According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator: netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

(The most common counter arguments are answered at bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

That's Banana(s)

I hope your ready to defend this stuff... because you're about to get all that you can handle.

I'm pretty sure his plan was to cut & paste the passage and never return.

this logic makes me want to hurt myself.

You'll be a happier person if you let logic like that just make you laugh.

FINALLY! quantitative proof of Xenu! praise Him!

damn jewish swedes, confusing everybody : )

http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Testimoni...d,%20Anders.htm

false. you should put down the torah and study quantum mechanics.

I agree this seems like a copy/paste never-return.

However, if you do return, OP, and show that you really intend to discuss this, I'd be happy to address it.

Of course...many many things happen on thei own with no source or energy to influence it.

Like uhh... you know..things and stuff.

many things happen on the quantum scale that defy our intuitive notions of linear causation.

B

A

N

A

N

A

S

- Gwen

But since observation influences these happenings we still stuck with the reality that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time, there is a causation for everything.

Except the creation of brazillions of metric tons of matter and an incomperable amount of energy throughout the universe.

Glad to see your worldview is based on such rock solid science

Maybe we should add a new category in your Jeopardy game.

Dodge: an effort to distract from the problem presented while pretending you don't need to address the flaw in your argument

I don't understand quantum mechanics either. And it wasn't my argument. So...yeah.

Yea, I assumed we were talking about ...you know

Oh, I know.

BEACH!

stuff like virtual particle formation and quantum tunnelling go on whether we are observing or not.



has nothing to do with me. i was just pointing out that it is not an established fact that events that
occur on the quantum scale require a linear cause in the sense the OP was talking about. for all
we know the big bang could have caused itself. we don't yet know what the nature of causation
is on the quantum scale. we do know that simplistic human intuition isn't a reliable guide.

that's just one of many flaws in the OP's reasoning.

The whole concept of cause and effect is based on the presumption that there are separate events in time. There aren't.

fyp

So if there are no seperate events in time..the earth is exactly zero years old? And I thought I was a new earther...

we know quantum events appear uncaused in the classical sense. we don't know why. those are facts.

the OP's first cause argument assumes causation necessarily has to work classically for the big bang. that assumption is based on his
own intuition, not on evidence.

if our time was formed in the big bang as it apparently was, it doesn't make any sense to speak about the big bang
requiring a "cause" in the classical timelike sense.

QM has shown us that what happened likely is something humans aren't going to be able to comprehend through simple intuition.

So this is the "God said it so I believe it" part of your theory?

I don't think that you mean what you think you mean

this has nothing to do with me or what i think obviously. i'm not the one claiming to know what happened at the big bang. you are.
stop with the lame attempts to shift the burden of proof.

it must be a truly fufilling existence to spend your time trying to prove that people with a belief system are dumb.

We know that something happened, somehow, a really long time ago, and it made all sorts of stuff including people a nd furry animals.

We just dont know how. We do know however it wasnt done by divine intellect, how we know that , Im not really sure, but there are books and professors with really neat sounding words that sort of explain it.

All I know is, all youse guys what believe in God are just dumb, I dont know why you dumb, I just believe it.

I don't believe in the big bang..completely makes no sense. Why would anyone believe in something as completely stupid as the Big Bang?

Might as well believe in the FSM, actually there is more proof of the FSM, since it would only require a sudden appearance of only a few thousand pounds of matter and a tiny bit of energy.


But le's stop pretending that you guys are so open minded and disconnected to the fact that without the Big Bang..your entire theory of evolution becomes just an opinion based exercise in denying the existance of God.

You need the Big Bang. Without it, you guys are just another faith based belief sysem

Basically because the universe is expanding.

So did it suddenly start expanding at some point do you think? Or do you think it has always been expanding? Not really a problem for you since count back only 6K years and it isn't much smaller. But assume for the moment that the universe is much much older than that, what would you conclude?

Oh, and I forgot this is a good spot to throw some jabs at religion for being so arrogant as to assume that the history of mankind is the history of the entirety of everything. If you think of the age of the universe as a day, the length of time humans has been present is equivalent to the last 20 seconds or so of that day.

And these guys try and talk about humility!

And in the last 20 seconds of that day, we have spent about 1/1,000th of a second of time working on the understanding of what's going on, but this is apperently enough to draw enough of a conclusion to be smug and discount the notion of creation?

That things were closer then they are now, end if time had no beginning, that they were at one time all at one place.

Now where they came from, why they were there and Who created it are not answered by this conjecture.

obviously what you call the beginning of the universe is irrelevant to cosmological (first cause) arguments, which are the topic of this thread.





nice pile 'o straw men there.

the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.

the big bang is not a theory that says what exists suddenly appeared from nothing.

science is not a giant conspiracy to disprove god.

the only thing being discounted in this thread is one particular philosophical "proof" for the existence of god (the cosmological argument).

nothing in science currently says anything about why or how the universe exists. none of the accepted science you are ranting about
including the big bang and evolution pretend to answer those questions, and no scientist or atheists pretends to rule out god as a
possible cause based on evidence.

YOU are the only one pretending to know the answers to those questions.

Then you are in agreement with the physicists.

It's enough to generate testable hypotheses.

Of the two of us though, only you are sure about how things started.

Only one of us is using eye witness accounts from Someone who was there.

Do you know how unreliable eye witness testimony is?

since it's 2000-year-old 3nd-hand eyewitness testimony by someone's invisible friend it must be reliable.

Glad to see you finally admit that the scriptures are actally 2,000 years old and not some 1,600 year old fabrication that isn't supported by anyone who isn't trying to push an agenda regardless of the facts

wow attack of of the straw men

Wow deflection and denial

obviously the torah is older than 2000 years, and some of the NT originates from the 2nd half of the first century. most christians are genuine in their belief. i've never said otherwise.

stop making things up to hide behind.

what i've said is credentialed "scientists" who promote young earth creationism invariably have demonstratable personal agendas, which is just stating the obvious.

While athiest 'scholars' who refute the age of the books of the Bible do so because they make the assumption that no prophecies can be fortold.

Which is almost exactly what you are accusing the religious scholars of doing


This is also why there is no debating with you. You are completely blinded to the notion that there is only one answer, and anyone who disagrees must be using faulty logic or bias to blind themselves from what you 'know' to be truth.

All while admitting that you guys don't really have any idea where everything came from, but you are sure it didn't come from God.