There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[Ford]

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause,

Of course you are. You are willing to have a "Creator" come into being without a cause.


Not only that, but once you've got that special pleading out of the way, you are willing to allow that "Creator" to bring literally everything into being from nothing.

 

[dockeen]

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause,

Of course you are. You are willing to have a "Creator" come into being without a cause.

Of course - the creator is always taken to be a special case. Because.....he's the creator.

 

[Angry Floof]

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause,

Of course you are. You are willing to have a "Creator" come into being without a cause.


Not only that, but once you've got that special pleading out of the way, you are willing to allow that "Creator" to bring literally everything into being from nothing.

Except for evil. That's somebody else's doing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you can't make observations of it, how can you tell us how it behaves?

How can something behave if it doesn't exist?

Now, now, you're trying to THINK this through.
I was asking for any actual evidence.
Like the ordnance advisor to the president who kept telling him that the atomic bomb could never work because of his years of experience with bombs.
If it's not your area of expertise, then your opinion is pretty meaningless to others.

That's like asking what caused the uncaused or how did the square circle come into being?

If you're willing to allow anything to come into being without a cause, then the burden is on you to show why gods can but universes cannot.
Bare assertion is not sufficient.

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause, for anything that comes into being requires a cause.

So why can't the universe be uncaused?
Or, how do you know the universe 'came into being?'
Oh, wait, you'll quote Genesis, won't you?
Never mind.

 

[revivin]

So why can't the universe be uncaused?

The OP already says why the universe can't be uncaused, because if it was in an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

We must be taking the slow train tonight.

 

[Mageth]

So why can't the universe be uncaused?

The OP already says why the universe can't be uncaused, because if it was in an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

First: your "because if...", even if true, doesn't support your assertion that the universe can't be uncaused.

Second: Even with an infinite regress of events before now, now would still be now.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I can't condemn you. I can only report back to you what the Bible says. The Bible says, and I fully agree, that you are going to Hell because you are unwilling to come to the cross to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

revivin, do you think we are all lying to you when we tell you we don't believe your god exists and that there is a "Lord Jesus" to receive as "Savior"? Do you think we are all just pretending we don't believe?

How about it revivin? Are we all just lying to you that we don't believe in your God?

 

[Cobalt]

So why can't the universe be uncaused?

The OP already says why the universe can't be uncaused,

No. It doesn't.

because if it was in an infinite regress of cause and effects,

If the universe is uncaused, this is no issue - whether it is temporally infinite or not.

you would have had an eternity to come into being before now,

If the uncaused universe is temporally infinite, then sure. But this is irrelevant as has been explained already.

so you should have already happened.

And? Also irrelevant.

We must be taking the slow train tonight.

You're free to get off at any stop. Doesn't it feel like you're wasting your limited time before the rapture?

 

[jonJ]

As well we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects

Where can I see this 'evidence'? Is it on the web? Is it peer-reviewed? Does it take in the whole universe, or just the tiny proportion of it in the region of Earth? Does it take in the whole of time, or just that tiny portion of it during which humans have been around?

If you're saying that right here, now, on Earth, it's unlikely that anyone will observe an effect without a cause, then you may have a case. (Maybe not, since people who observe effects usually don't bother to ascertain whether there was a cause or not.)

But if you're extrapolating without any foundation from our tiny special corner of space-time across quadrillions of cubic light-years humans have never examined, and billions of years when humans didn't exist, then you're just blowing chunks, aren't you?

Let's say for the sake of argument that once every year, every cluster of a billion atoms suddenly becomes a billion and one, for no reason. How would you know? Which of your 'trillions' of observations renders that an impossibility?

P.S. How long till we see the big purple text again? I bet Tim Berners-Lee gets all proud and paternal whenever a theist goes off in forty-point purple. "I made that possible!"

 

[revivin]

You know you are deluded when you think non-existence causes something.

coo coo for cocoa puffs

 

[jonJ]

A grade 5'er understands this...

You're quite right: they don't start quantum physics these days till Grade 6.

https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020141048AA0t9Wj

 

[jonJ]

You know you are deluded when you think non-existence causes something.

coo coo for cocoa puffs

Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence that it doesn't. Ever. Anywhere. Any time.

But I said purple, not brown.

 

[revivin]

Grade 7'ers know this too. Quantum scientists don't think something comes from nothing. Funny.

 

[Ford]

Quantum scientists don't think something comes from nothing.

You do.


In fact, you think a god comes from nothing.

 

[jonJ]

Grade 7'ers know this too. Quantum scientists don't think something comes from nothing. Funny.

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum and energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Game, set and match?

 

[abaddon]

God’s eternal, so he’s already done everything he possibly can do. In fact he’s not even caught up to the present because, similar to a Zeno paradox, a vast eternity is such a long time it can never catch up to the present. God hasn’t even made the universe yet.

Oh wait, there’s always the exception for God cuz he’s magic and we have definitions/assertions that’s he’s whatever he needs to be to escape all limitations, so there.

But then, why try to prove how reality is with logic at all, when ultimately it’s made by a magic where logic no longer applies? IOW, why not just stick with “I have defined how everything is and must be, so I don’t need logical proofs about anything at all”?

revivin, applying everyday mundane concepts are worthless to determine how all the universe is. I don’t know that there cannot be a square circle, since I’m not a mathematician and not a bit familiar with non-euclidean geometry. I don't know there can't be an infinite regress, that there was or wasn't one, or that one would mean everything must have already happened. And neither do you.

Reality’s too weird for words. And you haven’t got a grasp on logic yet for being too stuck in taking myths literally and pretending logic (and vaguely legal-sounding blabber) can fix the mismatch between them and history. Read something else than Christian apologetics to get out of the protective little hole of limiting beliefs you dug yourself into.

 

[DBT]

Mark, John and Luke could have easily mentioned 2 asses, but they didn't showing their independent testimony of what they remembered or simply wanted to focus on since the colt represented the Gentiles not the Jews. Matthew records what he observed legally as a tax collector.

Could have? How do you know? There is nothing to indicate that. If it looks like an error, it most likely is an error. Unlike Mathew they did not make the same error. The reason why they didn't, is most likely because the writer of the gospel of Mathew was not quite as scrupulous in is attempt to fulfill the OT prophesy of the coming of the Messiah.

We have had such cases in history of people coming out of graves and flatlining in the hospital. Since the Apostles testified seeing Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and people don't willingly die for what hey know is a lie, they could not have embellished seeing Jesus alive after the cross by which they set up those first churches in Acts and Pau's epistles on the resurrection testimony of the Apostles themselves.

That's not the point. Don't you think that a lot of people would have noticed that the graves had opened and that the dead were walking amongst the living? Wouldn't that be noteworthy? So why no mention anywhere except in Mathew, who appears to embellish his account of the alleged crucifixion and resurrection with monumental events?

Just look at it broadly and see how contrived it looks.

 

[revivin]

the gospel of Mathew

Unless the other 3 gospels explicitly say there is only one, but they don't. They never said that. Zech. 9.9 is interesting because it says "riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass". This is a common way of speaking, e.g. I am going to the store even Safeway. Only one store. The colt is a young ass. Only one ass here. There is also the perspective the ass needs to be with her colt to settle her down. This is common in rodeos apparently.

Don't you think that a lot of people would have noticed that the graves had opened and that the dead were walking amongst the living?

In ancient times people get buried and wake up since they didn't really die, maybe not as uncommon back then. Today we ensure the person had died.

These two matters have nothing to do with the resurrection appearances of Jesus anyway so they can't be an embellishment.

I encourage you to focus on the Minimal Facts approach, that is, what most scholars agree on who are accredited and do peer review journal work on the resurrection. Then attempt to glean what you can from that.

For example, almost all scholars agree Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 probably the 3 most trustworthy chapters in the entire NT.

 

[dystopian]

34 pages of this, and he's still using the same arguments that have been refuted so many times (multiple times on almost every page) now; still pretending that they haven't been refuted at all. Every time somebody posts an actually relevant/clever argument or question, he either flat-out ignores it, or tries to address it if he thinks he has a 'aha gotcha' argument only to find out that he really doesn't and then goes over to the ignoring the argument part. This, of course, allows him to get through the day with a minimal amount of that hard to deal with cognitive dissonance; although he'd have even less of it if he just did as he's said he was going to do so many times now and leave.

 

[revivin]

Still avoiding the proof for God and who God is? I like that.

1. Something can't come from nothing.
2. Infinite regress is impossible.
3. Nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

So simple even you are "without excuse" (Rom. 1.20), yes, even you.