Atheism = self defeating. (page 27)

towerwatchman

Unsure

If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.

But the universe is not timeless. Had a beginning and will have an end.

If the cause is sufficient to produce its effect; then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.

But we don’t find a cause. We speculate the cause.

Why must it be personal?

It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

The cause is a personal being with freedom of the will, His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.

It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time.

Therefore, it must be immaterial and nonphysical.

It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy.

Finally it must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the First Clause.

(William Craig)

towerwatchman

Brainfloss

No deceit. It's just that on a few occasions in this topic you have put forward Hawking as an expert, citing his work to prove athieism is wrong. The expert you cite is a self proclaimed Athiest. If he is indeed the expert you say possibly you are misunderstanding his work.

No, if I am correct we were discussing first cause. And my point was that first cause would have been nonphysical. Supported by Hawking

towerwatchman

whatshallicallmyself

We don't know the universe had a beginning... We can only trace the expansion back so far after which there is only speculation. You are suffering from the gigo effect, presumably brought about by reading creationist literature and believing it to be true.

Let’s have the leading Atheist expert answer this.

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking.

unsure

If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.
Why must it be personal?
It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this?

The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

I do not believe you have answered this.

Finkelstein

Therefore, it must be immaterial and nonphysical.
It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy.
Finally it must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the First Clause.
(William Craig)

In this statement we see theists cant define what is a god, they just say it exists, they wont accept the unknowns because the unknowns doesn't offer available power, its offers essentially nothing.

As far back as mankind has been envisioning supernatural beings, mankind has also been drawing in their own power from out of these supernatural beings. ie. the JWS religion .

Brainfloss

My point is, if you want to convince people to believe in god, fine have at it. It just seems counter productive to direct those following the debate to turn their attention to a genius who has studied the origin of the universe for a lifetime, possibly one of the most respected physicists in history in order to back up a claim and then discount his conclusion.

That very method of argument caused me to become an Athiest. You likely will not convince an Athiest to believe in god most were exposed to god growing up and for whatever reason started looking into his existance.

I'm not sure what your motives are. Are You one of jehovahs witnesses? Otherwise why worry if others believe in god or not.

towerwatchman

Brainfloss

My point is, if you want to convince people to believe in god, fine have at it. It just seems counter productive to direct those following the debate to turn their attention to a genius who has studied the origin of the universe for a lifetime, possibly one of the most respected physicists in history in order to back up a claim and then discount his conclusion.

I am not submitting a lecture from an atheist to support theism, but the leading physicists to support my scientific conclusion. Being atheist or theist has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what your motives are. Are You one of jehovahs witnesses? Otherwise why worry if others believe in god or not.

I am A Christian, my God died to for all, that none shall be lost. Out of gratitude for what He has done for me, I follow His commandments. My post on this forum is a natural outworking of my worldview. My God valued man so much that He died in man’s place as payment for offending a just God.

Contrary when the Atheistic worldview is followed to its logical conclusion; = man has no value.

towerwatchman

Unsure

I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it.

Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.

AllTimeJeff

Hey. I don't know about all of you, but I am watching a great final four game.

For anyone who wants to continue this, much respect, but allow me to point out something. (apologies if someone else said this on say, page 13 of this thread. I didn't read it)

PUTTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SOMEONE WHO IS OSTENSIBLY INVISIBLE ON THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE WHAT NO ONE CAN SEE, OR HAS EVER SEEN EVIDENCE OF, IS UTTER BULLSH*T.

Towerwatchman assumes his belief and evidence is already established. As I always say, please provide your Polaroid. Otherwise, don't attack atheists. Your god is not my god. I don't know her. I haven't met her.

I can just as easily prove the existence of an invisible deity by quoting Lord of the Rings. Which is recognized as a work of fiction. Apply logically as you will, if you can.

If one wishes to have faith and believe in a deity, I don't find fault with that either, so long as your beliefs don't encroach on the rights of others who choose to believe differently. But don't be arrogant and defend what is indefensible.

towerwatchman

To unsure

We do not have proof of any parallel universe.

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this