Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.

I fail to see how that follows.

 

[sealybobo]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.

I fail to see how that follows.

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed exactly when the Messiah would begin his public ministry This is why the people who wrote the bible picked the date of his birth so this prophecy would be fulfilled.

(2) 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah So of course the people who invented Christianity had him be born in Bethlehem.

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, So they wrote this into the story of Jesus.

(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Again, if I was going to write a new religion, I would use these old proph

(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon. `Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1015.)

(6) Mighty Babylon would fall (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109.)

(7) The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1018.)

This is why Christians & Jews picked the location.

(8) The prophet Moses foretold that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment—in our lifetime.

Do you believe in magic or do you realize it’s a trick? These are fascinating but not proof to me. Could be a trick. Seems fishy. Do you believe in Naustrodaumus? He could prophicize pretty good too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

 

[sealybobo]

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe. Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people. And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions. We never get emotional about it. As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.

This is what theists do. They say you'll go to hell. They ask you why you are so angry. Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid. Stupid when it comes to politics for sure. They've handed our country and government over to the corporations. Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them. People with blind faith can be convinced of anything. Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy. If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?

Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads? I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either. I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them. Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.

Why is that? What is it that compels you to care? What draws you to threads like this? Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?

Have you ever wondered about that?

It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories. If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.

And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said. Only through me.

 

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

You just don't need as much evidence as we do. I would hate for you to be a juror if I was on trial.

Stop thinking? It is you who has made up your mind without having sufficient evidence. And what about the evidence that shows religion was made up? How do you ignore all that scientific evidence? Instead you go with the idea that an invisible man made you and cares about you blablabla?

We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

You're making speeches. I know tons about the evidence, lots more than you. That's obvious from your posts. But the real topic is the problem of origin, and you don't even understand that problem. You're talking about the physical laws and the properties of the cosmos. I'm talking about agency.

 

[G.T.]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.

Cop-out, and naked assertion.

I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.

Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.

I already stated that very few people will be able to understand the proof of God's name, I Am.

You understand the written words but you can't understand why the proof works.

You simply cannot know the hidden truths that makes I Am the best proof. Only God can show you those hidden truths and bring you to true understanding. Therefore, you should pray to God for understanding.

it doesnt work



and if it did, you could show the logical breakdown



you cant.


it doesnt.






that easy

 

[Foxfyre]

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe. Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people. And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions. We never get emotional about it. As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.

This is what theists do. They say you'll go to hell. They ask you why you are so angry. Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid. Stupid when it comes to politics for sure. They've handed our country and government over to the corporations. Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them. People with blind faith can be convinced of anything. Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy. If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?

Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads? I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either. I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them. Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.

Why is that? What is it that compels you to care? What draws you to threads like this? Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?

Have you ever wondered about that?

It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories. If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.

And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said. Only through me.

I am part of the 'religious right' I guess and I have never said anyone will burn in hell for any reason. I believe the Bible when it tells us that area is all God's prerogative. And as far as taking sh*t, I've seen a whole bunch more of that dished out from Atheists toward Christians than I have seen Christians dish it out toward Atheists.

Which brings me back to the questions you ignored that I put to you. What brings you to a thread like this? Why would an Atheist be at all interested in a subject re the existence of God? What do you suppose sparks your curiosity? Your interest?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation.

That offer has been on for years. No one's collected.

 

[Justin Davis]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

 

[Justin Davis]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy.

In other words, which part of the fact that the Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it, the implications of general relativity and quantum physics, needs to be explained to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, that is correct.

Actually, it is extremely simplistic, like most of Jake's attempt to explain a complex subject.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

If you have no compelling need to convince believers there is no god why do you constantly try to convince believers there is no god?

Believers on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead.

That was pathetic.

You don't need to do anything but convince yourself that there is no god except to convince yourself that something that is demonstrably false is true, yet you dismiss believers search for truth with a single word you really don't understand.

However if believers want to convince atheists then they will need to provide hard evidence for the existence of their God.

Why should anyone attempt to convince someone that lies about their own actions about anything?

It is the believers who feel the need to convince atheists, not the other way around.

Yet you are here attempting to convince believers that you are right.

For atheists there is nothing to lose if they are wrong and they are under no compulsion.

Lying again.

For believers there is a compelling need to prove themselves right.

Yet, throughout this thread, I have constantly refused to even attempt to prove my belief in God is right, unlike you.

The believers are the ones who have the burden of proof since they have to prove that the atheists are wrong.

All I have to prove is that atheist are idiots.

 

[Justin Davis]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

Anyone with a degree in philosophy can resolve any logical paradox without even engaging their brain. If you knew anything about logic you could resolve it without any external help.

By the way, I thought you said you had no compulsion to prove you are right. Did that change?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy.

In other words, which part of the fact that the Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it, the implications of general relativity and quantum physics, needs to be explained to you?

Once again you ignore what doesn't fit into your personal predefined beliefs.

The problem with your vacuum fluctuations/inflation model is that it requires certain exact preconditions in order to occur that simply don't exist and there is zero evidence for those preconditions. In fact their probability is extremely low.

Criticisms
Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and an alleged lack of serious empirical support.[103] In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."[119]

In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudo-problem) of initial conditions is not solved: "There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. [...] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything [...] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after."[120] The problem of specific or "fine-tuned" initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls 'bad inflation' a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and 'good inflation' one compatible with them: "Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either.... Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ... Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"[103][104]

Inflation cosmology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Those exact preconditions aren't necessary with the cyclical universe.

faqs1 a1

• 
  Other differences between acceleration in the cyclic model and the (big bang-)inflationary scenario include:
  
  • The accelerated expansion occurs 10 billion years before the next bang (instead of 10^(-35) seconds after the last bang).
  • The acceleration begins when the universe is cold (3K) and dilute, rather than hot and dense.
  • The acceleration phase does not determine the spectrum of density perturbations. The observed perturbations of the CMB are generated during the contraction phase, and have nothing to do with the details of the accelerated expansion phase. The amplitude and tilt only depend on the conditions during the contraction phase and the bounce.
  • The acceleration is 10^50 times slower than in usual inflation
  • The energy density during acceleration is 10^100 smaller
  • The acceleration is followed by contraction rather than further expansion.
  • The acceleration repeats periodically
  • The acceleration is due to the same energy source that causes the currently observed acceleration.
  Does radiation produced at the bounce necessarily prevent the universe from cycling?
  

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily exist to create said contradiction.

In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.

That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.

NEWSFLASH:

If you have a problem with the concept of omnipotence take it up with the idiot that said that it is a paradox, not the guy that pointed out the flaw in that claim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

WTF?

Vacuum fluctuations have nothing to do with the Big Bang.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.

 

[Justin Davis]

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.

You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again. God = vacuum fluctuations. The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is. I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang because you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.

 

[PratchettFan]

I asked you before but I will give it another try. Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence. If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for. Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe. He's telling you you're right so it must be true.

I did that already. You must have missed it.

Yes, I did. Can you refer me to the post where you did that?

It's the one in which I deferred to M.D.R.'s post because he had already addressed it. You guys talked it about it too, so I stayed out of it. All you said is that the objective evidence for God's existence is not objective evidence. What are we supposed to do with that? Get you a new brain? I don't won't to be mean. But I think it's fair to say that you are being impolite when you don't think about the evidence or act like you don't understand what it is or maybe you don't know what objective evidence is though that doesn't make sense either. Define objective evidence.

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.