEGAN to exist without any cause OR (b) exist WITHOUT BEGINNING i:e always exist without any cause. Pls do you know about any conceivable THIRD option ?

3. But option (a) is impossible because of the following reason;
"something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence.

That's not "change", change only occur when something exist. When something pop into existing from nothing, it's not a change from non-existence to existence, change cannot happen when non-existence, it's not observable.

Change : an act or process through which something becomes different.

Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Of course something cannot pop into existence from nothing. Ex nihilo.

Which beg the question, out of what did God created the universe from?

And we have NO WAY of falsifying an option (b).

4. Therefore, the only option left to account for the existence of SOMETHING made mention in point number 1 is option (b) which says that something must exist without beginning i:e always exist without any cause. In other words, something must be eternal without any cause.

We both can agree the universe can exist without a cause and it's eternal, if yes then the next question is, since the universe is observable, we know it exist, is there any evidence for God existence?

5. The only way for you to refute this evidence is to provide any conceivable THIRD option made mention in point number 2 above.

No third option so?

What is the difference between the "free will" that you called an illusion and the "thought" you believed to trigger our movement?

Freewill is not dependent to anything, thoughts are dependents to initial experience or information.

Abdulgaffar22:
First case ; something exist without a cause.

Second case; something pop into existence from nothing.

They are two different cases. First case is possible but the second case is impossible.

Ok.

Something must come from something is not absolute true, yes?

tintingz:



So what exactly is your argument?

Of course something cannot pop into existence from nothing. Ex nihilo.

No third option so?

Let us take our discussion little by little

Now that you have agreed that something cannot pop into existence from absolutely nothing and you have also agreed that there is no third option to account for the something presently in our universe, then you have to agree that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL WITHOUT ANY CAUSE. This is exactly what my premise 1 says.

Therefore, we don't have any problem again with premise 1.

Since we have both agreed that something must be eternal, then the next question is ; what is this very SOMETHING that is eternal ?

What are the possible options;
1. The entire Universe itself
2. Any hypothetical being outside the universe which many people depicted as God or Alien

Pls do you have any conceivable third option ? Pls answer this question before I proceed.

Abdulgaffar22:

Let us take our discussion little by little

Now that you have agreed that something cannot pop into existence from absolutely nothing and you have also agreed that there is no third option to account for the something presently in our universe, then you have to agree that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL WITHOUT ANY CAUSE. This is exactly what my premise 1 says.

Something can be eternal with multiple chain of causations. "Infinite regress."

You should put it this way, "something must be eternal without any first cause".

With this do you agree the logical argument "something must come from something" is not absolute?

Therefore, we don't have any problem again with premise 1.

Since we have both agreed that something must be eternal, then the next question is ; what is this very SOMETHING that is eternal ?

What are the possible options;
1. The entire Universe itself
2. Any hypothetical being outside the universe which many people depicted as God or Alien

Pls do you have any conceivable third option ? Pls answer this question before I proceed.

Ok, continue.

tintingz:


Ok, continue.

This implies that it is either "the entire universe" is eternal or "any hypothetical being outside the universe (God)" is eternal .

Now how are we to decide which one is eternal ?
The best way is to look into the features of something that is eternal.

What are the features we can deduce logically about something that is eternal ?

1. Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning . Do you agree ?

2. And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing. Do you agree ?

3. And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an infinite time.

For example, if something has always been a "CYLINDER " for an endless time (i:e trillion ^ trillion, trillion............. years ) , then it can never miraculously change itself ( or change by any other thing ) to "RHOMBUS" one day. Do you agree?



4. Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics. Do you agree ?

Abdulgaffar22:


This implies that it is either "the entire universe" is eternal or "any hypothetical being outside the universe (God)" is eternal .

Ok

Now how are we to decide which one is eternal ?
The best way is to look into the features of something that is eternal.

What are the features we can deduce logically about something that is eternal ?

1. Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning . Do you agree ?

Agreed

2. And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing. Do you agree ?

Ok, agreed.

3. And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an infinite time.

For example, if something has always been a "CYLINDER " for trillion, trillion, trillion..... years , then it can never miraculously change itself to "RHOMBUS" one day. Do you agree ?

4. Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics. Do you agree ?

I disagree,

1. The Universe went into series of changes as it is said to be expanding, it can as well be eternal.

2. There's an hypothesis of a multiple-universe where there are series of initial universe.

tintingz:


I disagree,

1. The Universe went into series of changes as it is said to be expanding, it can as well be eternal

If the universe is expanding till today, then in the long past it has to be infinitesimal till extent that scientists has to declare that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. This simply shows that universe has a beginning and therefore it cannot be eternal.
If universe is not eternal, then God must be eternal since something must be eternal as we have already established in Premise 1.
But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?
If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

tintingz:




2. There's an hypothesis of a multiple-universe where there are series of initial universe.

The idea of multiple-universe still remain as hypothesis. There is no any empirical evidence to support the idea. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove that universe is eternal.

Abdulgaffar22:


If the universe is expanding till today, then in the long past it has to be infinitesimal till extent that scientists has to declare that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. This simply shows that universe has a beginning and therefore it cannot be eternal.
If universe is not eternal, then God must be eternal since something must be eternal as we have already established in Premise 1.

The big bang is just when the universe started expanding, there are still events before the big bang called gravitational singularity where the universe becomes infinite.

I think I've told you this before.

Secondly, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it has always been existing, another reason the universe can be eternal.

Thirdly, something cannot pop into existence from nothing, there must be pre-materials, another reason the universe can be infinite. Even if we assume God created the universe, God must use a material to create it, it cannot create it out of nothing.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?
If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal.

We cannot limit our assumptions only on God existence, there are other assumptions like Aliens.

Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal.

No you have not.

Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal.

The universe can be eternal since it exist.

Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

For you to make conclusion on this, you have to provide sufficient evidence for God.

The idea of multiple-universe still remain as hypothesis. There is no any empirical evidence to support the idea. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove that universe is eternal.

Just like the idea of God remain hypothetical.

tintingz:
The big bang is just when the universe started expanding, there is still events before the big bang called gravitational singularity where the universe becomes infinite.

If you believe that it was gravitational singularity that is eternal, then what actually caused this singularity to suddenly expand and change from what it has always been for an infinite time ? Of course, for every change there must be a sufficient cause. If that "sufficient cause" was within the singularity, then why 13.8 billion years ago ? Why not before that time ?

tintingz:


Secondly, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it has always been existing, another reason the universe can be eternal.

If it was energy that is eternal, then what actually caused it to later change miraculously to something ;
that can see, that can hear, that can speak different languages, that can think logically, that can move voluntarily and controllably. Yet all these features are no where to be found in this energy. Don't you perceived that a GREAT MIRACLE has taken place ?

tintingz:


Thirdly, something cannot pop into existence from nothing, there must be pre-materials, another reason the universe can be infinite. Even if we assume God created the universe, God must use a material to create it, it cannot create it out of nothing.

But if God is not the creator of those pre-materials, there is no way He can have any power over them.

tintingz:


We cannot limit our assumptions on only God existence, there other assumptions like Aliens.

Whether God or Alien does not make any difference in as much as this Being is outside the universe and he is powerful enough to create human beings with all their amazing features.

Abdulgaffar22:

If you believe that it was gravitational singularity that is eternal, then what actually caused this singularity to suddenly expand and change from what it has always been for an infinite time ? Of course, for every change there must be a sufficient cause. If that "sufficient cause" is within the singularity, then why 13.8 billion years ago ? Why not before that time ?

What cause the big bang is not known and we can't conclude it's God. Science suggest due to the hot density a.k.a high density of the singularity, it was forced to open up and expand which is called the big bang.

Why that time? We don't know, it can just be random. We measured that time according to our observation.

If it was energy that is eternal, then what actually caused it to later change miraculously to something ;
that can see, that can hear, that can speak different languages, that can think logically, that can move voluntarily and controllably. Yet all these features are no where to be found in this energy. Don't you perceived that a GREAT MIRACLE has taken place ?

Natural laws.

It seems you don't know what energy is, energy is what moves everything including every living things, energy is used for many thing.

But if God is not the creator of those pre-materials, there is no way He can have any power over them.

The materials we met on earth, aren't we using it to create things?

Whether God or Alien does not make difference in as much as this Being is outside the universe and he is powerful enough to create human beings with all their amazing features.

There is no proof of outside the universe, there's no proof there's any being existing outside the universe, maybe in the future we may know all this, just maybe.

And I don't have any reason to worship some imaginary entities nor follow some so called "divine laws" that are written by men.

tintingz:

What cause the big bang is not known and we can't conclude it's God. Science suggest due to the hot density a.k.a high density of the singularity, it was forced to open up and expand which is called the big bang.

What causes the big bang explosion cannot be inside the singularity. The cause has to be external. If the cause is internal, it would have taken place trillion raise to power trillion, trillion trillion........... years EARLIER if the gravitational singularity is that very something which is eternal

tintingz:


Natural laws.

It seems you don't know what energy is, energy is what moves everything including every living things, energy is used for many thing.

# So energy that was BLIND later change itself miraculously to something that can SEE

# Energy that was DEAF later change itself miraculously to something that can HEAR

# Energy that was DUMB later change itself miraculously to something that can SPEAK over six thousand languages


# Energy that CANNOT MOVE VOLUNTARILY later change itself miraculously to something that CAN MOVE VOLUNTARILY AND CONTROLLABLY



# Energy that CANNOT THINK later change itself miraculously to something that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument.

# Energy that was UNCONSCIOUS later change itself miraculously to something with FULL CONSCIOUSNESS

# Energy that was NOT INTELLIGENT later change itself miraculously to something with FULL INTELLIGENCE

# Energy that KNEW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING later change itself miraculously to something that KNOW every aspect of mathematics, astronomy, engineering, medicine, botany, zoology, Geography etc.

# Energy that COMPLETELY LACK ANY SENSE OF MORALITY later change itself miraculously to something with FULL SENSE OF MORALITY

# Energy that CANNOT EXPERIENCE ANY EMOTIONAL FEELINGS later miraculously change itself to something that CAN EXPERIENCE FEELINGS like love, happiness, sadness etc



See ALL THE SERIES OF MIRACLES you believe to have taken place by CHANCE !

Yet you are mocking the people who believe that all these miracles are too marvellous and wonderful to be caused by a mere chance.

This is the high time I stopped arguing with you. You are free to believe anything you like. But one thing I know for sure; It is far more logical to believe in "God" as the creator of all those series of miracles than to believe that they were created by a "mere chance"

Abdulgaffar22:


What causes the big bang explosion cannot be inside the singularity. The cause has to be external. If the cause is internal, it would have taken place trillion raise to power trillion, trillion trillion........... years EARLIER if the gravitational singularity is that very something which is eternal

1. The big bang is not literally an explosion we experience here but "expansion", an explosion like the one that make massive sounds is not what the big bang is. The big bang is an expansion where everything begin to spread apart from each other.

2. There is no evidence of any outside the universe, the universe is all that we have, an external cause is just a fantasy, any entity that exist and where it exist there must be space and time, even if you assume an external cause, it must be in a space and time.

3. We don't know time before the big bang(if there's any), how did you come up with trillion trillion trillion years earlier? Time as we know is measured from our space.

# So energy that was BLIND later change itself miraculously to something that can SEE

# Energy that was DEAF later change itself miraculously to something that can HEAR

# Energy that was DUMB later change itself miraculously to something that can SPEAK over six thousand languages


# Energy that CANNOT MOVE VOLUNTARILY later change itself miraculously to something that CAN MOVE VOLUNTARILY AND CONTROLLABLY



# Energy that CANNOT THINK later change itself miraculously to something that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument.

# Energy that was UNCONSCIOUS later change itself miraculously to something with FULL CONSCIOUSNESS

# Energy that was NOT INTELLIGENT later change itself miraculously to something with FULL INTELLIGENCE

# Energy that KNEW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING later change itself miraculously to something that KNOW every aspect of mathematics, astronomy, engineering, medicine, botany, zoology, Geography etc.

# Energy that COMPLETELY LACK ANY SENSE OF MORALITY later change itself miraculously to something with FULL SENSE OF MORALITY

# Energy that CANNOT EXPERIENCE ANY EMOTIONAL FEELINGS later miraculously change itself to something that CAN EXPERIENCE FEELINGS like love, happiness, sadness etc



See ALL THE SERIES OF MIRACLES you believe to have taken place by CHANCE !

Yet you are mocking the people who believe that all these miracles are too marvellous and wonderful to be caused by a mere chance.

This is the high time I stopped arguing with you. You are free to believe anything you like. But one thing I know for sure; It is far more logical to believe in "God" as the creator of all those series of miracles than to believe that they were created by a "mere chance"

The universe does not entirely looks like it's intelligently designed like most theists will argue, it doesn't looks like it's miraculously controlled by any super-being. You should know that the universe went through series of chaotic events, like how the galaxies were formed is colliding, collapsing till we have some order in the universe even tho it's still chaotic.

The world is actually not design for us to live per se, we are the ones that survive to live, this is what we know as natural selection, think about the chaotic phenomena in this world like natural disasters, diseases etc does it looks like it cares for living things? Many living things have gone extinct due to chaos in the world.

Do you still think there's some conscious intelligent super-being controlling the universe in order? If so, can you describe how a universe would be without an super intelligent being?

.