Romans 1 and the Cosmological Argument

[Cerise]

But Invictus, if It (whatever it is) exists outside of our natural realm, I mean completely outside it, then how can it have an effect on us in any way?

 

And if it can't effect us...why should we bother trying to "prove" it's existence?

[Cerise]

And yes, in my mind, I do assume God, the Creator, and the All-Powerful to be the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just curious, what is your position on Polytheism? By the reasoning you have shown here, do you think it possible that there are more then 1 Gods? Or the possibility that there are Gods and then there are Creators, and that one is not neccessarily the other?

[Thurisaz]

I gave you scientific evidence (not calling it proof) that the universe had a beginning.

 

Wrong, fucktard.

 

Big Bang theory states that the matter and energy in the universe was once concentrated in a singularity. This does NOT mean that there was nothing before. It could mean that, but it's easily possible that there wasn't a "beginning"... or at least that the big bang wasn't the beginning.

 

To conclusively answer the "beginning" question, we'd have to be able to analyze what was before the big bang. Ignoring for the moment that a "before" without time is "somewhat" impossible, the laws of nature and everything else we know about the universe don't necessarily apply in a singularity. How are we going to analyze something if we have no tools for analysis? It's like two-dimensional "flatlanders" trying to examine something hovering a centimeter above their flat world/universe.

 

Yes, all this might mean that the universe was "created" at the big bang. But the bottom line is: We don't know and you don't know either.

[Ouroboros]

I am not ignoring you folks here. I have been going in circles with a few others around and about the site.

 

Now for the topic at hand-

 

I am basing my position on the fact that science has pretty much conceded the universe had a beginning. I think this leads to some logical conclusions. To me it seems logical that something had to exist outside the properties of the universe in order to be able to create the universe.

 

Something had to be outside the properties of space/time and energy/matter. Because it exist outside of our space/time makes it eternal from our perspective. Therefore, the question of “What created it?” doesn’t apply. From our perspective, it has always been.

 

Because it exist outside of our know properties of space/time and energy/matter makes it supernatural. Because (from our perspective again) it was able to create everything, it is all-powerful.

 

And yes, in my mind, I do assume God, the Creator, and the All-Powerful to be the same.

 

Thanks. Now we're getting closer to the answer.

 

The Cause is not required to be a Being. That is what I've been trying to tell you.

And I think we both agree now, that even with a Cause to the Universe, and a point of time where time started; it doesn't necessarily require the Cause to be Intelligent or Intentional in its actions.

 

You have a very black and white view of things, and you have to understand that most of the atheists on this site are not really strong atheists, but weak, or agnostic, if you so want. That means, that we don’t deny the possibility of a god or a cognitive creator, but we deny that there is any evidence to one, and hence we chose not to believe in one, because the lack of evidence makes the faith in god inconsequential to our existence and life.

 

You chose to believe in God, based on an emotional need for it. You crave for a god as the explanation, and it is your right to do so. But no one, so far in our current time, has been able to provide an undeniable proof of God. Even the Catholic Church has given up on the Cosmological Argument. They take the emotional approach instead. God exists because I feel so.

[crazy-tiger]

But Invictus, if It (whatever it is) exists outside of our natural realm, I mean completely outside it, then how can it have an effect on us in any way?

It can't... and any attempt to use that as an argument automatically refutes itself.

And if it can't effect us...why should we bother trying to "prove" it's existence?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

42!

 

 

Well, it makes as much sense as anything he's gonna come out with...

[crazy-tiger]

Something had to be outside the properties of space/time and energy/matter. Because it exist outside of our space/time makes it eternal from our perspective. Therefore, the question of “What created it?” doesn’t apply. From our perspective, it has always been.

 

Because it exist outside of our know properties of space/time and energy/matter makes it supernatural. Because (from our perspective again) it was able to create everything, it is all-powerful.

 

And yes, in my mind, I do assume God, the Creator, and the All-Powerful to be the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right...

 

God is outside Time, so he cannot do anything.

God is outside space, so he is nowhere.

God is not energy or matter, so he doesn't exist.

 

 

You've just argued that God doesn't exist, you moron!

[invictus1967]

Cerise,

You asked “then how can it have an effect on us in any way?”

The same way you can have an effect on the contents of a box you build. “It” just reaches inside.

 

Polytheism? No. I do not believe in it. I don’t believe you can have more than one all-powerful being.

----------------------------

 

Thurisaz,

Nice language skills. Come back when you can intelligently present your position.

 

I never read past your opening remarks. Not that they offend me, it’s just that the experience of the last few days has taught me something about the folks that hangout here. I have discovered that when I sort through those kind of remarks, I usually find there isn’t much substance to anything the writer has written.

 

crazy-tiger was a big help in forming that opinion. Thanks crazy, you wild and wacky guy.

---------------------------

 

HanSolo,

 

On certain things I am very black and white. I truly believe in the existence of God. Emotional needs or cravings have nothing to do with it. I simply studied the evidence and formed an opinion.

 

If the universe had a beginning that means there was a point when:

Time=0

Space=0

Energy=0

Matter=0

 

In order for these properties to be created, I concluded that something must exist above and beyond anything we know of them. I concluded that to exist beyond the realm of space/time and energy/matter this being must be supernatural. To have enough power to create these properties (and thus everything) this being must be all-powerful.

 

You say- “The Cause is not required to be a Being”

I disagree. The way it was all brought together seems to point to a “design”. The balance required to have enough gravity without too much, not just on Earth, but throughout the universe. A sun that is not too early or late in its lifespan (too hot or not hot enough). The precise rotation on our axis to balance the exposure to the sun and regulate the temps. And many, many other examples that point to “design”.

 

When I looked at everything cumulatively, it looked like God.

You may ask “what does God look like?”

My response, I just told you.

 

How would you describe something that could create space/time and energy/matter and thus create everything?

[Vulgaris Prime]

Thurisaz,

Nice language skills. Come back when you can intelligently present your position.

 

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

POT: "You're black."

 

I disagree. The way it was all brought together seems to point to a “design”. The balance required to have enough gravity without too much, not just on Earth, but throughout the universe. A sun that is not too early or late in its lifespan (too hot or not hot enough). The precise rotation on our axis to balance the exposure to the sun and regulate the temps. And many, many other examples that point to “design”.

 

Argument from ignorance. You can't conceive that it could be any other way, so it must obviously be your way, right?

 

Sorry, you're losing again.

 

When I looked at everything cumulatively, it looked like God.

You may ask “what does God look like?”

My response, I just told you.

 

How would you describe something that could create space/time and energy/matter and thus create everything?

 

What created that creator? What created the creator of the creator? What created the creator of the creator of the creator? What created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator?

 

I can keep going if you'd like. I'm not going to stop prodding you on this until I get an answer!

[invictus1967]

Vulgaris Prime,

 

I have never called anyone names or resulted to cursing. Not that it offends me, I just feel it is a good indicator of people. I think the kittle dialed a wrong number.

 

You say I am losing? I have yet to see where you or anyone has scored.

 

When you can put some evidence, a theory, or an informed opinion on the table; come back.

 

In the mean time, pay better attention.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo,

 

On certain things I am very black and white. I truly believe in the existence of God. Emotional needs or cravings have nothing to do with it. I simply studied the evidence and formed an opinion.

I don’t think you did. It’s more likely that culture and family or friends were the influence to you commitment.

 

If the universe had a beginning that means there was a point when:

Time=0

Space=0

Energy=0

Matter=0

No, this is what was before the beginning:

Time = NULL

Space = NULL

Energy = NULL

Matter = NULL

 

That’s an extremely big difference. And you understand what I’m talking about if you know databases theory.

 

In order for these properties to be created, I concluded that something must exist above and beyond anything we know of them. I concluded that to exist beyond the realm of space/time and energy/matter this being must be supernatural. To have enough power to create these properties (and thus everything) this being must be all-powerful.

What is “all”, when all we know is only all we know, and what’s beyond all we know is more than all we know. “All-powerful” is a word taken for all-powerful within current framework, only for this universe, but not all-powerful for any alternative, parallel or sequential universe. You could say that this “God” had power enough to create this universe, I can agree to that, but what is “all” if “God” is beyond “All”.

 

You say- “The Cause is not required to be a Being”

I disagree. The way it was all brought together seems to point to a “design”. The balance required to have enough gravity without too much, not just on Earth, but throughout the universe. A sun that is not too early or late in its lifespan (too hot or not hot enough). The precise rotation on our axis to balance the exposure to the sun and regulate the temps. And many, many other examples that point to “design”.

Good that we disagree, because you only argue that you believe that the Cause is Intentional, and I believe the Cause is Accidental.

 

I don’t think this “Design” is perfect in any sense. It’s in balance and harmony, but not perfect. God should have spoken to me, or had me in his committee before he designed it.

 

The precise rotation you talk about is not perfect. It’s in balance but not perfect. It’s not circular for instance, it wobbles, and it is affected by gravity of other planets in the solar system. I can agree that it’s in balance, currently, but it doesn’t mean perfect, or designed.

 

Did you know how amazing it is that the nose is perfectly Created to perfectly hold the glasses. So there is another proof you can add to your list.

 

When I looked at everything cumulatively, it looked like God.

And I will never deny you doing that. I think religion is good for you, and you need it, but your arguments are not evidences. You still make the leap from “Not Understanding Existence” to “God Fills the Gaps”. It requires a leap of faith, and I’m glad that you have it. But the concept of faith is nothing more than Phantom Pain in an amputated leg. The leg doesn’t exist anymore, yet you can feel it, but it’s just not there.

 

You may ask “what does God look like?”

My response, I just told you.

Not really. You speculated in his powers that are not evident and are not visible. You see a stone rolling down a hill and hit and kill a person and you argue that it was intentional by the unknown God on the top of the hill. While I maintain that we don’t know, and it’s more likely the rock started rolling by natural causes.

 

How would you describe something that could create space/time and energy/matter and thus create everything?

It would be “Beyond our understanding”. And yet You claim you understand it.

You can’t understand the concept of God because of the obvious reason the concept is beyond our understanding. So don’t minimize God to a concept that fits your understanding of this universe. If God exists, he’s even greater for your words to ever be spoken. You can not even take his name in your mouth, because his name would be infinite.

[invictus1967]

Time = NULL

Space = NULL

Energy = NULL

Matter = NULL

 

Yes, I understand very well what NULL means. It means it has no value. It is of no consequence. It means empty.

 

But my personal favorite, it means nonexistent.

 

If that is the way you want to express it, I see no difference. You are simply saying time, space, energy, matter had no value or were empty. Are you trying to imply they were there at all?

 

Assuming you know something about database theory, how do you explain this “empty” or “null” being changed into to a big ol’ universe without something existing outside of them?

 

A database only holds what is put into it. If these values were null, something had to give the value, the database doesn’t give values to its fields, it only holds the values.

 

As far as minimizing God, that is not what I am doing at all. I am simply recognizing the Creator.

[Ouroboros]

Time = NULL

Space = NULL

Energy = NULL

Matter = NULL

 

Yes, I understand very well what NULL means. It means it has no value. It is of no consequence. It means empty.

It’s not even empty, it’s unknown.

 

But my personal favorite, it means nonexistent.

Nah, not really. Non-existent is a value, Null is a not-defined value.

 

If that is the way you want to express it, I see no difference. You are simply saying time, space, energy, matter had no value or were empty. Are you trying to imply they were there at all?

 

Assuming you know something about database theory, how do you explain this “empty” or “null” being changed into to a big ol’ universe without something existing outside of them?

 

A database only holds what is put into it. If these values were null, something had to give the value, the database doesn’t give values to its fields, it only holds the values.

I’m saying it is unknown. You argue that it known and the value being zero.

I still claim that we don’t have enough information or knowledge to claim there was zero or 1 or infinity or whatever beyond the point of no-reference.

 

I’m not saying that one day we might know what was there, but the arguments you’re using require that all of us accept that the universe was created from nothing, because there was a nothing before it was created. How do you know there was nothing before the universe came to existence? You were not even there! Where you?

 

In the database I can have the blob object, set to null value. I can write software that fills this value. It all requires an intentional action from me, but realize that the software will work independently of populating this blob object, so the blob turns from Null to something (a universe). I could die and disappear and still the software would work. So we could argue that the Universe was created by a machine that was created by God.

Or next step, the machine was created by a machine created by God, ad infinitum.

 

When does is stop? Do we know? Does it have to stop just outside our universe?

If God had a sequence of 1000 machines creating universes within universes, does this mean I have to pray to him? Do we know the answer to this? No We Don’t!

 

Do we know if these machines go on in an infinite regression or not? You have to prove to me that it stops somewhere. Does it stop at 1, 2, 1000, 1000000?

 

 

As far as minimizing God, that is not what I am doing at all. I am simply recognizing the Creator.

Yes you are, because you prove his existence with the parameters that are bound to the framework you are within. You can’t understand him greater than the framework, because the framework only lends to you so much.

 

You give him the right to have the property of omnipotent, which is a big word, since you have never been outside the box.

 

Your understanding of God can only be within the limitations of your mind, don’t deny that. God is not as small as your mind, so he can be explained in human words. He is unnamable, and he is without properties and attributes, because properties and attributes can only be understood within the framework. When you say he’s this or he’s that, you minimize him to attributes that you give him. When you do that, you have restricted the beliefs like Deism, Naturalism, Paganism, Wicca and many more.

 

What if I said that the Universe is a living organism and we are part of the “brain” in this organism? The universe was not created but was only or an idea that came to this creature and this creature is just dreaming the stories of our lives. Maybe everything is just a fiction, and was never created; we just live a life of dreams and illusions. Maybe we’re just the nightmare of God, rather than a creation. Maybe we’re just an imagination.

[invictus1967]

Not to be insulting, but look up null in the dictionary.

[invictus1967]

I must be away for a few days so this will be my last post for a while.

Hold the applause, please.

 

But I will leave you with one parting shot that I will post here and in other threads.

 

Until you learn to see the parts as a whole, you will never develop an understanding for them individually. I don’t just mean as I understand, but your own independently developed understanding.

 

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.

[Amanda]

You know what, I changed my mind. Let’s go!

 

I think we need to approach this systematically.

 

First, we need to establish some givens and work from there.

1- The universe has a beginning

2- The universe is made up of space/time and energy/matter.

 

If you do not consider those to be givens, we will backup. But assuming they are, let’s continue.

 

Once we have established some basic fundamentals, we can then bring it all back around and tie it to Romans 1/presupposition.

 

You tell me where I get illogical. But I caution you, you must be a free thinker. I in no way mean that as a sarcastic insult. I simply want you to allow your thoughts to have the freedom of going down a path without concern of where that path leads.

 

In order for the universe to come into existence, something had to exist beyond the properties of space/time and energy/matter so they could be created and brought together to form the universe.

 

Does anyone find this to be an illogical conclusion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dear Invictus... I too am a Chrisian... and as you know... most Christians do not even agree with each other! So keep that in mind with these wonderful folks on this site... you gotta love 'em. It seems to me from your dialog in this forum that you have a good heart, are open and patient, and I'd like to explore your insight as a search for Truth... because, between you and I, what is the Truth... then the Way, and then the Life? The only presupposition that I could think of that most might agree with is that Truth can not contradict Truth?

 

You are probably more learned in astronomy than I, yet my understanding from Stephen Hawkins is that there is no beginning and end, and from Einstien there is no time. Everything always existed and always exists, there is the big bang, that contemporary theories suggest it eventually collapses back into itself, then explodes again.... Perhaps God sends out his creation and is reconciling it back unto himself... over and over again? Now what everything is made up has been found in my scientific studies to be light, vibration, and elctromagnetic charge, and I will research how this relates to 'radiation'... (Anyway all this coincides with the Bible studies I have done.) People, who are interested, may want to check out the video in their library called "A Brief History of Time" with Stephen Hawkins' theories as the subject, and NOT a religous format. I found it quite informative and entertaining.

 

I'd love to hear your theory invictus and perhaps ALL of us can get some insight that will bring us closer to the Truth. One more thing, what does all of this have to do with Romans !?

[Ouroboros]

Ok, I will take back and not say it was not nonexistent.

 

But in database terms it does mean undefined.

And not Defined to Empty.

Empty string is not the same as a Null string.

Zero integer is not the same as a Null Integer.

 

 

Dictionary NULL:

1. Having no legal force; invalid: render a contract null and void.

2. Of no consequence, effect, or value; insignificant.

3. Amounting to nothing; absent or nonexistent: a null result.

4. Mathematics. Of or relating to a set having no members or to zero magnitude.

 

I want you to look at the mathematic definition.

 

Null is a set without members.

That is different from a set with one member where the value is zero.

 

When you claim “before the universe” there was nothing, you equal it to zero.

I claim there was not a set of values at all. The values are unknown. Like in the database.

Null+1 = Null, still unknown. Null+God = Null, still Unknown.

 

The values were unknown. But you made this formula:

Time = 0

Mass = 0

etc.

That is a set with known values, the values being zeros. Zeros are not Null. You know that.

 

Age = NULL or age = 32, are two totally different concepts. Age = Null encompasses the possibility of 32 and 52 and 65 and 100 and 1 and 0.

 

I’m saying:

Time = Null

Mass = Null

etc.

Because they values are unknown; not nothing, not something, but unknown.

 

You claim scientists say that there was nothing before big bang, and what they mean is that it is “insignificant”, “set of zero magnitude”. You seem to understand the concept of Null, so why do you claim that the values do exist, and they are zero, and zero is not accepted, so God must have created because it was zero. Maybe it was zero, maybe it wasn’t.

 

To claim the proof to the Kalam Argument is based on the concept that the value is known, and the value is impossible, therefore God exists. But yet I claim the value is Unknown!

 

When you move time backwards to the Big Bang it will follow a formula like s=1/t. The speed on the arm on the clock will go slower and slower until it pretty much stops. The singularity has no time or close to no time. You claim there is a t=0, which requires God to make it jump from t=0 to t = (infinitesimal small value). But still s=1/0 is Undefined!

The singularity actually could have existed infinitely, and at some point it exploded, of reasons unknown. You want that reason to be God, and I want it to be Unknown.

 

I’m waiting for God to make the argument with me, and not you, because you can’t move my heart, but if God exists, he can. He had the chance for 30+ years, and he screwed up big time. So if he exists, he’s the one at fault for my un-faith.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Christians use philosophy as a smoke screan to obscure the fact that the bible is bullshit.

 

If there is a god I can't see it realy having any personal relationship with anyone. We seem to be merely a pixal in the big moniter. heh.

[Druid]

Doesn't the word singularity mean undefined?

[Ouroboros]

Doesn't the word singularity mean undefined?

 

singularity

 

1. Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

 

2. Mathematics. A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

 

 

Basically, a state with not completely understand yet. Everything comes together as one. Maybe God is The Singularity. And now, the sum of the universe Is God! i.e. Pantheism.

[crazy-tiger]

Thurisaz,

Nice language skills. Come back when you can intelligently present your position.

 

I never read past your opening remarks. Not that they offend me, it’s just that the experience of the last few days has taught me something about the folks that hangout here. I have discovered that when I sort through those kind of remarks, I usually find there isn’t much substance to anything the writer has written.

 

crazy-tiger was a big help in forming that opinion. Thanks crazy, you wild and wacky guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you end up having to repeat yourself for the Nth time because the person you're addressing is either 1) too stupid to understand or, 2) deliberately not understanding anything you say, you'll find that, quite often, people resort to the insults to let you know how screwed-up you are.

 

 

If you want to ignore what I've said, that's fine... You were doing that before I started to take the piss out of you.

[mrtruth]

Until you learn to see the parts as a whole, you will never develop an understanding for them individually. I don’t just mean as I understand, but your own independently developed understanding.

 

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.

 

After 30 years of Christianity, I actually did just what you are suggesting. And guess what? It showed me that the Bible is not God's word, Jehovah is a man-made construct, and I'd been following lies for decades. Funny, huh?

[dr_funkenstein]

Having read through invictus' posts, I've gotta say: you're not doing much for the cause of Christanity.

 

I'm a fairly recent apostate and reading this stuff just solidifies in my mind how illogical and downright ignorant Christian beliefs are. This person doesn't address the real arguments that counter his own (if they can even be called that!), but rather resorts to ignoring people's arguments based on the fact that they called him what he is - a fucktard.

 

Invictus: please answer this question if you dare. It has been asked several times in this thread already, but you've yet to respond and so I'll repose the question once again.

 

The question is this: You assert that if the universe can be demonstrated to have a point of origin in space/time then therefore it is logical for the universe to have a cause. You assert that the cause is God. Does God require a cause, and if not why not?

[Mr. Neil]

The question is this: You assert that if the universe can be demonstrated to have a point of origin in space/time then therefore it is logical for the universe to have a cause.  You assert that the cause is God.  Does God require a cause, and if not why not?

OH OH OH OH!!!! I know the answer! I know the answer!!!!

 

Because if God had a creator, then he wouldn't be God!

 

 

Or better yet... "He's eternal, and eternal things have no origin, so God could never be created!"

 

Oh, so he exists at all points in time? Well, then that makes him part of the universe! And if that's the case, then he's not God!

 

Or he could simply say that God exists outside of space/time, in which case he's saying that God is inert.

 

Any way you slice it, the proposition is unwinnable. There's only one thing to do...

 

[Ouroboros]

 

Hi Doc! Welcome!

 

I just love to hear when someone says they just de-converted and they suddenly realize how funky the Christian apologetic arguments are. Just love it!

 

So warm welcomes to ya!

[dr_funkenstein]

Hi Doc! Welcome!

 

I just love to hear when someone says they just de-converted and they suddenly realize how funky the Christian apologetic arguments are. Just love it!

 

So warm welcomes to ya!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The interesting thing is how much I used to love Josh McDowell et al. when I was a Christian. The human mind's power for self-delusion is quite amazing really - conveniently overlooking aspects of the argument that don't make sense and ignoring arguments from the opposing side because hey, after all - those atheists are living under the dominion of Satan and therefore anything they say is just Satan speaking through them to tempt us away from God, right? That sentence was too long. Satan clearly has a bad grasp on grammar.