This is why I think God exists.

use logic please

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.

Say it came from X1, then where did X1 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X1 came from X2, then where did X2 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X2 came from X3, then where did X3 come from? It must have come from something.


If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started. But we know that things exist, so there must have been some Xn which created itself, but now we have the problem that the notion of self-creation does not make sense for anything which is constrained by space and time like humans are constrained by space and time.

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

Atheists often ask questions of religious people which would require religious people to fully understand God, it is totally unreasonable to expect any human being, absolutely constrained by time and space, to fully understand this God which transcends time and space. That's been said before, but it makes sense.

I'm sure others have made similar arguments to this but this is how I explain my opinion.

MagicMarker

If you think Xn created itself, why can't X1 have created itself?

KidKeith89

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.

Say it came from X1, then where did X1 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X1 came from X2, then where did X2 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X2 came from X3, then where did X3 come from? It must have come from something.


If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started. But we know that things exist, so there must have been some Xn which created itself, but now we have the problem that the notion of self-creation does not make sense for anything which is constrained by space and time like humans are constrained by space and time.

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

Atheists often ask questions of religious people which would require religious people to fully understand God, it is totally unreasonable to expect any human being, absolutely constrained by time and space, to fully understand this God which transcends time and space. That's been said before, but it makes sense.

I'm sure others have made similar arguments to this but this is how I explain my opinion.

Why does "existence" have to have been created or have a beginning point? You say that humans are constrained by time and space, which is true. But the extent of our logical mind also has constraints. The concept of "no beginning" is impossible to fathom because we look for patterns and logical sequences or whatever you wanna call it.

IamtheWalrus

"This thing which transcends time and space is God." - it's certainly possible and highly improbable.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you think Xn created itself, why can't X1 have created itself?

I think that the notion of "self creation" does not make sense in a setting constrained by the parameters of time and space.

use logic please

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

"This thing which transcends time and space is God." - it's certainly possible and highly improbable.

Why is it so improbable? You haven't constructed argument.

KidKeith89

use logic please wrote: »

I think that the notion of "self creation" does not make sense in a setting constrained by the parameters of time and space.

How did "god" come into existence? What created him/her/it?

dlofnep

Who created God?

Ickle Magoo

You are forgetting the other option - we don't know what happened or what conditions existed prior to the big bang. I don't feel the need to insert whatever religion or deity into the equation, I'm happy with "I don't know and will assume natural causes unless it can be shown to involve the supernatural".

I'm also willing to say that there may well be your god transcending space and time but until such a point that he shows himself or you are able to show him to me, I have no reason to suppose he exists. I have no issue that religious people don't fully understand their god, given the lack of supporting evidence, the multitude of beliefs and the general fuzzy invisibility of it all, that's hardly surprising. Really, it's the fact they have as much supporting evidence as I have for unicorns is where it all goes awry.

simplistic2

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.

Say it came from X1, then where did X1 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X1 came from X2, then where did X2 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X2 came from X3, then where did X3 come from? It must have come from something.


If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started. But we know that things exist, so there must have been some Xn which created itself, but now we have the problem that the notion of self-creation does not make sense for anything which is constrained by space and time like humans are constrained by space and time.

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

Atheists often ask questions of religious people which would require religious people to fully understand God, it is totally unreasonable to expect any human being, absolutely constrained by time and space, to fully understand this God which transcends time and space. That's been said before, but it makes sense.

I'm sure others have made similar arguments to this but this is how I explain my opinion.

It is illogical to assume that something came from nothing.

However it could make sense to assume there always was everything or the possibility of everything which is enough to eliminate the possibility of a single creator.

Max Power1

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you think Xn created itself, why can't X1 have created itself?

Expanding on this point a bit.

Christians dismiss the big bang theory with "who started the big bang".

Who created god?
EDIT: As Dlofnep said!

Owen

Just because you don't understand everything about the Universe, doesn't mean you get to say 'God did it' to fill in the gaps*. It's that type of thinking that conjured up Banshees, Fairy Forts, Leprechauns and Astrology.

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing a comedian.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

I think that the notion of "self creation" does not make sense in a setting constrained by the parameters of time and space.

Time and space as we know it only began to exist at the moment of the big bang, we don't know what came prior to this.

smcgiff

KidKeith89 wrote: »

How did "god" come into existence? What created him/her/it?

God is beyond such trivialities as mere paradox *Hrmmmmpf*

krudler

dlofnep wrote: »

Who created God?

We did.

maximoose

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Really, it's the fact they have as much supporting evidence as I have for unicorns is where it all goes awry.

hear hear

simple blind faith/"prove he doesnt exist" is never going to win over the non believers

use logic please

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Why does "existence" have to have been created or have a beginning point? You say that humans are constrained by time and space, which is true. But the extent of our logical mind also has constraints. The concept of "no beginning" is impossible to fathom because we look for patterns and logical sequences or whatever you wanna call it.

You are right, our logical minds are constrained, but we have to work with the logic we have in order to gain understanding. Using my logic as well as I could, I came to my conclusion. Of course, the human mind can always be wrong on matters beyond its comprehension.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

You are right, our logical minds are constrained, but we have to work with the logic we have in order to gain understanding. Using my logic as well as I could, I came to my conclusion. Of course, the human mind can always be wrong on matters beyond its comprehension.

Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, doesn't sound like you're using logic to me.

''Where knowledge ends, religion begins''

bnt

Thomas Aquinas used this argument - or one very much like it - as one of his "Five Ways". On Wikipedia it's called the First Cause argument:

"But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

The short answer to that: even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God". Isaac Asimov had some fun with this concept in his short story The Last Question.

IamtheWalrus

use logic please wrote: »

Why is it so improbable? You haven't constructed argument.

You say there had to be a creator, which may be true. You say that that creator is God. I'm saying it is more likely to have been something natural. If we lived in a world where there was no such thing as religion, you wouldn't automatically look at the world and think 'Some all powerful being must have created this'.

liamw

dlofnep wrote: »

Who created God?

Well he did say that Xn created itself and that Xn was God.

The problem is, use_logic_please, is that you are saying everything has to have a cause, but then you are not applying that same logic at Xn. Why not? You're breaking your initial premise.

Your argument is well refuted here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

use logic please

dlofnep wrote: »

Who created God?

If someone created God, then they'd be God. I think God exists unconstrained by space and time, hence he wouldn't need a creator or anything to be "before him" since "before" is a concept which does not make sense in a setting where time is not a constraint. Maybe God "created itself," I don't know, I can't explain any situation which is unconstrained by space and time.

krudler

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Just because you don't understand everything about the Universe, doesn't mean you get to say 'God did it' to fill in the gaps*. It's that type of thinking that conjured up Banshees, Fairy Forts, Leprechauns and Astrology.

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing a comedian.

Oh come on now everyone knows leprechauns are extinct.

robindch

Almost a post a minute. Well done folks!

dlofnep

use logic please wrote: »

If someone created God, then they'd be God. I think God exists unconstrained by space and time, hence he wouldn't need a creator or anything to be "before him" since "before" is a concept which does not make sense in a setting where time is not a constraint. Maybe God "created itself," I don't know, I can't explain any situation which is unconstrained by space and time.

If something can create itself, why is there a need for a God?

use logic please

liamw wrote: »

Well he did say that Xn created itself and that Xn was God.

The problem is that you are saying everything has to have a cause, but then you are not applying that same logic at Xn. Why not? You're breaking your initial premise.

Your argument is well refuted here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

I'm saying that God can break what we can't break, he can exist unconstrained by space and time. I'll check that link.

liamw

use logic please wrote: »

I'm saying that God can break what we can't break, he can exist unconstrained by space and time. I'll check that link.

I think you're making a mistake by applying the limitations of human understanding (in terms of space and time) to the reality of the universe.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.

Premise 6 conflicts with quantum mechanics because, as we have seen, quantum electrodynamics claims that subatomic particles can come into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. These particles have a beginning in time, but they have no cause because vacuum fluctuations are purely random events. Such particles, then, serve as a counterexample to premise 6.

Premise 7 conflicts with relativity theory because the general theory of relativity claims that there was no time before there was a universe. Time and the universe are coterminous-they came into existence together. This finding of Einstein's was anticipated by Augustine who proclaimed, "The world and time had both one beginning. The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time."[9] If there was no time before there was a universe, the universe can't have a beginning in time.

Max Power1

use logic please wrote: »

I'm saying that God can break what we can't break, he can exist unconstrained by space and time. I'll check that link.

I would implore you to "use logic please" and reconsider that statement.

The lwas of space/time/physics etc cannot be superseded by the supernatural.

use logic please

dlofnep wrote: »

If something can create itself, why is there a need for a God?

I didn't say anything created itself. I said that God may have "created itself", I don't know.

Ickle Magoo

use logic please wrote: »

If someone created God, then they'd be God. I think God exists unconstrained by space and time, hence he wouldn't need a creator or anything to be "before him" since "before" is a concept which does not make sense in a setting where time is not a constraint. Maybe God "created itself," I don't know, I can't explain any situation which is unconstrained by space and time.

You can't explain any situation which is unconstrained by space and time but you are confident enough in your theistic assertions of a god that transcends space and time to put it to a forum of religious sceptics? I suggest you are not paying much heed to your own title.

dlofnep

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say anything created itself. I said that God may have "created itself", I don't know.

So if God may have created itself, why can't the Universe create itself?

use logic please

Max Power1 wrote: »

I would implore you to "use logic please" and reconsider that statement.

The lwas of space/time/physics etc cannot be superseded by the supernatural.

You've assumed that something supernatural cannot exist. You've assumed you're right. The use of logic does not necessarily imply the lack of any supernatural being.

Max Power1

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say anything created itself. I said that God may have "created itself", I don't know.

Isnt the religious view that god DID create himself and from that point create the universe in seven days?

Seems like you are backtracking.

Karl Hungus

I believe it was Dara O'Briain who said "Just because there are gaps in our knowledge, doesnt mean you get to fill it in with whatever fairytail nonsense you like." Which I think is an apt quote in this situation.

There's also the logical fallacy that if there is such a thing as Xn in this situation, it doesn't follow that this is the biblical "God" character. It's an astounding leap in logic to presume that if something had created the universe, it's the same thing that says you shouldn't work on Sundays and shellfish are an abomination. It's logic that you've worked out from a foregone conclusion, there is a god, it's the same character from the bible, here's the logic I've worked out to support that reasoning. It might as well be an argument for the flying spaghetti monster.

liamw

use logic please wrote: »

I'm saying that God can break what we can't break, he can exist unconstrained by space and time. I'll check that link.

Here's your LOGIC:
[1] (∀x) Fx where Fx stands for "x exists and thus must have a cause"

followed by asserting:

[2] (∃x) ~Fx where the x in question is your God

Postulates [1] and [2] cannot simultaneously be true.

You're just conventiently breaking your own logic at your God.

KidKeith89

use logic please wrote: »

If someone created God, then they'd be God. I think God exists unconstrained by space and time, hence he wouldn't need a creator or anything to be "before him" since "before" is a concept which does not make sense in a setting where time is not a constraint. Maybe God "created itself," I don't know, I can't explain any situation which is unconstrained by space and time.

Is the bible the only reason you think God would be a 'he'?

IamtheWalrus

Can you imagine a day when we found out, conclusively, how it all began. Frig me that'd be class.

strobe

Here is possible alternative explanation to "god created it's self and then the universe. Originally posted by SponsoredWalk.

I don't suggest that the following is definitively true, but it may be. So a god is not the only logical possibility which is what you seem to be suggesting. It's quite long and a bit technical in parts but I'd invite you to read it.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67025163&postcount=184

Every theory is within the confines of after the moment of creation because as far as we know TIME DIDN'T EXIST before the big bang!

Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)

Mark I. Vuletic


Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.
Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.
Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)
The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)
[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66)
In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)
Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]
There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)
Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)
In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)
Link

So, something can come out of nothing, Welcome to theoretical physics

Basically if god created it's self then "existance" or the universe could have created it's self. If god always existed in one form or another then "existance" or the universe could have always existed in one form or another without any guiding intelligence.

Furthermore, if some intelligence did create it's self and then everything else why has it, as far as any observation can conclude, just let it all play out without it's influence since then? It would seem a rather odd and fairly unlikely thing to do.

Maybe god/some entity or intelligence did create everything but there is far more logical reason to believe that is not the case than to believe it is.

This is all just going on the presumption that god is some mystery entity of which nothing whatsoever is known. If we start getting into Christian or Muslim or Hindu gods the logical reasons to believe these gods do or don't exist becomes even more stacked in favour of them not existing.

CerebralCortex

Can't wait until this gets into free will that's when the fun starts... ...oops I may have started it!

robindch

use logic please wrote: »

This thing which transcends time and space is God.

You're arguing for deism.

How does this relate to christianity and wossname who showed up in first-century Palestine?

Zillah

Axiom 1: "assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything"

- Patently false. Time and space came into existence with the Big Bang, therefore any discussion about cause and effect in regards to the Big Bang is meaningless.

Axiom 2: "It must have come from something"

-Unsupportable. It may very well have happened that everything came from nothing. Never in human experience has "nothing" existed, so we have no experimental evidence. You might be uncomfortable with this notion but your assertion otherwise is baseless and arbitrary.

This is just your axiomatic position and it's riddled with flaws. I haven't even touched your arguments yet, but I'll give them the brief version: Even if we concede everything else, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that your first uncaused cause need be an intelligent God. It might just have easily been a colour, or a particle or anything that meets the criteria "can cause itself". Not to mention the logical problems with the very notion of something being able to cause itself.

So yeah, your argument has been made far better in the past, and those people were as wrong as you are.

MagicMarker

I think we scared the OP away already

PDN

Max Power1 wrote: »

Isnt the religious view that god DID create himself and from that point create the universe in seven days?

There is no one 'religious view'.

The orthodox and historic Christian view is that God is Eternal, and so was never created and certainly did not create Himself.

strobe

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think we scared the OP away already

To be fair he is one person trying to debate about ten on the other side. Give him a minute to read the posts, never mind formulate responses to them.

Zillah

strobe wrote: »

To be fair he is one person trying to debate about ten on the other side. Give him a minute to read the posts, never mind formulate responses to them.

I like to think of the A&A forum as a paintball game, except we've moved in and know all the best lines of fire. People wander in for a game, and walk out again seconds later, dripping in paint and complaining that it's not fair.

liamw

Zillah wrote: »

I like to think of the A&A forum as a paintball game, except we've moved in and know all the best lines of fire. People wander in for a game, and walk out again seconds later, dripping in paint and complaining that it's not fair.

This reminds me of when we used to play Counter Strike in the comp sci labs in college all day and a stranger walked in from another department for a game. HEADSHOT

strobe

Zillah wrote: »

I like to think of the A&A forum as a paintball game, except we've moved in and know all the best lines of fire. People wander in for a game, and walk out again seconds later, dripping in paint and complaining that it's not fair.

use logic please

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.
This thing which transcends time and space is God.

Please see my sig :rolleyes:
aka "argument from ignorance" is a load of codswallop

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The orthodox and historic Christian view is that God is Eternal, and so was never created and certainly did not create Himself.

Vaguely off topic -- the Nicene Creed states that god begat Jesus so, in that sense, god did create himself:

Nicene wrote:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Vaguely off topic -- the Nicene Creed states that god begat Jesus so, in that sense, god did create himself:

Only in the sense of being wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus was 'begotten not made' - so no creation there.

Still, never mind, it appears to be a matter of pride among many atheists to make inaccurate statements about what Christians believe and, when corrected, to say, "Well, it's all a load of codswallop anyway!"

magicbastarder

if god is eternal and had no beginning, and he created the universe 14 or so billion years ago, then why did he wait (eternity - 14 billion years) before creating the universe? is he lazy? if it took him an infinite amount of time to create a finite universe, he's not so omnipotent.

maybe he was just watching reruns of friends.