Here is my argument, I don't state it as fact, but I'd like it to be perfected, so keep it on topic. Quote what part/s of the argument you can refute/ debate against and post it so that I can perfect my argument to the fullest possible. thanks ahead of time for the help! The Need for a Creator How could the universe be without a creator? The universe is undoubtedly finite, or possessive of a beginning. The universe could not exist forever because it changes. Should the universe be eternal it would be like a number line, though we would always be on zero. There would be no date to build changes upon--we would always be in the beginning. We would be at the building point from which the never ending past would progress and the never ending future. We can't just start from one, because, what got us to one? And from where? It doesn't take much thought to see that the universe has a beginning... So, how much of the universe has a beginning....just matter? Or what about space and time? Yes, all of it. Matter we know has a beginning because it changes (temperature), it cannot exist without changing. Space is just the measurement between matter, not a dimension, just the volume of nothingness. So without matter, it could not exist. Time is what I was talking about at first, so we can all come to the conclusion that all three of those things, that make up the universe, have a beginning. Anything that has a beginning needs a cause: Basket-Weaver Report-Writer Program-Programmer Universe-God Q- What if it was just a big explosion? A-Needs matter, and pressure build up is change. Q-What if there was a world before this, with people and stuff? A-Needs change, they had to think, walk around, breathe, and eat didn't they? This sums up my whole theory, usually when I have these discussions though they go on...and on....and on....usually because the person I'm talking to is being a butthead and using anti-God jokes as debate points... Some use a graph as an example of the universe, but the universe isn't 2d, a graph, or any related steady progression. The universe has no slope, y=mx+b doesn't work with it as a whole. Perfection Edit #1: What analogy can we use to understand it then? Imagine this, you have a track, and a runner, it is a straight never looping track to sprint on. If he had no starting point and the track went on infinitely in the back and front, he would never make any distance. The same amount of track would be on either side of him at all times. He needs a point at which to measure his progression, a starting line. This way he can actually change his position in the track and make distance. Starting point-Beginning of Time Endless Track-Eternal Universe Track Runner-Us Track-Universe Another "counter argument" is that my definition or comprehension of infinity is flawed. Here is my concept, or the dictionaries, they are the same so call it whichever: Infinite: Endless The Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity." This means if the track runner adds distance behind him, and subtract from in front on and infinite track, still, the same thing is on both sides, infinity. Out of counter arguments? No? Still more redefinitions? State them in this thread so that I can perfect my argument please! Thanks for the help! Perfection Edit #2: It was brought to my attention that my example with the basket and the weaver was flawed, how so? Claimed, it was that there were things that require no intelligence to start them: Rock--Formed by natural process requiring no intelligence Grand Canyon--Formed by a natural process requiring no intelligence I digress, those completely require intelligence. Each one was a process, a series of activities that nature had no choice in performing. It HAD to do those things, it literally had no ability to disobey. If something is the highest thing in existence, can it have rules that it MUST obey; that it cannot possibly disobey? No. Should that be true something would have to place those limits upon it. Something doesn't just exist with a list of things it HAS to do. This, with a misunderstanding, can be used against me. I am a Christian, though that is not the debate present, I must defend it here. Some would say "But the Christian God can't do evil." A Christian who knows what the Bible actually says replies, "Um, yes he can, who told you that?" We believe God has complete control over all the universe, including himself. Should God exist, he would have to be without change; outside of time, making everything an eternal now, no past or present, only now. So should he resist sin once, and be holy once, he is eternally sinless, and holy. Perfection Edit #3: [Part One From Different View] To prove this, I need to define a few things first. This is so that you will know what I am talking about throughout this essay and we will be free of confusion. Anyone reading this skeptically, please, read throughout the end, or let me know which part you were lost at. Time: The measure of Change in matter. Space: Distance between matter Matter: Anything that has Mass and Volume. First, we must know that all these things are FINITE, in order to prove that to you, I will use this: If, after an infinite amount of time, something would happen. That something is anything, fill in the blank, but it would occur after an infinite amount of time, would it ever occur? No. Never would you reach a point where you could say, "an infinite amount of time has passed, let ______ occur." Lets fill that blank in with what you just did two seconds ago, even if it was taking a breath. Think about that, it is in the blank, so if there had been an infinite amount of time before that breath, it never would have occurred. It is the same situation, just fill in the blank with something that has already occurred, since it occurred, infinity could not have preceded it. So now we know TIME HAD A BEGINNING. Should time have a beginning, so would space and matter. Matter changes without observable exception, not the smallest measurement of time passes without matter changing somehow. Temperature is the measure of molecular movement that occurs everywhere, every when. Currently Absolute Zero is a myth, it cannot be achieved, until it is achieved this theory stands. Since matter cannot exist without time, neither can space, because space is a measurement requiring the presence of matter. This means something had to create it all. Something had to have been there forever, with no beginning, because if there was nothing, where did everything come from? Nothing can only produce nothing, if there was nothing we would be nothing, saying nothing made something is ridiculous. So what was this thing that was there all of forever? Let's give this "thing" an image. In order to make all of this, it would have to be immensely powerful; look at all the energy in the world. It would have to have extreme intelligence; look at all the science and detail of the world. It would have to exist outside of matter, time and space in order to create it, obviously. If it did not exist in time, matter, and space, it would be omnipresent, because it is not limited to space as to where it can exist, and it would perceive time as all now. It would see time from outside, and see all of it. Since it is omnipresent every moment of everyday, it would know all. Here is our turning point for this Characterization, it would be sentient. We are sentient, and sentience cannot come from no sentience. A universe unaware of itself cannot just realize in one being all of the sudden that it IS. Now we are dealing with a he/she. He/she would have to have infinite life, living forever in the past as they do in the future. So, now we have a sentient he/she that is powerful, eternal, omnipresent, all-knowing, and sentient. Hmmmmm.... Who does that sound like?
your argument is flawed good sir! You say that the universe is finite, and in that you are correct. It goes to where it stops and then nothing infinitely. There are no corners and it is imposible to think of something that is infinite from a single point. If it is a line we could not possibly imagine a line going in a single direction so we come up with the closest thing, a circle. But this is where you are wrong in your analogy; a circle is just an easy way to view infinity. There are however two types of infinity in math... something that goes on forever never changing because we are missing a piece to finish it, and something that repeats endlessly with variability. I think the universe is the later. Almost completly unpredictable in what comes next and beyond what we know, how do you know that there isn't another universe trillions of lightyears away. So far that from our stand point we would never be able to see it. The superstring theory makes this possible just not probable. One last thing, the first thing you learn in physical science is that matter cannot be created or distroyed.
I don't know where your circle thing came from, it was kind of random, but whatever. I agree with the later being the universe, and the earlier being before it, in your math examples of infinity. There can't be a universe before ours because it would need to change, the creatures needed to think, eat, breathe, etc... I know it can't be created or destroyed, but that is in the closed system--who made that rule? Read my perfection edit, the third one.
We already invalidated this argument.. The basis behind your idea, that time must have had a beginning, is disputed. If we assume that time did have a beginning, then yes, there must have been a creator. However, there are much better formed ideas which theorize that time is a dimension, just like any other. If we assume that time is a dimension, the basis of your argument falls apart. I won't argue how your idea of infinity is flawed- this has already been explained to you.
You're making a completely incorrect and illogical statement. Something does not have to change. I ray of light in deep space away from all stars will not change. In order for change to occur there has to be a changing factor which is not always present, like in deep space, beyond everything. What you're doing however is taking one point and considering it to another. This is not infinity. This is called a line segment where you're measuring the distance in between points. If you look ahead of us or behind us, you'll see infinity. Time is like the equation 1 divided by 3. The answer is .33 repeating. The answer doesn't fluctuate or change it stays infinite but predictable. Time is very much like this because time will always move forward, nothing can stop it. You're still basing this off the misconception that something absolutely has to change. However it does not. There needs to be a force that creates motion. If you suspended something in space in complete 0 gravity it will not move unless you push it. Until you can explain this I will not justify your last part in anyway.
You don't seem to get it. Asking for a beginning of the universe or what came before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. It doesn't make any sense. Quick clarification. If time is a measure of change then why is god not limited by it if he changes in order to create and send his son?
He never changed, his will was always to create, and with no change, and him being outside of time, it's not like he waited infinity to create us, he just did. Because if you are outside of time, and omnipresent, everything is now, so he just created, if you will. His son was always there: "In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God" -John 1:1 If you doubt that it's talking about Jesus, in the next page of the book you read: "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us." How much clearer can it get [on whether the word refers to Jesus]. Okay, I admit that could have been unclear, take this, it means the same thing, just more clearly: If after you flipped a light switch an infinite amount of times, you will get a chocolate bar--will you ever be able to, "I've flipped it an infinite amount of times, hand it over,"? No. [I know, I stole the example from The Way The Truth] All I'm doing is replacing that blank with a filler, you know, like homework we had in kindergarten? I think the decimal reference was like way off though, I didn't follow. I am familiar with inertia....I'm not that stupid... This is explained by Newton's laws of Motion--#1 to be specific, if you want to learn about inertia, look him up--I don't think forgehub is the best place. In case you were suggesting that it was not changing, I have news for you. That something is matter, or anti-matter, both do absolutely have to change. Matter cannot exist in any form without molecular movement. Suppose you put one atom out there, in 0 gravity, no unbalanced forces...I'll give you that. Though, you can't apply that because it's just as much a myth as absolute zero. Even space has a little gravity, so it would always be moving. ALSO: should you put out one atom, it would be absolute zero, which doesn't scientifically exist---it can't be used as a debate point because it's just as unproven as the theory of evolution. [lol-evolution]
Wait, huh? That's like saying that numbers do not continue on into -999,999,999, 999,999,999,999, 10e99, googleplexes, etc., because the numbers inside the number line can be different. And commonly, a lot of scientists believe in the Big Bang theory, which has much proof; there's the expansion of the universe to consider. The expansion of infinity. It's mindboggling as ****. Matter has a beginning because it changes? I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because it exists, it has to have begun? Maybe you mean that energy turned into matter, and that that matter is the one that now changes temperature. Still, too confused to continue to extrapolate on that. Space isn't the measurement between matter, at least not in the sense that I think that you're using it for your arguement. Space is anything that has length, width, or height. Time is space and duration. And matter is only finite because you can comprehend it. Time is a dimension higher completely. It's like comparing Tic-Tac-Toe to chess. You can achieve a perfect play in TTT; much, much harder to do the same in chess. Yeah, but you're saying that those events were caused by a being. Just like how ancient beliefs thought that thunders were caused by angry gods and that the wind was caused by someone blowing really hard. Except that now, it's a modern belieft that uses an individual to explain an event that's too hard for us to explain for now. And does it have to be 'God'? Why not 'Eurynome' who 'created the universe from Chaos'? As for the rest of everything else you said, for some reason, you're looping on your own arguments and disproving yourself with common knowldege. At least that means less work for me.
I like how your argument is the exact same one used by every creationist, but you're not as good at cleverly hiding your false assumptions as the professionals. Wrong. And even if it has a beginning, that says absolutely nothing about conditions before that beginning. No. The first 3 are man-made, they have to be built with a specific planned purpose. The 4th is a naturally occurring thing, like an ocean. "Wow look how flat that ocean is, somebody must have leveled it by hand!" Of course, we know how gravity works on liquids, and how the curvature of the Earth makes the ocean appear perfectly flat. The point is that natural processes create natural things with no thought or purpose, including the universe. This data coming from the "from the ass" institute of research I assume? There are many theories about the universe, and possible past universes. Without evidence none can be truly confirmed, but besides the circular theory, and the line theory you've presented as "mx+b" there is also a wave theory, similar to the circle. Arbitrary points work fine to measure distance. If the runner spits on the ground, he can measure his progress from there. You're falsely saying that only the beginning or the end of the track can be used to measure progress. Once again, you're saying that something had to design something, and then you're failing to apply that same logic to your highest point which you're calling God. If nothing had to design God, then why can't physical constants and laws of physics exist without a designer? Don't you dare say that "everything needs a designer" because you just talked in a circle and ignored again that you're arbitrarily placing an unnecessary designer with no designer of its own. How about I give you wikipedia's opening paragraph about time? Your definition is arbitrary and not universally accepted since there is no truly universal definition of time. Since that very definition shows up in piles of creationist babble, I'm going to go ahead and attribute it to Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort some other lunatic whose career is to talk endlessly and never ever show a sign of changing his opinion in the face of evidence. How about "Time, matter, and space were there for all of forever." Whoa, crazy. No creationist yet has given a good reason why time or matter could not exist without a creator, but a creator could exist without one. The professionals, like you, simply ignore the question and say God over and over again.
Well it could have been my will all along to sit here and jack off to these arguments but that doesn't change the fact that in the act of rubbing out one of my responses to you that I'm not changing. For instance, the universe exists. God is a prerequisite by default to its existence. The universe could not exist before god. God always existed. Therefore, god creating the universe does not constitute change because he always had wanted to do that. That's bullshit^ That's something you wank off to. Just for the sake of continuing this already flawed discussion. How does god creating something not constitute a change? I'm not saying he changed his mind or hadn't already planned on it.
For all we know, the universe could just be a science experiment, and we just live inside of a meta-world that's being observed be these scientists. They must be so paradoxically angry/proud of aethiests.
I thought you meant his will would change. But yes, God never changed, he created something, but that doesn't change HIM, it changes his creation. You walking to the store, or molding clay is change because you are made of matter, something in you is moving, reshaping, etc.. God would have to be outside of matter, and time, and space, in order to create it. So he is immaterial, and infinite. He has no shape, it's like a line with height, but it's not expanding forever, it just is forever. It is everywhere all at once, infinitely. So his shape doesn't change. To the other guy: LOL - Try again
Man I love how when the validity of god is questioned he's whisked away to a realm where our earthly instruments can't detect him. Pathetic and sad.
If I'm the other guy, then I'll take that as a complement. You can't answer the arguments, so you ignore them. Typical creationist BS.
Super easy concept. God as a being does not change. God produces change as a natural consequence of creation. If god were to exist before the universe some change would have to occur so that he could create. His will, mind, or ontology may not change but he is producing change. Just like I don't change when I breath out. My breathing doesn't change my will but it does change my surroundings.
If such a 'Perfect' world needed a creator, the creator would have too be equally or greater in 'Perfection', this would therefore mean the creator would need a creator. Your logic is flawed.
Honestly prosper you're not even debating. Debating is the give-take that is necessary to reach a conclusion. You're giving plenty, and taking none. You're ignoring arguments, don't deny it, and walking over what people are saying. You cannot say that we're not following the give-take either. I spent about an hour yesterday learning to perfect my argument because you raised some interesting questions. However you're being completely intractable. I found out through learning, since i last argued with you that one of your main arguments is false. You say quote "The universe is undoubtedly finite, or possessive of a beginning" this is not true. How could you possibly know that the universe is finite? From what i learned, our deepest pictures of far-off space show (guess what?) more stars. Just because we cannot see something, it doesn't mean its not there unless we can prove otherwise, and all evidence point to more stars, beyond our view point. And remember when you respond to this prosper give-take
String theory might explain everything someday we just need to learn how to understand it too lol. String theory will do horrible things to your brain but it helps explain everything and how the universe was created. I will not explain the theory because it is to complicated for steven hawking meaning it is to complicated for me or anyone here lol.
I meant this guy: ---------------------------------------------------- Okay, why don't you think about that? Something/body that we claim exists outside of our universe and cannot be touched, is whisked away to the place we claimed him to be in the first place when you question him? That makes total sense.[lol] --------------------------------------------------------- Your breathing does change you, it rearranges your matter particles, inflates/deflates your lungs, relieves your mind of it's desire for oxygen. Try a better example next time. [I'm not intending to be rude when I say that, although it sounds like I do]. --------------------------------------------------- I never said they didn't continue that far, I myself believe that time is endless, but not eternal, which is what we're debating now. I can agree, the Big Bang theory probably has proof I'm unaware of, but I never said there wasn't. ----------------------------------------------------- [Silent oo Death;897059] Honestly prosper you're not even debating. Debating is the give-take that is necessary to reach a conclusion. You're giving plenty, and taking none. You're ignoring arguments, don't deny it, and walking over what people are saying. You cannot say that we're not following the give-take either. I spent about an hour yesterday learning to perfect my argument because you raised some interesting questions. However you're being completely intractable. I found out through learning, since i last argued with you that one of your main arguments is false. You say quote "The universe is undoubtedly finite, or possessive of a beginning" this is not true. How could you possibly know that the universe is finite? From what i learned, our deepest pictures of far-off space show (guess what?) more stars. Just because we cannot see something, it doesn't mean its not there unless we can prove otherwise, and all evidence point to more stars, beyond our view point. And remember when you respond to this prosper give-take[/quote] I'm sorry I just only respond to stuff that makes at least a little bit of sense, like some guy said because a line on a graph goes on forever in both directions so can the universe--That doesn't deserve a response.