I am a latecomer to this thread, and have not yet read it all, so forgive me if this has been discussed already:

you definition of god says that he is the creator of all things with a beginning.
This seems to imply that there exists a class of things without a beginning.
If things without a beginning are possible, I hope your proof will not depend on a primal cause.

Let's just get our cards on the table, then. You believe it is equally likely that you and I have always existed versus both of us having had a beginning sometime in the last century? You also believe it is equally likely that the universe has always existed versus having had a beginning? Would that be fair to say?

You are making claims that buck against the trend of evidence that we have before us. I'd say the onus is on you to justify your claims, based on the fact that we do have evidence that the universe began to exist, and we do have evidence that you and I began to exist.

The first concerns evidence of expansion, radioactive background and so on. The latter concerns historical and personal evidence.

Also, I don't think you understand the science of the big bang theory. You keep talking about what happened "before the big bang." And then you start talking about "foam" and what not. I again refer you to the link in my previous post. The physical universe came into existence WITH TIME and not IN TIME. This is the current, standard understanding. There really is no "before the big bang." Hence, susmario believes there is a necessity for a timeless creator.

No, I am saying that you and I, do not exist at all in the way that "we" understand it.



I dont have any evidence that you and I began to exist( remember, it was you who specifically said you werent talking about the body). Glad to hear any evidence you do have.



The big bang is evidence that the universe began to exist, but it doesnt tell us anything about that beginning, about whether an entity created it, whether it popped into existence out of nothing, whether it was a consequence of some quantum state, or just a bubble in a many bubble multiverse, or whatever. And I am saying that if you dont know that, then you cannot compare the "beginning of the universe" to the "beginning of a pie" in any meaningful way.

This just tells us that if we were to rewind the universe, we would get to a singularity. I cant remember who it was ( feynmann?) who said that any time we reach a singularity, it means our understanding is faulty. It tells us nothing about HOW the universe came to be.

Yes, I get that, and it also means that talking about the universe beginning is also meaningless. These concepts ( time coming into existence, timeless creator , etc) are also kind of meaningless to our time based brains. There is no way to understand what it means for there to be no time, or timeless.

Ive never seen anything being to exist either, at least not the way in which the universe is said to. Matter coming into existence. Just seen matter recognized into different things.

I like to return to Step 1:


Please everyone give your view on whether the concept of God above has any component at all which is inconsistent and incoherent with the rest of the components.

This requires that everyone choose one component the most crucial to you that is not consistent and not coherent to the rest of components in the concept of God above in Step 1.

Please limit your post to just a 100 words or less, you see when you write so many words that is a giveaway that you do not have a concise and precise idea of what you are trying to tell readers.


I myself don't find any one component that is inconsistent and incoherent with the rest; all components are mutually among themselves consistent and coherent; so for me the existence of God in the concept concerned is a possibility.



======================

Annex

confirmed troll

(not you)

Yup. Don't think there is any doubt now.

Only other option is mental problems. Which would be sad.

and....we're done.

That's quite alright, I'm fully aware of my limitations. Fortunately there's you and Aaron and a few others to balance the field, I just wish that RLK and Notready posted more.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for Original Position's triumphant return, several threads went by without his input, and I was imagining him coming in to set everyone straight, but it never happened.

Susmario

It appears that you believe in the existence of the Christian God. You also believe there is evidence to support the existence of this God. If your arguments are valid and sound, then you do not need the approval of others before you can give your evidence. This is nothing like a 'field trip' that everyone is taking together. Everyone here has most likely already reached their own conclusions on the topic - including yourself.

If you are genuinely interested in having this discussion, I recommend you go ahead and present your entire argument (the 'field trip' that you have already made). You can go well over 100 words if necessary - completeness is more important than brevity if the argument requires it. I fully expect there to be something to discuss after we know what your position is. You are dragging this out while there is nothing to discuss.

Put another way:
You find it consistent and coherent. Is it accurate?

that IS his whole argument. There isn't a second act. Now, if you first consider Step 1

I really want to give OP the benefit of the doubt. The forum post you linked was nearly 2 years old, and on that forum was a reference to another forum that'd been posted to that looked to be >7yrs ago - if it's a troll, it's a really long-term plan! There's no doubt that there's a major fail to communicate with others though.

I'm not sure what anyone expected here, as if someone was going to prove the existence of God or something. If the likes of WLC, Lennox, Plantinga, etc. aren't accepted here, I fail to see why people's expectations were so high.

? He has been posting there throughout the last couple weeks just like this one, with identical or nearly identical posts in particular the big thing he keeps copy and pasting.

Nobody is expecting him to actually prove god's existence, but he has made it completely clear he has zero interest in actually engaging with anything anyone says, and is just copy and pasting his established little "argument" over and over again.

Thanks everyone for your posts.

I notice that almost all your posts as from atheists are into dodging the issue or muddling up the issue of this thread.

And that is expected because the actual fact and we know it if we just look at the facts of the world and use our reasoning faculty to think correctly, God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning certainly exists, just as the nose in our face exists.


Well, I will now bring up again the issue of this thread which is as follows



Okay, and I have come to the following protocol whereby theists can prove God exists, and/or atheists using the same protocol also can prove God does not exist -- here I will reproduce it again:



See next post.

Okay, please keep in mind Steps 2 3 4 5 of my system or protocol for proving by theists or disproving by atheists on God and His existence, of course understanding God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Now, let us just everyone exchange views on the universe has a beginning or the universe has always existed.

Google is a terrific help for getting to know what things people know for certainty, so I will google the two phrases:

• the universe has a beginning
  the universe has always existed.

Here are the hits respectively on each phrase:


Do you notice, there are about 86,700,000 results for universe has a beginning vs about 2,980,000 results for universe having always existed.

What do we infer from these hits on respectively each phrase of the universe with beginning and the universe always existing?

Here is what I infer on the facts as disclosed by google and from logical thinking:

• There are 96.6770% of scientists writing in the web ascribing to universe with a beginning vs only a scant 3.3229% of unknown scientists for universe having always existed.

What do you say, atheists, don’t the figures translate to 96.6770% certainty of the universe having a beginning, which means in common human understanding, mankind starting with scientists know for sure that the universe has a beginning, just like the nose in our face has a beginning -- I mean if the universe were only the size of our nose, then we are certain of the universe having a beginning as we are certain of our nose having a beginning.


So, atheists, no more dodging and muddling up the issue, what are your critical comments to my finding that the universe has a beginning, and therefore it has need of a cause to come to existence, that is the fact and the logic.

When you write next, please do not anymore go into dodging and muddling up the issue of this thread, talk about or in critique of the universe has a beginning therefore it needs God to bring it to existence.

I think you should try more search engines. One is not enough for something so critical. What does Yahoo find?

I have already responded, at least twice, with why I think you are wrong, but you just ignored my post, and apparently are saying that I am dodging.

Why are you asking for responses when you just ignore what is said, and keep repeating your initial premise?

Don't multiply things foolishly, that is what atheists are into all the time, dodging and muddling up the issue, and playing the nitwit -- forgive me for the realistic though harsh word.

Give me an argument for the non-existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Go to the universe starting with the nose in your face and search for all the instances of existence with a beginning, and all the instances of existence that have always existed.

And report here on your findings.

And don't seek fallacious escape valve with the false principle that you cannot prove a negative; have you never heard of a negative argument which is in direct opposition to a positive argument?

If not, then search with any search engines you want for this phrase [exactly, including the asterisks and the quotations marks] * "negative-argument" * .

And don't anymore always run to hiding with a "I cannot prove a negative no one can."

Preferably with google because that is the most clever thing to do first in searching the web and/or internet.

I believe that the easiest explanation to the ex-nihilo problem, is, as WLC likes to say, a transcendent, immaterial, uncaused-cause. I'm surprised more people don't accept an intelligent creator by this alone, but I don't think that this alone proves God.

I think Susmario has explained his view pretty clear in his last post, which is not unlike what I've just described.

Somebody is mad they haven't been banned yet?

If you want a harsh word here is one, there are theists on this forum, saying nothing of actual academics, who can circles around you in making your own argument. You are a terrible advocate for your view. You are also either an a-hole with a stick up his a-hole, or if you're somehow a nice person, then you're completely delusional; not about God but about the quality and effectiveness of your debating 'style'.

I can't quite figure out which of many options is the funniest bit about it. I think I'm going for the way that google results that allegedly help his side are from scientists (which is hilarious in itself) but that when they don't help him get the additional qualifier unknown scientists.