Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| GendoIkari | $19.12 | Peterguy | $9.41 |
| stewie | $9.41 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $37.94 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.95) | 2,637 | 228 | 2,543 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 57,882 |
Inbound links:
Max: I thought YTMND was about democracy and freedom of speech. You cannot set up a string of rules and then bend them to suit your own needs/wants. If this site is sponsored, let it be. If this site is popular, let it be. If this site really offends people, let it be. I am offended by YTMND daily, but I understand that I have the right to vote on what I like or do not like. In the end I know that you don't care about the opinion of ONE of your users, as you have millions, but I think that YTMND is popular because of its freedom to say what people want to say, and if it is TOO offensive, the votes will take care of it.
"I thought YTMND was about democracy and freedom of speech." - somebody has never read the rules while making a site apparently: "Expect your site to be deleted if it lacks humor and includes any of the following: anime, extreme racism, hardcore pornography, anything illegal, pictures of your friends, inside jokes, etc" - sure enough religious stuff isnt in there but just saying, 'freedom of speech' is a strange excuse to use on this site.
this was boring. the argument itself was stupid. i wish you christians would just stop being moronic and stop hindering our scientific preogression with your outdated views. jesus didnt exist nothing proves that he did, an omnipotent creator of energy is a possibility but please dont pretend like you can comprehend it.
Are you kidding me? The First Cause Argument was laughed off the stage a long time ago. This is nothing new.
You are making an arbitrary assertion, with nothing to back it up, by claiming that the Universe needs a beginning. The singualrity doesn't prove the existence began, merely that the universe was once very different. Read the most basic philosophy on the subject. Massive failure.
As with all arguments attempting to prove (or disprove, for that matter) the existence of God, this one has holes that sink the ship.
The critical mistake is the assumption that we can make assumptions about ANYTHING preceding our universe, which is simply not the case. This lack of knowledge arises from the singularity of the Big Bang. We cannot (in the foreseeable future, and probably ever) know what existed before the Big Bang, or if indeed anything did "exist," whether it be a God, another universe composed of time/space/matter, or an average-sized, slightly overripe mango.
We know nothing of if causality applied before the Big Bang. Maybe the preceding universe got bored, and decided to go out, get wasted, and Big Bang, or maybe it wasn't
Paris Hilton. In any case, if causality did exist, you can't assume that the cause was a God. Even if what preceded our universe did not carry the properties of time, space, and matter, this does not mean that it was God. Perhaps what preceded the universe had other properties by which things were defined.
For that matter, we don't even know that what comprises our universe began with the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory suggests not that it is The Beginning of all time, space, and matter, but rather the beginning of the organization of these properties that we recognize as our universe, and their evolution into the pattern of today.
In short, God cannot be proven or disproven.
Faith (n.) : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Guys, it's important to note that when viewing this YTMND, one should immediately recognize WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
In addition, WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWW
WWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Free speech is important but that doesn't stop you from being a WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWhorebag
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
You're going to keep causing an uproar as long as your prosletyzing YTMNDs happen to show up on the frontpage. As for your counter-rebuttals, a sequence of events can't exist in a place without time, so it would seem god would only exist and cause everything by the time the big bang already happened, which isn't any different than just attributing the big bang to natural causes. How come the universe can't be supernatural enough to start itself, or begin from a "big crunch" from a previous universe?
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe. talk origins
Wrong. You still haven't provided evidence of god's existance. Although you adressed some of your more gaping arrogencies, all you have done is provide a nice little hole in our knowledge and said, hey, it could be god! Yes, it "could be" god. Just like it could be completely natural, physical causes. Your argument proves nothing , and the "If you're still an athiest" comment in the Q&A section is just insulting.
Truly a work of brilliance. Your argument is sound, it is acceptable and sufficent enough to for the reader (if they are not an athiest internet prick, but someone who understands how to read and understand philosophy). You do not go into religion to prove you point, which is a plus. Anyone who says "God Did It" and only that won't sway anyone. You sir are WIN. I have no more doubts after that well written, well supported agrument. The rest of these downvoting haters do not understand what you have just said. May God have mercy on their souls.
There can be a chronology of sets of space times. There is nothing to say that there can not be a well ordering of the sets of space times, there fore 'beginning' is referencing a subset, while the author is subtly using beginning to refer to a first beginning, when there doesn't need to be a first beginning.
The one peterguy made was better and didn't leave me with a bad taste, also proving that somthing made the universe does NOT mean its a god by how we define one (somthing to watch over us, take us to the afterlife etc). Your ytmnd only shows how it makes more sence that the universe was created. 5'd for being well done -3 for it already being done better. ^-^
still didn't really explain why matter, time and space cannot have necessary existence, or be exempt from needing a first cause. If God is allowed to have those attributes applied to him, why can't the universe itself have them? I agree something "weird" is happening (as something "weird" is happening to explain preception and intelligence). The question is, where is this weirdness happening? And I don't see a reason why it would more likely be "God" than the universe itself.
Bravo and well done, Id like to say your time was not wasted... yet alot, if not most, of the collective ytmnd user base are lacking when it comes to critical thinking and have to resort to being dickheads.
One tip, set the pages with more text to a longer timer, I would assume alot of people bashing this only look at the site name, then realize they cant read everything fast enough and proceed to get frustrated because of there lack of understanding.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and you sir have done a very good job presenting it. 5
Your assumptions are based on the belief that time is linear and constant in all situations. If you're going to talk about the universe and its origin, I'd say you should research black holes, etc. and see that A)Either there's not enough evidence either way or B) The "beginning" could just as easily been achieved through scientific phenomena as through an intangible God.
As a physicist I'd say that this is completely wrong.
The universe did indeed emerge from a single point (the big bang), but there is also a cause to this.
In your second premise you said that since the universe exist, something would have to had caused it, and this is true. But physics is now saying that the cause of our universe's existence was caused by a collision with an extra dimensional universe that is outside our own.
In this case, the argument for your god theory is rendered useless since there is a sufficient reason why our universe is here. God theory is not needed to explain this fact.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
It doesn't matter what argument you make, YOU CAN'T WIN. WHY? Because you're using the same language I am, ENGLISH. WORDS. If you can telepathically communicate some astronimically higher forms of pure information to others via an astral plane, have fun. Please continue this discussion through telepathy, rather than posting, thank you.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Well I don't expect you to find this post, and there's probably one just like it in here, amid all the pro-evolution or pro-creationist retards blathering on without doing any research of their own. However, all you've basically done is quoted a well-documented scientific fact (expanding universe) and attributed the unknown "cause" to a supreme entity (God). You claimed to have "proof", but this is merely a hypothesis, and probably the f*cking oldest one in the book.
Wishful thinking:
It is not valid to base a decision on an imagined pleasant outcome, and not one based in evidence or rationality.
Your argument is based on various hopes (a benevolent magic entity, simple linear time, the ability for an intelligent creative force to exist without any mass) yet no evidence whatsoever.
Well, yes this does show how there is room for God in a scientific world, and it is a comforting belief that I find myself holding often, but it does not give any really solid answers about God. A) Your premise is based on Highly Theoritical Physics which may be proved wrong in the near future. B) Your argument merely concludes there once was a higher being, or God if you will, not that there still is one. C)If God created the whole Universe, the being (if sentient) would be more concerned with the movement of electrons than your moral day to day actions, making the idea of God watching you obsolete, creating a sterile non-religious God, defeating your purpose of conversion of the science-minded.
Your response to Chichiri was unnaceptable for one reason. Although you may say, and I'm not sure you may say truthfully, that you did not propose the argument he refuted, your answer consisted of "God is x, therefore" which only proves if anything a neccesary attribute of a God should it exist (according to your premises, which may be false), not that God actually exists.
You did not prove god. You proved that god can exist by naming the first cause god. That way, I can prove that Cthulhu exists by naming that cause Cthulhu. What the cause is we don't know. It COULD be god. Could be a singularity just the same.
Nevertheless, I rather have theists like you(since, as said, I cannot prove you wrong either) than the "burn in hell f*g" ones.
Unless, of course, you belong to that group. Do you? I sure hope not, you seem too sane for that so far.
Hats off for you. You are honest, not flaming anybody and really, really smart and wise. Sounds like you were guided by the Holy Spirit or something! :D
After some time, I realised that people that say "God doesn't exist" are ignorant people. They don't understand that atheism is a belief. They canno't prove the unexistance of God.
Anyways, you have brought a lot of good with this thing, believe me. Even if some didn't start thinking on this matter after this, when they will, they will remember this.
And people who won't, know that God is out there and are afraid of that. That makes them to fight against that.
I would also like to say that there will be always people that won't like what you are doing. But don't stop. You make a difference. A good one!
See, here's the problem that I still have with this argument. Everything is pretty good up until you start delving into this "First Cause" stuff. At that point, you immediately start making claim after claim about the First Cause, none of which are exactly obvious, and give only minimal explanation (if any is given at all) for any of them. It seems to me that the question of "what is there besides this universe?" or "what was there before this universe?" are rather more complicated questions than you give them credit for. There's also the assertion that time began with our universe. I see absolutely no reason why that must be the case.
I've heard theories that our universe is essentially the surface of a four-dimensional sphere (think of a 2D plane stretched into a 3D sphere, to give a comprehensible example) - you're on the surface, and you will never reach the edge of the universe. I see no reason to believe concretely that the universe is the be-all and end-all of everything, in that there's only this universe and then God. It's really the jump between the creation of the universe and all this stuff about timelessness and how there's only God before the universe, etc. that gets me. I just don't see why any of it necessarily must be the case.
I sorely miss when the closest thing you'd come to religious banter on
YTMND was "I'm Jesus, lol." There's been interesting and intelligent
conversation as a result of all this Christbot insanity, but my head can't
take anymore. That being said,
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Fun Page! Have you ever considered that a "beginning" of the universe is actually just part of a cycle of creation/destruction of a never-ending super-universe? Since all things operate/move in cycles (i.e.- biological life, to radio waves), could one assume that the "beginning" of the universe was followed by a destruction of another? If all things are part of cycles and are consisting of energy that moves in cycles, why is it that the universe is exempt? All things evolve and devolve, nothing is really linear. Could we not say the universe is subject to this law as well? This would mean that the possibility exists for the universe to have no beginning at all. This does not negate God, however. God does not necessarily have to be theanthropised. God is all?
The conclusion that this YTMND reaches is flawed at its core. True, the universe had to, by our understanding of the basic laws of existance, have a beginning. However, this "First Cause" does not, by definition, have to be anything resembling gods as we think of them. Life does not have to come from life, as the synthesizing of organic molecules has shown. Intellect does not have to come from intellect. The "beginning" of the universe is beyond the confines what is understood to be real; as such, using any imagining of a diety to explain it is just as flawed as using current scientific thought, as both, being concepts, are inherently limited by the simpel fact that they are a part of the universe.
NARVs dont understand that YTMND is really about WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the
following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the
presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of
Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place.
Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate
orally with us, may do so by letter. In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen. 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite,
willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance. 2. This
word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and
satisfaction, which is administered by the priests. 3. Yet it means not
inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not
outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh. 4. The penalty [of
sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is
the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the
kingdom
aven. 5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any
penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority
or by that of the Canons. 6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by
declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to
his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised,
the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven. 7. God remits guilt to no
one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into
subjection to His vicar, the priest. 8. The penitential canons are
imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be
imposed on the dying. 9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind
to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of
death and of necessity. 10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those
priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purg
tory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. 16. Hell,
purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the
assurance of safety. 17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that
horror should grow less and love increase. 18. It seems unproved, either
by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is
to say, of increasing love. 19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or
at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness,
though we may be quite certain of it. 20. Therefore by "full remission
of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those
imposed by himself. 21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in
error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every
penalty, and saved; 22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no
penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this
life. 23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the rem
ission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very
fewest. 24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the
people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of
release from penalty. 25. The power which the pope has, in a general
way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has,
in a special way, within his own diocese or parish. 26. The pope does
well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of
the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession. 27.
They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the
money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory]. 28. It is certain that
when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be
increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power
of God alone. 29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to
be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal. 30.
No one is
sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained
full remission. 31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare
is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most
rare. 32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their
teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have
letters of pardon. 33. Men must be on their guard against those who say
that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is
reconciled to Him; 34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the
penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by
man. 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is
not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy
confessionalia. 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full
remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. 37.
Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings
of Christ a
nd the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of
pardon. 38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the
blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be
despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine
remission. 39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest
theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the
abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition. 40. True
contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax
penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for
hating them]. 41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution,
lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of
love. 42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the
buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy. 43.
Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the
needy does a better work than buy
ng pardons; 44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes
better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from
penalty. 45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in
need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not
the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God. 46. Christians
are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound
to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to
squander it on pardons. 47. Christians are to be taught that the buying
of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment. 48.
Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and
therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they
bring. 49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are
useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if
through them they lose their fear of God. 50. Christians are to be taugh
You get a 3 for being probably the only advocate of the First Cause argument to state your point in a formal, consise way as opposed to the rhetoric most others use. And an extra point for Sean Connery in a mortar-board with a stick.
Problem is, you fail to convince me; I agree there is probably something beyond space, time and matter as you say. However, I do not agree with the idea that it has to be a God(s), just because we can't think of anything else to fill in the blank.
t that if the pope
knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St.
Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the
skin, flesh and bones of his sheep. 51. Christians are to be taught that
it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to
very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole. 52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though
the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul
upon it. 53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the
Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons
may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in
the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this
Word. 55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which
are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single
processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest
thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a
hundred ceremonies. 56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the
pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the
people of Christ. 57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly
evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily,
b
ut only gather them. 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the
Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner
man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man. 59. St.
Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but
he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time. 60. Without
rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are
that treasure; 61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties
and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself
sufficient. 62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel
of the glory and the grace of God. 63. But this treasure is naturally
most odious, for it makes the first to be last. 64. On the other hand,
the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the
last to be first. 65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets
with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches. 66. The
treasures of t
he indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of
men. 67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest
graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain. 68.
Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of
God and the piety of the Cross. 69. Bishops and curates are bound to
admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence. 70. But
still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all
their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the
commission of the pope. 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic
pardons, let him be anathema and accursed! 72. But he who guards against
the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed! 73.
The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury
of the traffic in pardons. 74. But much more does he intend to thunder
against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy
lov
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even
if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God --
this is madness. 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are
not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is
concerned. 77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope,
could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and
against the pope. 78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present
pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the
Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians
xii. 79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is
set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross
of Christ, is blasphemy. 80. The bishops, curates and theologians who
allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to
render. 81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no eas
y matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope
from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity. 82. To
wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love
and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite
number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a
Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most
trivial." 83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the
dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the
endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the
redeemed?" 84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope,
that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out
of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because
of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's
sake?" 85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in
actual fa
86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than
the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his
own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?" 87. Again: --
"What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to
those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and
participation?" 88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the
Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does
once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and
participations?" 89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the
salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences
and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?" 90. To
repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not
to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to
the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind
of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would
not exist. 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people
of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! 93. Blessed be all
those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there
is no cross! 94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in
following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
CAUSALITY IS A PART OF THE UNIVERSE.
Causality only exists as part of our universe, along with energy, time, space, matter, etc. Your arguement rested on something "causing" the universe, ignoring the fact that you cannot cause anything to be if causation does not exist yet. You then took the hole in your logic and called it God.
one more thing. you make fun of christians for preaching what we believe when jesus told us to. why? you dont make fun of other religions for preaching. i could make fun of you guys for preaching what u believe, but i dont. its not like im trying to convince u guys to be this religion or that religion, or whats right and whats wrong.
Thomas Aquinas said the very same thing nearly 800 years ago. The only problem is that if God is the First Cause (TA called it a First Efficient Cause), then God caused himself, which breaks the rules of cause and effect, creating a logical fallacy. It's stupid to try and prove or even disprove the existence of a God, because all religion is about faith, not logic. If it was possible, we wouldn't be carrying on the same debate for countless generations. Someone please make a YTMNSTFU site about what I just said.
Smoothmedia created his Scientology site to warn us of a dangerous cult. You just made this YTMND to try and prove your POV right. You ARE trying to stifle other people's opinions because you keep on saying that atheists are wrong. If you didn't get max's message, he was telling you to keep your religious sh*t the f*ck off of his site, so no, you are NOT permitted to make another site. To quote max: "GTFO".
Sorry, I agree with Max. Religion is simply a buffer to provide a supernatural reason for things that haven't been proved scientifically yet. Now go pray to whatever god you will, and make baseless corellations that it was him who blessed you the luck to find that 20$ on the street. And keep it off YTMND, c*ckf%g.
That was a terrible argument, it doesn't proove god exists, you only speculate he does because you simply refered to something you didn't understand as god, in this case whatever created the universe. It's entirely possible that the human brain isn't built to understand the concepts that made the universe come into being. It's simply stupid to label everything you don't understand as "an act of god".
As respectable a presentation you give, it is in no way shape or form proof of god. Anything at the moment of or before singularity goes beyond human logic. Just as time only exists in human logic, not the real universe, the idea of there being something "before" the universe is confined to the human mind. You have demonstrated the point at which human logic fails to explain the universe before or at singularity. You have NOT demonstrated why god exists. Please change your site to reflect that human logic cannot explain those events and I will happily give you a 5.
You still haven't proved God exists. It's equally plausible that space-time-matter came from nothingness, timelessness, etc as it is plausible that it came from some 'divine being.' It's only due to the nature of logic that we have such difficulty imagining something out of nothing. That's what makes your argument so compelling - b/c it makes logical sense. However, my point is that we must step outside the confines of logic in order to understand something out of nothing.
Since something exists, and something cannot come from nothing, than something has always existed. It's a logical fact. Infinity going backwards is..a..fact. Hard to believe huh. So if that's true, why would people be so hesitant to disbelieve ANY theory which can't be proven true or false? The two logical possibilities are that either the universe always existed, or God always existed. I personally think that if there is going to be one thing which always existed, that it would be an intellect rather than an inanimate object, and that existence would have a purpose. It's harder (for me) to imagine that the universe would have always existed JUST BECAUSE, and then maybe that the universe will eventually approach absolute zero forever and ever.
Oh, furthermore, all the arguments you make are things that philosophers have been wrestling with for ages - really since the beginning of philosophy. More recently astrophysicists have entered the picture. And none of them have resolved it. Ultimately any 'proof' still requires presuppositions or a 'leap of faith.'
Interesting. I like how you used logical arguments to support your claim. I have one question though. If everything has a cause, as your first premise states, what caused god? Obviously, god is not exempt from the same law of causality the universe is subjected to. This is a very impressive and thought provoking YTMND.
Do not forget the cosmological argumen....All physical things come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God......that contradicts parts of your time theory. I still agree with you..feel free to rebute, o young man who thinks he is a genious..
Religions are created out of the fear of something. You cover something up that you can't explain with a belief. During this time period that should be completely ovbvious, therefore you lose. I can explain things, so I don't need a religion. So f*ck off. Oh, and YTMND is the wrong place for your bull-sh*t. Take it elsewhere. This YTMND sucks.
there are some fascinating things to the universe that cannot describe. but lumping those things together into the concept of a god is a cowardly way to approach the unknown. but it is cute how you Christian scientists capitalize your little postulates, like Causation or First Cause to swindle some validity.
I don't buy your arguement but you're smarted than the typical theist. I would counter simply that the jump from establishing that there is a first cause that is beyond time, space and other natural phenomenon to the statement that the first cause is god is not supported by your premises or your arguements. Why should that first cause be god and not something else? There is no evidence that first cause is sentient or omni-benevolent.
just so you know: when you refer to the "universe" and try to use it as a component in your argument for the existence of god, you're referring to a very shady scientific concept. When Christopher Columbus tried to convince the king and queen of spain that he could make it to India by traveling west across the atlantic ocean, not only was he making an assumption about the extent of land mass on the planet but he was also making an assumption about the dimensions of the planet. Both of his assumptions ended up being completely wrong. Is it fair to say that Christopher Columbus, a person with no scientific credibility, could be trusted with any of his arguments that were based on premises about the size and contents of the earth? what about the entire universe
The universe is a much more difficult region of space for scientists to map accurately. People have been arguing over the origin and the exact contents of the universe for hundreds of years, and we still haven’t been able to come up with a 100% certain description of it. I am currently working on my masters degree in physics, and as a person with several years of scientific background, I am not about to try and come up with my own description of the universe (its contents and its dimensions), let alone try to argue with people about where it came from (IF it came from anything). I wouldn’t even want to get into a discussion about the theoretical parts of astrophysics (black holes)...
in black hole physics it is often suggested that beyond the event horizon of a black hole there is a place that is completely disconnected from our universe. As of today, we do not currently know of any practical scientific experiments that we could do to prove OR disprove any mathematical theories about the characteristics of the universe (especially whether or not there are other universes and/or other dimensions in space that cannot be observed). You claim to be a 24 year old mortgage insurance salesman. I imagine that when you’re dealing with a client you’re expected to have credibility as a salesman. Well It works the exact same way when you try to make any kind of argument (whether it be about god or the weather)...
...based on philosophical concepts (philosophy would be an area that I have only studied for one semester…apparently like most of people here on ytmnd) and scientific principles (something that I have been studying for quite some time now). Therefore my suggestion is that if you intend to make an argument for the existence of god, the first thing you should do is completely abandon your use of the concept of the “universe” anywhere in your argument.
I still say, why couldn't the universe just be there? There was no time before matter, just as you say God is not bound by time. So couldn't the big bang be the first cause? The singularity was just there, just as you say God was. When the Big Bang occured, time began. There was no reason or creator of the universe, it just was.
Okay Whetstone. I'll bite. I'm not against this, but I have a question i'd really like on your site. You say that the debate about Square Circles is that it was in God's idea not to have square circles so if he were to make them he'd be imperfect. Right? Well, is this to say that his idea for the world was perfect? I mean, he made the world perrfect right since he is indeed also perfect? So why is their hate, murder, racism, war, disease, crime, death, pain? I mean, I'm sure that sounds cliche, but i'm serious..The world is far from perfect, why? Why would god make this? And don't tell me that it was us, because A: Most diseases aren't man made and B: If you believe in Predetermination and all of that jazz, he'd have to know we would do something wrong.
Incorrect! by your "logic" YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHAT CAUSED GOD. Get it? Quit repeating apologetic bullsh*t and stick to your own logic, idiot. While you're at it...why don't you glue it to the "Trinity"...since your fallaciously tried to sneak that in. Your YTMND fails, I gave it a 2 just for artistic value.
The vast majority of ytmnders are idiots so don't bother. To be honest I still don't complete understand what you and chichiri are saying. But atleast I'm not some smart *ss athiest that thinks he knows everything about theoretical physics.
Mankind will go extinct before he can comprehend the secrets of creation and c*cks.
let me remind you of what a ytmnd is: 1. picture 2. sound 3.text a singular focus. not a f*cking short film. i thought this site is one of the few places i could go in the world where religious debate wasnt present.. thanks a lot for stirring up arguments of religious rhetoric in which no one, especially not you, has an answer. im not saying god exists or that he doesnt, but either way, how could the human mind be able to comprehend the existence of a being so powerful that he created something from nothing. in other words, humans are just too stupid to understand. and leave NEDM out of this. u fail.
Haha some of the comments by naysayers here are quite interesting:
"Is it any wonder why christianity is
declining worldwide when you got *ssh*l*es like you making yourself appear
like a narrow minded person."
News flash, Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the WORLD. Faster than Islam. Faster than Hinduism. Faster than ATHEISM.
Anyways, the only reason this isn't 5 star'd is because the music doesn't last until the end. Put it on a loop or something.
Oh, and to all the other downvoters, and yes, even you, Max: IT'S JUST A THEORY. YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO BELIEVE IT. For God's sake (lol, puns), do your own damn research.
I'll talk about a person which I've met when I was young. In 198X we've found Nazz's top secret
material called Abatros, a plan which never was put to practice. Imperial forces Generalissimo
Killt had never seen this plan, and decided to materialize this plan. The federation decided to
stop his attempt by sending our hero Super Joe, but llost contact with him. Our brave man (you
the player) was sent to the empire with a special mission to rescue Super Joe, this story
begins from here.
"Hey Max. YTMND can host site upon site about n*gg*rs, gays, countries we
may hate, websites we may despise, movies we like, more n*gg*rs, n*gg*rs
stealing things, people crushing the WTC, JFK getting his head blown off,
dicks, and countless other negative images, but you choose this persons to
post a picture of George Zimmer stroking a dick and call this person a
f*cking tool? You need to back off and analyze. Unbelievable and very
disappointing."
QFT
"Hey Max. YTMND can host site upon site about WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WTHIS SITE SUCKS BECAUSE IT USES FLAWED LOGIC WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Can someone please explain this to me? I don't want to watch that again. Here's my problem. Causality holds that something, A, had to cause B. In order for this to be true, A would have to occur before B. "Before" is time-relative. Because the beginning of the Universe marks the beginning of time, (time is a part of the universe), there was no time "before" the universe began, so there is no "before the universe." If there is no time, there is no "before." It therefore seems naive to assume that causality is absolute law, and more naive still to use it as an argument for something existing "before" the universe existed.
Where do you counter the simple fact that "The first cause" might = Space/Time/Matter?
OOOPS.
You're entire arguement is this:
Everything came to be from something, so it must be god. What created god? You squash THAT arguement by saying "God always is. He's the first cause" Wow, great arguement, einstein. I could say my left nut was the first cause. Your whole arguement is based on nothing.
As many people have already pointed out against Aquinas's arguement - it;s a self defeating theory. Philosophically it boils down to God exists because something had to create the universe, but then you're left with the problem, who created God and you're back to square one. (Personally I prefer the watch arguement)but as a Christian myself I realize that its counter productive to Christianity to prove God's existence. If God is proven to exist that eliminates faith from the equation. You don't have a strong faith if you believe something based on emperical evidence. Faith comes from the heart, facts come from the mind. So please, Christians, believe but stop using old arguements as proof. You don't need facts to believe, and thats what its all about...
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link