Geepers…Scientic finding can be seen and proven, it is not based on belief ,but fact, so all can see it, Just as the scientists proved the world was not flat,nor the earth the center of the universe. Science looks for truth,then when they find it then all people can see it, each religion has it’s beliefs, would you accept that an Angel of God dictated a book to Muhammad? Muslims do, but that would not be accepted by Christians, it is the same with Atheist and your explanations.
One doesn’t need a degree in geology to understand what a geologist shows, any more than if you had to be a theologian to understand what they teach. You want your faith to be correct and so you believe as you do. Once faith is proven then it becomes fact, but you haven’t given any proof, just your faith, that is fine for you but others do not see it that way. They are not against you just that you haven’t given any proof. Proof can be seen by everyone, and doesn’t take faith to accept it!
Your fact can apply in some cases, but not all.That is not based on a Belief in God. The Atheists on this board as long as I have been on it do not take the word of someone else, they check to see if it is fact, That is why they don’t go on faith. If an elephant is in the room they want to see it,touch it, If only you could see it then they are not discriminating against you, they are asking to see it, if not, then it is logical to say maybe you are imagining it; a real elephant can be seen by any one who is not blind, but even a blind person could feel it and know it was there. Your word or belief is not proof.
If at any point you want to check in and explain your “something” in a coherent manner, then by all means do so - until then, you are substituting “incoherent magic” for “I don’t understand”. All of which has been explained to you.
I wonder why Kelly doesn’t apply the same thing to God,isn’t God uncaused? I am still waiting for some one to explain to me, why a being could exist somewhere, if there was no place to first exist!
The “place” is a meta-place, outside of everywhere, and God created it at the same time he came into existence, which was always…
I mean, really… You’re dealing with the kind of theology that coins such pleasantries as “The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.”
(Yes, this was from Empedocles, a pre-Christian Greek, but this kind of Pythagorean mysticism seems to have been influential on some of the early Christians. Anyway, I’ve seen the quote repeated in many Christian publications.)
Why on earth do I need to explain “something” in what you deem a “coherent” manner? If something caused space, time and matter, then something is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. This is not only true by definition, it’s what you’d learn in the opening five minutes of a logic 101 class. Just because you can’t grasp how something could be timeless, immaterial and spaceless does not mean the fundamental rules of logic don’t apply anymore. Comprehende?
I’ve actually never mentioned God, but if whatever the thing is that caused space, time and matter to come in to existence has itself always existed (ie, exists eternally), then it couldn’t, by definition, have been caused.
The simplest pieces of logic are often the best, ya know?
I don’t think this follows at all! There might simply be a “bigger” space, into which our space is embedded. This metaspace might be limited; you have in no way proven that it is limitless!
You also don’t take into account the possibility that the event is “self caused.” This isn’t terribly satisfying to our common sense, but it isn’t logically vacant.
You assert that it is true “by definition,” but this isn’t particularly satisfying to those of us who would like to know why. To begin with, who wrote the definition? It’s circular reasoning to say, “This is true because it follows from the axiom that defines it to be true.”
Then let’s use logic, shall we? Where might we find this definition that says that what caused our current space and time could not itself have been caused by something else, and could only be eternal?
You don’t have to do anything - but if you are seeking to be part of this discussion, then I think it’s a good thing to do, in order to explain your position. Instead you seem to be concerned with drive by ‘science is nonsense’ type posts. You can preach all you want, but to start getting snarky when people question your arguments is beyond the pale in a section of the forums called ‘Great Debates’.
We’ve pointed out how your position is illogical and you keep repeating it, without really dealing with the criticism. It’s as though you think that repetition will make your position make sense.
Take what you said above: Something ‘caused’ space and time. What do you mean by ‘something’? How can something cause space and time?
As I pointed out before you are presupposing time exists in your argument (please see this post or this post, both which you ignored). You have to presuppose that time exists in order to argue that a timeless/spaceless immaterial entity caused time and space.
It’s logically contradictory, as I, again, pointed out. So it’s not about ‘grasping’ something, it’s about you holding a self contradictory belief and then having the marbles to say such things as this:
“I, personally, don’t have enough faith to believe such things.”
Your position is nonsense and as such, you shouldn’t cast stones towards other positions. You should work on making your position logically coherent.
I’ve pointed this out to you repeatedly and you seem to think that by saying it’s apparent by logic 101 you are some how explaining it. I’ve taken several logic courses, you apparently have not. You seem to think that condescension can make up for a bad argument, it cannot.
“Spaceless, timeless and immaterial”-what the hell does this even mean? Let’s break it down.
Spaceless-does not exist anywhere.
Timeless-does not exist any time.
Immaterial-there is no substance to it.
I’m sorry, but you’ve just described the atheist position on the matter of God.
Just to clarify, the argument put forth is called the Kalām cosmological argument.
"William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[20]
Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe."
The idea that god is spaceless, timeless and immaterial is not reached by definition but concluded form the first premise saying the cause was “external” to our universe.
Oh, I am not trying trying to argue for Craig’s argument. In fact I think they whole idea is ridiculous but since Kelly is not forthcoming with any cite or clarification I thought I might progress the discussion further by providing where this argument originated from. Otherwise this thread is not fun to watch if it’s just bunch of people ganging up on someone defenseless, just tipping the scale a bit to balance things out.
Fair enough. I think earlier in the thread, Craig was mentioned. I might or might not have wade in with some criticisms of his view.
Kelly’s argument is similar to Craigs, but it’s not the same. Craig formulates his argument in such a way as to prevent the sequential criticism that I’ve brought up. So he argues for a simultaneous creation.
So Craig would, apparently, agree with my view. What does Craig say happened?
Craig later tries to argue that some activities don’t require change and time. I think he’s largely mistaken and I think that his view of creation still falls victim to the error that he’s trying to avoid.