An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i think i finally see what he's saying, john...

---

I know what he is saying. It just doesn't apply to what I was saying.

quote:

---

to say that the bb can't have a cause means it's not contingent...

---

The point is that the BB event would have been prior the the emergence of predictability-- ie. casuality. Hence, causality isn't applicable, nor is logic which is basically a method of analyzing causal relationships.Mathematics is a more powerful and flexible language(s) and I sincerely hope it can allow us to tackle the problem. But, honestly, I'm not sure of that either. My fear is that we may hit a brick wall.TC, is convinced that I am making a positive argument FOR creation out of nothing, when I am actually only criticising a particular argument that concerns the origins of our universe.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

--Your arguments are going in multiple directions. Either you are arguing what I have deducted, or when you engaged in argument and made your assertions, they were made sloppily and incorrectly. Apparently you don't know what a black hole's properties are. You have attempted to apply their values (incorrectly) to the big bang model."And where do you see me arguing that something came from nothing? All I said was that SPACE and TIME did not exist,and that causality is tied to the two. What I did not claim is that nothing existed. Maybe there is something else that did exist, maybe not. I didn't say. I don't really know. I do know there are theories which try to explain what was prior to the BB."
--You've contradicted yourself. First you say that all you were saying is that space and time did not exist. You then say that you didn't claim that 'nothing' existed. However, if you don't have space or time, that's exactly what you have, nothing. Trying to make an excuse such as 'well maybe something else existed', is futile wishful thinking."Damn sure does. But not necessarily the generation of space-time from nothing. This is a jump you've made and continually attribute it to me."
--That's because its what you've indicated. Your trying to explain what happened prior the BB, which is where you attribute your thinking about no causality. Because you are trying to get the elements to produce the BB, the fundamental element is space-time."No argument. But still not what you insist it is-- a statement of something from nothing. You are right. I'd like to think that everything came from nothing. It is a funny idea. I like the irony, but that isn't what I argued."
--So now you have no argument? You've indicated that you are trying to argue with properties of zero. Zero is synonymous with nothing."Wrong again. ... since there is no space and time speaking of causality makes no sense. You don't see me using the term 'existence' do you? There is a reason for that."
--It can be directly correlated even without using the word. Because when you have no space and no time, you have nothing, nothing is extant. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of why there is no causality at a singularity since you attempted to tie it to there being no space or time. It doesn't have anything to do with there being no space or time, but that space and time is bent to infinitesimal properties. You've indicated in this phrase that your arguing creation ex nihilo, again."There is of course, 0 = 1 + -1. But that would just further confuse you, and it isn't relevant to the points you have criticised."
--No, actually you can't really do that, because such operations occur in space, not out of it, and apparently you still aren't starting without space-time. This doesn't help you. Your still not going to ever go from prior the BB to the BB, but your only going to go from zero to zero."Where do you get something from nothing ut of this?"
--I get it from this segment, "Remove time and space and try to imagine causality." If you have no space, and no time, you don't have anything, period. Sure it's easy to say there is no causality in this scenario, but there's no effect either, you still have zero. Creation ex nihilo."Have you missed the part about certain values going to zero at a singularity? To my way of thinking, this is functionally no space-time."
--Is this your misunderstanding? I think we may have found the problem then as I was suspecting from your earlier assertions in this post as well as others. Values do not go to 0 at the singularity."Wrong again. But PREDICTABILITY breaks down. This is entirely the point."
--If you are then it doesn't do squat for you, its a dumb argument because then your applicability of singularity properties to the no causality question of the BB singularity is nullified."Do you maintain that PREDICTABILITY does not break down at a singularity? Since this is explicitly what I said, I assume that this is what you dispute. I have provided references to back up my claim."
--No this is not something I dispute. I do dispute, however, that his helps you anywhere."It doesn't matter, TC. I would argue the point, but it doesn't matter to the debate."
--You've showed that it does in your above assertions."hmmmm..... very questionable indeed."
--You should recant. You have evidently shown don't even know the properties of a singularity, why then call me the idiot?"I admit the problem of the origin of the unierse is not solved. I did not imply that it had been solved but that you missed large parts of the last hundred years of physics and cosmology, which I still maintain."
--Then what you maintain here has been refuted. Though since you admit there is absolutely no hint as to an explanation for the origin of the universe, you then evidently have faith that cosmologists will reveal it to you in the future?"Yes, it is getting tedious. Why not admit you were mistaken in your interpretations of my posts?"
--Possibly, though you still have continually indicated by your assertions that your trying to get creation ex nihilo.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
TC, is convinced that I am making a positive argument FOR creation out of nothing, when I am actually only criticising a particular argument that concerns the origins of our universe.

---

i think, if this is true, if he is in fact confused (and i'm not sure he is), it's because the universe, not being contingent and obviously not being impossible must of necessity be necessary... if necessary, if there is no logically prior point preceding bb, if all conditions for bb have always existed, then we would not be here..so my take is, the universe can't possibly be necessary, it isn't impossible, and you say it isn't contingent.. but it's here... hence his continued reference to "creatio ex nihilo"... since there was a motion event, did it cause itself? i understand when you say causation has no meaning logically prior to bb, and i understand the desire to speak mathmatically... what i don't understand is how a completely static state of space and time, one which isn't necessary, contingent, nor impossible, can become a motion eventnow this is just my take, and admittedly i could be wrong...

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it's because the universe, not being contingent and obviously not being impossible must of necessity be necessary...

---

Here is the funny part, forgiven. This argument works until you realize that it is being applied to a time and space where predictability has broken down. That means that logical, reasonable things like causes preceeding effects aren't reliable.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Your arguments are going in multiple directions. Either you are arguing what I have deducted, or when you engaged in argument and made your assertions, they were made sloppily and incorrectly. Apparently you don't know what a black hole's properties are. You have attempted to apply their values (incorrectly) to the big bang model.

---

Pompous BS. Thus far I don't recall that you have provided anthing besides your opinion in support of your opinions.

quote:

---

You've contradicted yourself. First you say that all you were saying is that space and time did not exist. You then say that you didn't claim that 'nothing' existed. However, if you don't have space or time, that's exactly what you have, nothing.

---

This last sentence is your conclusion not mine. Nor is it necessarily implied. If you'd read on the subject we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you would see things like this:

quote:

---

The exact nature of this explosion may never be known.
However, recent theoretical breakthroughs, based on the
principles of quantum theory, have suggested that space, and the
matter within it, masks an infinitesimal realm of utter chaos,
where events happen randomly, in a state called quantum
weirdness. Before the universe began, this chaos was all there was.
Page not found - The Student Room

---

Notice the state of quantum weirdness? Notice the part about before the universe began?

quote:

---

Trying to make an excuse such as 'well maybe something else existed', is futile wishful thinking.

---

Right, sort of like saying 'the evidence only goes back so far right now, so I am not going to guess' That sounds damned unethical.

quote:

---

So now you have no argument? You've indicated that you are trying to argue with properties of zero. Zero is synonymous with nothing.

---

ummm..... no. But will repeating it yet again matter? I doubt it.

quote:

---

Because when you have no space and no time, you have nothing, nothing is extant.

---

Again, study some physics. Maybe, provide some references? Something by a physicist perhaps? Something besides your assertions? Maybe just read the articles I find for you?Whether they prove to be correct or not, there are theories positing something prior to the BB.

quote:

---

It doesn't have anything to do with there being no space or time, but that space and time is bent to infinitesimal properties.

---

Some of the values go to zero, TC. Did you yourself not say that zero equals nothing? Seems like you are the one with intenal consistency problems.

quote:

---

No, actually you can't really do that, because such operations occur in space, not out of it, and apparently you still aren't starting without space-time.

---

Funny. I didn't do that. The idea comes from several books I've read, one or two of them by Stephen Hawking. The others I'd have to look up to tell you names of the books and authors.As to the operations occuring in space... Don't you maintain that zero is nothing? So how is it that starting with zero is starting with spacetime? I smell an equivocation.

quote:

---

Your still not going to ever go from prior the BB to the BB, but your only going to go from zero to zero.

---

Fine. 1 + -1 = 0. This is what I find so amusing. We start at zero, and we still have zero it just looks different.Oh... And did you forget this post of yours? EvC Forum: Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins

quote:

---

I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.

---

You are point blank stating the plausibility of precisely what you are now denying. Wowie-zowie... What do I make of that?Even more interesting is that you have been taking the posture that I am arguing purely semantically when you have been made aware of some, at least, of the relevant physics.

quote:

---

If you have no space, and no time, you don't have anything, period.

---

Is this an argument from lack of imagination? Argumentum non-imaginatum? But seriously, I have addressed this. Rather, I have shown that at least some physicists disagree with your assertion. BTW, got any sources for these bold claims?

quote:

---

Is this your misunderstanding? I think we may have found the problem then as I was suspecting from your earlier assertions in this post as well as others. Values do not go to 0 at the singularity.

---

Bloody hell. Several of the post I have already provided contradict you. But I have more... [quote]We suggest a new solution of the initial spacetime singularity. In this approach the initial singularity of spacetime corresponds to a Attention Required! | Cloudflare[/url][/quote]From the above, notice also this reference to pre-spacetime:

quote:

---

Then we suggest that the (pre-)spacetime is in thermodynamical equilibrium at the Planck-scale...

---

Maybe a pretty picture will help? No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.valdosta.edu/phy/astro/pl_shows/bh_2001/bh/page49.htmlWe've got this reference to zero volume:

quote:

---

so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.Imagine the Universe!

---

Or how about this? And please pay attention to the last two sentences.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if the star has enough mass in its core, degeneracy pressure cannot stop the collapse of the star. In 1928 a young graduate student in astrophysics, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, showed that if a stellar core contained more than 1.5 times the mass of our sun, its gravitational collapse would "win" out over degeneracy pressure, and almost unbelievably, the core would collapse to a point (zero radius, zero volume, and infinite density)! This point is called a singularity.
Physics and Astronomy Course Details: Department of Physics and Astronomy: Purdue University

---

Wow. Whatdaya know? This was worked out in 1928.

quote:

---

If you are then it doesn't do squat for you, its a dumb argument because then your applicability of singularity properties to the no causality question of the BB singularity is nullified.

---

Nice jargon-ie sentence there. But it misses the point entirely, and I have repeated the argument I actually made numerous times now. [quote][b]"Do you maintain that PREDICTABILITY does not break down at a singularity? Since this is explicitly what I said, I assume that this is what you dispute. I have provided references to back up my claim."
--No this is not something I dispute. I do dispute, however, that his helps you anywhere.[/quote][/b]This is just strikingly absurd. Predictability breaks down near a singularity. The argument to which I was originally responding involved applying the principles of causality to this area, or prior to it, wherein predictability has broken down. How can this not help? It is dead nuts on target.

quote:

---

You should recant. You have evidently shown don't even know the properties of a singularity, why then call me the idiot?

---

I have posted reference after reference directly contradicting your claims and you have posted nothing supporting them except your own assertions. Must we really ask why I question you intelligence? Maybe you'd be hapier if I questioned your integrity?

quote:

---

Then what you maintain here has been refuted.

---

Hardly.

quote:

---

Though since you admit there is absolutely no hint as to an explanation for the origin of the universe, you then evidently have faith that cosmologists will reveal it to you in the future?

---

Hope would be a more appropriate word. Nonetheless, no argument I have made requires an answer to this question.

quote:

---

Possibly, though you still have continually indicated by your assertions that your trying to get creation ex nihilo.

---

BS. Raging BS.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-24-2002][This message has been edited by John, 11-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it's because the universe, not being contingent and obviously not being impossible must of necessity be necessary...

---

​

Here is the funny part, forgiven. This argument works until you realize that it is being applied to a time and space where predictability has broken down. That means that logical, reasonable things like causes preceeding effects aren't reliable.

---

but i don't think (again, it's very easy for me to be wrong here) he's speaking of predictability or causes and effects in the same sense you are... see, you do seem to be saying (for whatever reasons) that the universe isn't contingent, that it can't be contingent because contingency itself doesn't exist in any null state... but no matter the static state of space and time, bb had to be necessary, contingent, or impossible... see?so i think tc is arguing that *you're* arguing for the universe being necessary, and if that is so all conditions were present logically prior to bb to make the existence of the universe necessary... and if *that's* so, space/time as we know it wouldn't existbefore you jump on me let me once again reiterate that i might be wayyy offbase as to what he's arguing (and even what you're arguing)

This is the old "why is there something rather than nothing?" chestnut, isn't it?My personal take (which you seem to share) is that we simply don't know - although theists and atheists would have to be able to come up with equally good answers. You can always go back and ask "why?" at every level until you start to wonder what "why?" actually means.As human beings, whose brains have evolved to cope with the rigours of the African savannah, we are particularly good at recognising patterns and the infinite why loop is unsatisfactory, because we can't readily map that into a pre-existing pattern template in our minds. We have observed instances where causality breaks down however (casimir effect), so the why question, whichever way you phrase it has shown itself to not always be applicable.I don't know if TC is asking whether the conditions of the BB are repeatable i.e given a state of infinite density for zero duration as existed "prior" to the BB, would that necessarily lead to a spawning of a universe? I'd have to shrug my shoulders at that.I think some loop quantum gravity theorists (Lee Smolin) have partially answered this (see my thread on Cosmological Natural Selection), but that pushes back the problem to an initial seed universe (the Primordial Egg!) the laws of physics for which we may never know.PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

"This last sentence is your conclusion not mine. Nor is it necessarily implied. If you'd read on the subject we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you would see things like this:[Snip]Notice the state of quantum weirdness? Notice the part about before the universe began?"
--Yes it is implied. I read on the subject John, why do you continue to make your attempts at bashing on my intellect and my credibility? Your arguments are just as good without that extraneous rhetoric, and actually, are much better and show formality and professionalism. Your link explains what you attempted to argue in your second post about quantum fluctuations, these fluctuations occur in the confines of space-time. After all, quantum does imply quantity, quantities only exist when space-time does also. As for the part about before the universe began, this is an address as per the origin of matter & energy, elements occurring within space-time. 'before the universe began' does not imply a 'preceding space-time' thing. Quantum fluctuations do not create space, they create elementary particles."Right, sort of like saying 'the evidence only goes bask so far right now, so I am not going to guess' That sounds damned unethical."
--No, actually there is no physical evidence for this event expected. If anything, it would be resolved within the realms of a mathematical analysis, though of course, a paradox is concluded when attempting to use mathematical proportions without space to work with."ummm..... no. But will repeating it yet again matter? I doubt it."
--I will actually admit that I was technically incorrect in saying that nothing = zero. Nothing is just nothing. Happy? I am also "Again, study some physics. Maybe, provide some references? Something by a physicist perhaps? Something besides your assertions? Maybe just read the article I find for you?"
--Your going to make yourself look stupid with your arrogant remarks such as 'Again, study some physics..' type jargon. I've read your article, you have misunderstood its context. Please, my physicist John, tell me what your initiatives in physics has to say about my assertion that 'when you have no space and no time, you have nothing, nothing is extant'. Try working with non-existent properties in physics my dear John."Whether they prove to be correct or not, there are theories positing something prior to the BB."
--Sure, but there are no successful theories regarding prior space-time, only wishful thinking that it will be resolved in the future. Just wondering, but do you even have anything to base your hope on that this will happen?"Oh... And did you forget this post of yours?http://EvC Forum: Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins"
--And I disagree with the assertions I made in that thread. "Some of the values go to zero, TC. Did you yourself not say that zero equals nothing? Seems like you are the one with intenal consistency problems."
--See above, in a technical state, I recant my assertion that nothin = zero. And true, you can divide by zero, though the quotient is infinitesimal. You can also divide by and get the same quotient. Space-time still isn't at a point of non-existence here, this is why when matter is compacted into a diameter of 0 it still has properties due to its mass, black holes lose mass though time despite its infinitesimal compaction."As to the operations occuring in space... Don't you maintain that zero is nothing? So how is it that starting with zero is starting with spacetime? "
--I didn't say that, when you start with nothing you start with nothing. (and I can no longer maintain that zero is equivalent to space-time)"Fine. 1 + -1 = 0. This is what I find so amusing. We start at zero, and we still have zero it just looks different. "
--This is not applicable to reality. Your attempting to have a negative and positive property cancel each other out. Similarly, this is why space-time is a requisite for a particle and its anti-particle to cancel out. You have no matter, though your are able to use the values 1 + -1 -> 0 because you have them taking place within the existence of space-time."Is this an argument from lack of imagination? But seriously, I have addressed this. Rather, I have shown that at least some physicists disagree with your assertion. BTW, got any sources for these bold claims?"
--What physicists? What work? I have never even seen the predicament addressed formally. Its a little difficult to search for sources which don't exist."From the above, notice also this reference to pre-spacetime:"
--Yes I do. Though I am confused:

quote:

---

Then we suggest that the (pre-)spacetime is in thermodynamical equilibrium at the Planck-scale and is therefore subject to the KMS condition.

---

--If they are talking about the Planck-scale then why would they think of using it without space-time? Apparently they aren't saying this in regard to before space-time existed. Maybe linked to why they say (pre-)spacetime and just not pre-spacetime."Nice jargon-ie sentence there. But it misses the point entirely, and I have repeated the argument I actually made numerous times now."
--Even given the fact that my saying zero = nothing, your argument, while as you understand you wording may not seem like it, but it has seemed to be a bit flighty. And you have made some attempts to get something from nothing."This is just strikingly absurd. Predictability breaks down near a singularity. The argument to which I was originally responding involved applying the principles of causality to this area, or prior to it, wherein predictability has broken down. How can this not help? It is dead nuts on target."
--Sure it helps you there, though I never disagreed or disputed this. I say that it doesn't help you in explaining the initial creation. All you have for this is a wish for an explanation with an expectation of its fulfillment."Hope would be a more appropriate word. Nonetheless, no argument I have made requires an answer to this question. "
--I think we can settle this in the fact that we agree that predictability breaks down (who knows what are principals of cause at a singularity) and that you don't have an answer or claimed to have an answer to the origin of space-time outside of wishful thinking with an expectation that it will be resolved in the future. Why are you an atheist again?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Yes it is implied.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

I read on the subject John, why do you continue to make your attempts at bashing on my intellect and my credibility?

---

Several reasons actually. Glad you asked. Imho, you post blurb-like and insubstantial one-liners until pressed into a corner. You accused me of arguing semantically and of producing an argument having no contact with the real world, all the while not producing any evidence to support your claim. And, at the end of it all, it is becoming damned apparent that you have been all along aware of the physics relevant to my claims. And you are sloppy in the way you present what I argue.

quote:

---

Your link explains what you attempted to argue in your second post about quantum fluctuations, these fluctuations occur in the confines of space-time.

---

I am getting really tired of this repetition. The phrasing of my initial statement was that quantum fluctuations are intriguing or something to that effect. You latched on like a pit bull and stubbornly insist I am arguing something I am not. Add another to that list of why I bash your intellect and credibility.

quote:

---

John:"Right, sort of like saying 'the evidence only goes bask so far right now, so I am not going to guess' That sounds damned unethical."
No, actually there is no physical evidence for this event expected.

---

So tack on 'and maybe we'll never know' to the end of my statement. Big deal. It doesn't change the focus of my statement. You, however, have changed the focus. Add another to that list of why I bash your intellect and credibility.

quote:

---

Please, my physicist John, tell me what your initiatives in physics has to say about my assertion that 'when you have no space and no time, you have nothing, nothing is extant'. Try working with non-existent properties in physics my dear John.

---

Which is exactly why the physics does not work. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. Peculiar that you now pose as a defender of this idea and attempt to use it to score points against me. Add another to that list of why I bash your intellect and credibility.

quote:

---

Sure, but there are no successful theories regarding prior space-time

---

Nice of you to admit that. Now you can remove your assertions that I am arguing semantically.

quote:

---

only wishful thinking that it will be resolved in the future. Just wondering, but do you even have anything to base your hope on that this will happen?

---

You really don't get it do you? I don't know if it will ever be resolved. I don't care which way the answer goes once it is resolved. If the answer proves something I've said wrong then so be it. Still, the key element of my arguments has been the breakdown of predictability.

quote:

---

And true, you can divide by zero, though the quotient is infinitesimal.

---

That would be division by an infinitesimal divisor, not division by zero.

quote:

---

This is not applicable to reality.

---

Good thing I have consistently refered to it as an idea whose irony I like, and not as a positive proof or disproof of anything.

quote:

---

What physicists? What work? I have never even seen the predicament addressed formally. Its a little difficult to search for sources which don't exist.

---

These would be the, in your opinion unsuccessful, "theories regarding prior space-time" See above.

quote:

---

If they are talking about the Planck-scale then why would they think of using it without space-time? Apparently they aren't saying this in regard to before space-time existed. Maybe linked to why they say (pre-)spacetime and just not pre-spacetime.

---

quote:

---

From the paper itself:
String theory and supergravity or, on a more formal basis, non-commutative geometry, have contributed, independently of each others, to establish on a convincing basis the possible exitence of a "transition phase" in the physical content and the topological structures of the (pre)spacetime at very high temperature (i.e., the Planck temperature)

---

The weird notation of (pre-)spacetime recurs throughout and they never state why. It appears that they consider pre-Plank scale to be pre-spacetime. The phrase (pre)universe also appears.

quote:

---

Sure it helps you there, though I never disagreed or disputed this. I say that it doesn't help you in explaining the initial creation.

---

I damn well never tried!!!!!

quote:

---

I think we can settle this in the fact that we agree that predictability breaks down (who knows what are principals of cause at a singularity)

---

Bloody hell.... this is exactly the point to which you initially objected.

quote:

---

Why are you an atheist again?

---

Same as always. I see no evidence for the existence of a God. Technically, I guess I'd be an agnostic, but that just doesn't have the same bite to it.Show me evidence. And I'll believe in God.Same with the universe really. I don't know how it got here. Show me evidence for something and I'll believe it happened. Conditionally.It is pretty obvious that something happened, but I don't have to know what that was. What I don't understand is how postulating yet another unverifiable thing -- ie. God-- make the situation less problematic. If it is troublesome with one open-ended question isn't it more troublesome still with two?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

Show me evidence. And I'll believe in God.

---

question for you john... somewhere (i think it was a reply to Q) i posted that whatever conclusion i try to reach initially, it's not that God exists by virtue of my arguments... i said the reason was, someone could (and would, we both know it) say "ok, you're right.. but that doesn't mean it is GOD, does it?"so my question to you is, is it enough to show that something (anything) has always existed and that this always-existing thing isn't the universe? would such a reasonable conclusion, arrived at in a reasonable manner, cause you to at least entertain the notion that this always-existent "thing" is God?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

so my question to you is, is it enough to show that something (anything) has always existed and that this always-existing thing isn't the universe? would such a reasonable conclusion, arrived at in a reasonable manner, cause you to at least entertain the notion that this always-existent "thing" is God?

---

Speaking for myself, this would not be nearly enough. It is like telling me about a shirt you own, giving evidence that it is coloured but that it is not red and asking me entertain the notion that it is a colour I have never hear of or see before. It could be green, blue, yellow or any number of other colours.If you want to show that god exists and that he/she/it has always existed, a good place to start would be to show that he/she/it actually exists.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

so my question to you is, is it enough to show that something (anything) has always existed and that this always-existing thing isn't the universe? would such a reasonable conclusion, arrived at in a reasonable manner, cause you to at least entertain the notion that this always-existent "thing" is God?

---

​

Speaking for myself, this would not be nearly enough. It is like telling me about a shirt you own, giving evidence that it is coloured but that it is not red and asking me entertain the notion that it is a colour I have never hear of or see before. It could be green, blue, yellow or any number of other colours.

​

If you want to show that god exists and that he/she/it has always existed, a good place to start would be to show that he/she/it actually exists.

---

i can't help you there, compmage... if it isn't enough to show that something has always existed, and this something isn't the universe, that it's eternal, and have you entertain even a notion that it's God, and then you look at creation and examine your own heart and see the order and beauty around you... if this isn't enough for you, nobody can help you... but God, and he doesn't need my helpmy job isn't to prove to you God exists... my job is to show those who want to know what his plan for them is...thanks for your post, compmage... God bless you

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

i can't help you there, compmage... if it isn't enough to show that something has always existed, and this something isn't the universe, that it's eternal, and have you entertain even a notion that it's God,

---

So, assuming you can show that there is something that always existed and that something isn't the universe, you want me to consider the notion of god. Which god would that be and why would it have to be a god?And when you say you can't help me, do you mean that you have no evidence that this something actually is god but you want me to assume it is anyway?The problem with this is that someone from any religion could do exactly the same and claim that this something is their god and not yours. Their case would be just as strong (weak) as yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

and then you look at creation and examine your own heart and see the order and beauty around you...

---

I see plenty of beauty, some order and some chaos. My 'heart' rejoices in my existance. How exactly does this show that god exists and is eternal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

if this isn't enough for you, nobody can help you... but God, and he doesn't need my help

---

Appartly he does since het hasn't even bothered to put in an appearence. If god exists, he is either incapable of convincing me or doesn't want to try (for whatever reason).

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

my job isn't to prove to you God exists... my job is to show those who want to know what his plan for them is...

---

It is gods job then to convince me? Why hasn't he even tried?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

thanks for your post, compmage... God bless you

---

Thank you for being polite, but you shouldn't give up so easily. I am not asking for something that an omnipotent god would not be able to provide. If he realy loves me and has a plan for me why do I still not believe?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
So, assuming you can show that there is something that always existed and that something isn't the universe, you want me to consider the notion of god. Which god would that be and why would it have to be a god?

---

this is the trouble with not following the posts... you've said nothing i haven't said first, and frankly nothing i haven't said better... i believe even my detractors, and those who argue against me, might grant that

quote:

---

Appartly he does since het hasn't even bothered to put in an appearence. If god exists, he is either incapable of convincing me or doesn't want to try (for whatever reason).

---

have you asked him to? it seems irrational to say he's incapable of something or that he hasn't tried when he's as close to you as a thought... if you call upon the Lord you will be saved... but you must want it to be so... do you?

quote:

---

It is gods job then to convince me? Why hasn't he even tried?

---

he has, comp... why haven't you listened? why haven't you opened your heart?

quote:

---

Thank you for being polite, but you shouldn't give up so easily. I am not asking for something that an omnipotent god would not be able to provide. If he realy loves me and has a plan for me why do I still not believe?

---

why don't people believe? why indeed... all i can do is what i can, all i can say is what i've heard... i won't beg you to listen for God's still, small voice... but i can and will beg him to speak louder... when he does, are you willing to listen? these are the facts, and i know they are true because i have a personal relationship with the one who wrote them in my heartall of us have sinned, all of us have come short of God's glorysin pays only one wage, death.. none escapebut God... but God, because of a love so intense it can barely be imagined, because of a grace so huge it encompasses eternity, because of a sacrifice so inexplicable it took eternity to complete, has given his life for yours... he has exchanged that which you and i can't earn, that which you and i can never deserve, for that which he had never experienced... a perfectly righteous and holy God freely gives you this righteousness, he voluntarily takes your sinbecause he loves you, he took your sins... because he cries for you, he bled for you... because he desires to lift you up to him, he was lifted up on a cross for you...do you want to believe, comp? i mean, do you really? then look to the cross of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who gave his life so that you can live... just ask him.. that's all you have to do... but mean it, comp... Jesus, teach me the truth... show me your love... that's all you have to say, comp... but saying it, mean it... and when you listen, hear... and when you look, see...for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOMSOEVER believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life...can i make you believe? no... will God make you believe? no... will he come to you if you call to him? most assuredly... he won't call for you, i can't call for you... but he listens for you... and you have my word i'll do what i can... i'll do all i can, and i'll do it right nowdone... amen comp, and God save and keep you

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
question for you john... somewhere (i think it was a reply to Q) i posted that whatever conclusion i try to reach initially, it's not that God exists by virtue of my arguments... i said the reason was, someone could (and would, we both know it) say "ok, you're right.. but that doesn't mean it is GOD, does it?"

---

Then you haven't given me evidence for God then have you? But for something God-like but maybe not a God-- like Q from Star Trek.And of course God doesn't exist by virtue of your arguments. It isn't that we are trying to make God exist, but to determine if he exists.

quote:

---

so my question to you is, is it enough to show that something (anything) has always existed and that this always-existing thing isn't the universe?

---

No. Not by a lot.

quote:

---

would such a reasonable conclusion, arrived at in a reasonable manner, cause you to at least entertain the notion that this always-existent "thing" is God?

---

Entertaining the idea isn't a problem. Demonstrating, first the thing itself, and then that it is in fact God, is the problem.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com