Basic Bottom Line Argument For God

so God is an abbreviation for "unknown", "unknown cause", "unidentified cause", or ... "I don't know?"

 

I just asked 3 simple questions about your claim:

what is singularity?
what are vacuum fluctuations?
Did/does singularity have any material or immaterial existence in the material world/reality?
You have not even addressed them, less tried to answer once.

You have not even tried to answer them twice.

I gather from your reply that you know the answers but Xns are not capable of understanding the answers, that’s why atheists do not answer. Am I getting it right?

 

Please confirm that the universe was caused by vacuum fluctuations within an infinitely dense point in space. I am very interested in atheistic perception of reality.

If you don’t mind I will further ask you and other atheists:
What is Vacuum?
What is Density?
What is Point?
In what space?
What is the mass of an infinitely dense point (can you calculate) ?
What is the force acting between this point and all other finite masses(can you calculate)?
What is the acceleration...?

Please, atheists, I don’t mind you helping each other.

It is getting more and more interesting.

Why? Within the given context what does make you say so? For instance 5. 5 is immaterial, it is a number, it is an abstract from any specific matter; but it is. The question was, if I may be allowed to clarify, - can you say that singularity is? If I am not clear yet, can you say that singularity exists at least in the same way or in a similar way as numbers?

Answer the above, then I may ask you further questions:
using your own definitions how an infinitely dense point in space would be more like a spatial state than an object? why it seems to scientists that that it would be, but not it is?
why it is not but it would be and what are conditions when it would be,?
and what is importance of an infinitely dense point in space to be more like a spatial state than an object rather than less like a spatial state than an object?

I understand that science is expression of feelings and emotions, but I still would like to coordinate it with the observable and material universe.

I am very interested in atheistic perception of reality.
It is getting more and more interesting.

 

Why would I call impersonal, unthinking physical forces a god?

By your logic, whatever the cause of thunder is, you might as well call it Thor. Thunder exists, therefore Thor exists.

Can you not see how faulty that logic is?

The breakdown of a singularity followed by a rapid expansion of space-time?

No, it really isn't. It's very complicated, and very cool physics. But it's no more godly than simple mechanics.

Your inability to see how a universe could come to exist without divine intervention is not a compelling argument.

 

I can't. Explain.

 

Exactly. "God" is a word that means "the unknown cause of this universe."

Using that definition, God must exist since the universe must have a cause.

See my other thread for more details:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/228187-backing-up-here-again.html

 

well, we all know there are unknowns ... and causative factors that are unknown ....

but if we were going to take the definition of God as "unknown cause" then bacteria, which until relatively recently were the "unknown cause" of many diseases ... were God.

likewise, all viruses were God, as were (and some still are) the geophysical forces which have shaped our planet, and factors which shape human beings and contribute(ed) to a whole range of illnesses

in short, God is all encompassing, and is EVERYTHING that we don't yet understand.

and God's realm will continue to diminish the more we learn .... and may expand at the same time as the more we learn, the more we learn that we don't know.

 

This doesn't work for me. lol

Blackrook will have to rethink this.

 

Why must there be a cause?

 

That explains the beginnings, or evolution, of the universe, but not its creation (or being, if you prefer). Prior to the Planck time, science and religion are forced to agree on . . . . . a big bang.

 

Thunder is not caused by any divine force. Calling it's cause Thor just renames the actual physical force to something with a divine name. Doing so demonstrates exactly nothing about the existence of any god.

 

We can link all the natural causes like links on a chain that goes backwards in time to the beginning of the universe.

Beyond that, science has no explanation, and never will.

 

You are restating and changing your original claim. One more time.
You accept that thunder (or it) has occured. Is it true?
You accept that since it has occured it has a cause. Is it true?
You accept that the cause has to be given a name. Is it true?

 

Maybe so, but your solution is merely to guess at a divine source.

 

Naming something after a God doesn't make that thing a god.

 

It does not.
You have avoided answering the question.
You are aware that you have.
Stay being afraid of the basic truth. It is good that you accept it exists.




Now, you have mentioned singularity. Shall we?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/227797-basic-bottom-line-argument-god-8.html#post4997558

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/227797-basic-bottom-line-argument-god-8.html#post4997536

 

I never said God is divine.

I told you to throw out all the baggage about the Christian God.

All I'm trying to prove is that there is an uncaused cause.

You can call it God, or you can call it something else.

 

Calling it god is pointless.

 

Naming something divine doesn't make that thing divine, naming something actual physical force does not make it not divine. The point is that something exists.

 

God is the customary name assigned to the uncaused cause.

You are free to call it what you will.

 

You are avoiduing the point- "you can call it something else".
And you know that you are. You are not an idiot. You know that and I know that. What is the point of playing one? it is really pointless and waste of time.

 

Alternative views to god, scientific/athiest.

Pure random chaos. Cosmic mistake. Pure nothingness. In short the belief in fcuk all.

 

I already answered, a book is required to fully explain those concepts.

Is that difficult to understand?

 

Hey, if "I were God," you would be one of my favorites, as in a sincerely 'lost' person, full of questions, but who is not w/o hope!

 

If you were God .... well I hope you'd do a better job.

if the position is vacant, you should put in an application.