The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[G.T.]

I can always tell when GT knows he is losing the debate because he resorts to name calling.

View attachment 279459

You can always come through and prove how stupid you are by assuming theres some sort of debate going on,

 

[ding]

People assert that spirits exist...just slip that right in there...and then use that assertion... to further assert that "only spirits could do x."

The retardation is just inescapable. It seriously is.

That's not really my argument. My argument is that only something which is non-material can exist outside of space and time. We already know the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created, so we already have an example of something which existed outside of space and time which was non-material.

 

[ding]

I can always tell when GT knows he is losing the debate because he resorts to name calling.

View attachment 279459

You can always come through and prove how stupid you are by assuming theres some sort of debate going on,

I'm not the one who is calling you any names, GT.

I'm the one making logical arguments. Arguments which you have yet to refute. Which is why you are having to resort to name calling.

I skip fighting and go straight to winning. It saves time.

 

[G.T.]

People assert that spirits exist...just slip that right in there...and then use that assertion... to further assert that "only spirits could do x."

The retardation is just inescapable. It seriously is.

That's not really my argument. My argument is that only something which is non-material can exist outside of space and time. We already know the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created, so we already have an example of something which existed outside of space and time which was non-material.

The laws of nature are descriptive of how the Universe behaves, and you think they're actual things that pre existed space and time because of the word Law, which confuses you.

Youre TOOOOO DUMBBBB DINGGG

 

[G.T.]

I can always tell when GT knows he is losing the debate because he resorts to name calling.

View attachment 279459

You can always come through and prove how stupid you are by assuming theres some sort of debate going on,

I'm not the one who is calling you any names, GT.

I'm the one making logical arguments. Arguments which you have yet to refute. Which is why you are having to resort to name calling.

I skip fighting and go straight to winning. It saves time.

Drop the pretenses...youre all over the religion forum calling names and outright telling people yoy ENJOY TROLLING...and now youre here being bipolar and acting above calling names.

You have middle child syndrome.

 

[ding]

GT wasn't lying when he said he doesn't debate me.

He just calls me names while I am making my argument and thinks that is the same thing as making an argument.

 

[ding]

People assert that spirits exist...just slip that right in there...and then use that assertion... to further assert that "only spirits could do x."

The retardation is just inescapable. It seriously is.

That's not really my argument. My argument is that only something which is non-material can exist outside of space and time. We already know the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created, so we already have an example of something which existed outside of space and time which was non-material.

The laws of nature are descriptive of how the Universe behaves, and you think they're actual things that pre existed space and time because of the word Law, which confuses you.

Youre TOOOOO DUMBBBB DINGGG

Would you like to hear a world renowned cosmologist tell you the laws of nature existed before space and time?

It's only a 3 minute video.

Or I could just tell you that since the creation of the space and time followed rules, the rules had to exist before the creation of space and time.

 

[G.T.]

GT wasn't lying when he said he doesn't debate me.

He just calls me names while I am making my argument and thinks that is the same thing as making an argument.

No, i dont claim to make an argument...i tell you outright im not.. and then you say "he thinks its the same as making an srgument" because youre the same tedious douche youve always been. You make me correct in my decision every time. Thanks!

 

[ding]

I can always tell when GT knows he is losing the debate because he resorts to name calling.

View attachment 279459

You can always come through and prove how stupid you are by assuming theres some sort of debate going on,

I'm not the one who is calling you any names, GT.

I'm the one making logical arguments. Arguments which you have yet to refute. Which is why you are having to resort to name calling.

I skip fighting and go straight to winning. It saves time.

Drop the pretenses...youre all over the religion forum calling names and outright telling people yoy ENJOY TROLLING...and now youre here being bipolar and acting above calling names.

You have middle child syndrome.

Show me.

 

[ding]

GT wasn't lying when he said he doesn't debate me.

He just calls me names while I am making my argument and thinks that is the same thing as making an argument.

No, i dont claim to make an argument...i tell you outright im not.. and then you say "he thinks its the same as making an srgument" because youre the same tedious douche youve always been. You make me correct in my decision every time. Thanks!

That's because you can't make an argument because what I am saying is the truth.

 

[ding]

The laws of nature are descriptive of how the Universe behaves

The laws of nature have an independent reality. Nature behaves as reality prescribes it to behave.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So it should be obvious that the orderly behavior we observe (i.e. describe) is prescribed by nature. You as an outside observer describe nature's order, but nature's order is set which makes it prescribed.

 

[G.T.]

which paper to cite. Ohh..its ding, we dont argue with ding and his google is also broken.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The laws of nature are descriptive of how the Universe behaves

The laws of nature have an independent reality. Nature behaves as reality prescribes it to behave.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So it should be obvious that the orderly behavior we observe (i.e. describe) is prescribed by nature. You as an outside observer describe nature's order, but nature's order is set which makes it prescribed.

This order is also reflected in Mathematics, the Mind of the Creator.

 

[ding]

which paper to cite. Ohh..its ding, we dont argue with ding and his google is also broken.

 

[ding]

which paper to cite. Ohh..its ding, we dont argue with ding and his google is also broken.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

 

[G.T.]

 

[G.T.]

"if we identify god with the laws of nature..i..dont see why we need another term for the laws of nature." alexander vilenkin

 

[G.T.]

"the simple question i can answer immediately is about personal god. THAT..i dont believe."

vilenkin, as well

 

[Ringtone]

“God is a wholly transcendent (spiritual), eternally self-subsistent being (Mind) of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.”

“.... because I say so”.

Masterful concision in such an argument.

Why does everything have to be repeated for you atheists?

Because . . . the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell us precisely why the universe began to exist from nothing, that the KCA is incontrovertible, and precisely what the fundamental attributes of divinity are.

Go back and carefully read the KCA again, only this time as you do, think. Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal. That means it began to exist. The only possible cause for the existence of such an entity would necessarily be a wholly transcendent, eternally self-subsistent being of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Now back to the question: how are omnipotence and omniscience contradictory as you claim?

Thanks.

 

[ding]

"the simple question i can answer immediately is about personal god. THAT..i dont believe."

vilenkin, as well

And? So what? Einstein didn't believe in a personal God either.

What does that have to do with anything?