Any person who thinks he can prove through science or logic that God does not exist is either a beginner or a dunce or intellectually dishonest. It really should be elementary that for a person (or science for that matter) to be able to prove that God does not exist, the person (or science) would have to be omniscient. Thus all these juvenile requests (which I called childish sophistry elsewhere) asking for a "definition" of God are really pathetic and a sheer waste of time. It is amusing that it is the same request that the evangelical atheists make in a number of presently ongoing threads. They keep playing the same broken record ---- when they should change tune already.

Oh, and on the point whether something preceded the universe, the evangelical atheists, if they want to be intellectually honest, do not need to ask silly questions here; instead, let us see them engaging with the well known arguments e.g. distinguishing between a necessary being and contingent beings or arguments for e.g. a Prime mover, a First Cause, an Uncaused cause ------ the kind of thing that eventually persuaded the evangelical atheists’ long time champion, Antony Flew, to renounce atheism as the evangelical atheists seem to hate to hear.

Enigma:


Oh, and on the point whether something preceded the universe, the evangelical atheists, if they want to be intellectually honest, do not need to ask silly questions here; instead, let us see them engaging with the well known arguments e.g. distinguishing between a necessary being and contingent beings or arguments for e.g. a Prime mover, a First Cause, an Uncaused cause ------ the kind of thing that eventually persuaded the evangelical atheists’ long time champion, Antony Flew, to renounce atheism as the evangelical atheists seem to hate to hear.

Dem no fit, e pass demm mumu brain

Na their very problem be dat! Dat's why dem only fit ask "define god"; "do you believe in Sussicorn" and all kind of silly stooopid questions that really should not be associated with people even with just pretensions to intellectualism!

@ Bold
I think the Atheist is equally guilty of thesame crime. Or can we still have Atheist without the mention of supernatural?
Atheism is rooted in blind faith without any numerical backings or facts. Am not holding any breif for religious dogma in defining God as i find most absurd. Without God there wont be a theist,and without a theist there wont be an Atheist. So they are both interwoven to the concept of supernatural IMO

Kay 17:

@rhino i do not think dogged determination in defending and propagating one's views or stands amounts to religion. It would be ridiculous. Religion is invariably defined and tied with the supernatural. Also, the idea there is god or gods is entirely a religious one. It is backed by their unique means of detecting it/she/he - faith. To me, faith is a surrender of one's rational faculty. Thus the idea of god or gods is not suppose to be reasonable or scientific. The natural world has also proved that a conscious hand need not pile up mountains, or cause earthquakes, or plant, or cause lightning, or affect weather . . . If god is introduced, the cause of his consciousness must be probedis introduced, the cause of his consciousness must be probed

Rhino.5dm:

Without God there wont be a theist,and without a theist there wont be an Atheist.

Word!

Gray Beard:

I posited that something cannot derive from nothing, and that remains consistent. That is common logic, which even a kindergarten child can grasp as being sound and true. I did not say that something else caused the universe to come from nothing. Stop foisting lies on me. In actual fact, my belief is that God caused the universe to come into existence from the substance of his being. That is not nothingness, you quadriplegic numbskull.  

Blah blah blah. . . ahh finally a point. In other words this.

Unless that something else, transformed all or part of itself to produce the "new" something, no.

Did you not read this or were you to busy throwing a tantrum on the internet? Great so even you agree that the Universe already existed in some form regardless. You just attached a bunch of random attributes to the Universe when it was in this states by calling it God.

Cra.p. You are just an asinine student of illogic. Under the premise, if something exists now, then something else must have preceded and caused it. Finito.

More screaming, blah blah, and tantrum. What do you not understand about the Universe? Every moment the Universe changes into something else. The thing that proceeded the current state of the Universe was. . . the Universe. It is just that for some unexplained reason you decide to draw the line at the bib b.ang which only begs the question why?

Gray Beard:

Hallelujah. Ergo, you also cannot know for a fact that God does not exist.  

See as fear dey catch you. You be ole, original coward. Why you dey lie. Abi science no talk say na single point be the state of the universe before big b.ang? Ode oshi.

I nor get ya time jaare.  

You nor even fear to just dey lie reke reke, up and down the whole place for broad day light. How the universe don change form since the big slam, abeg, tell me. E don turn to egusi soup?

Norr lie jaare. E nefa chage form since big ba.ng at all at all. E just dey expand, simple. That one no be change of form.

What is wrong with you? Let me get this straight.
The Universe expanding from a near infinitesimal point, with extremely high temperatures, with particles/antiparticles particles constantly being formed and destroyed, where all the fundamental forces were one into . . .
a Universe that is expansive(and increasingly expanding), much cooler temperature, with a substantial amount of particles with few if any anti particles, where we have multiple fundamental forces is not a change of form to you?

I cannot help but ask. . . are you serious? If you do not consider that a change of form/state then, something is wrong with you. The big ba.ng was way,way, way more than a simple expansion of the Universe. Do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? Please go educate yourself on the big ba.ng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang.

Gray Beard:

Hallelujah. Ergo, you also cannot know for a fact that God does not exist.  

As far as I can tell, the thing you call "God" is simply the previous state/form of the Universe. You are just trying to tie the random assortment of definitions you grabbed from Webster to that state for no apparent reason.

Gray Beard:

Wetin cause am, simple. No long tin.

Who said the conservation laws were caused? They are attributes of the Universe. You cannot go from a state where energy/momentum/mass are not conserved to a state where they are. That would violate the 1) which you agreed was true. You even agreed that the conservation laws were an extension of 1). You may as well be asking what caused 1)?

Gray Beard:

Single dot na universe? Okay, make we say na universe. Wetin come cause am to change now? Wetin cause the expansion. Be specific. Don’t simply try to escape by vaguely mumbling “energy, mass, etc”. Be specific.

1. Single dot na universe?
2. If single dot come turn to universe, wetin cause that change? Ehn? Ehn? Ehn? Magic, abi? Oloshi.
3. If single dot don exist forever, why e no turn to universe before? Why na that particular moment im come turn to univas? Ehn?

1. All of space, time, energy,matter was contained in the singularity. EVERYTHING. In the English language we usually refer to everything in existence as the Universe.

universe

listen (yo̵̅o̅′nə vʉrs′)» See universe in thesaurus

noun

   the totality of all the things that exist; creation; the cosmos

2. Have no idea. That is why they built the Large Hadron Collider. So that maybe humanity can find out more about the state of the Universe prior to expansion. That is how science works. It is not to be confused with magic as you seem predisposed to doing.

3. I cannot understand what you are trying to ask hear. You need ask this question more clearly i.e in English.

Gray Beard:

Siddon one side, joo, anuofia.

YOU NO INTELLIGENT AT ALL – ONE KOBO!

More feckless bravado. I suppose you need to be good at something. It is certainly not logic/reason/learning/writing.

Lol, see illiterate o.

Your words -

If you do not consider that a change of form/state then, something is wrong with you. The big ba.ng was way,way, way more than a simple expansion of the Universe. [size=20pt]Do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? [/size] Please go educate yourself on the big ba.ng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang.

In one breath, you say that you do not know what existed before the big ban.g

I then remind you that it is a singularity.

Then in another breath you say that the singularity is the universe.

Then now, in the bolded above, you are screamning about how the singularity is different from the universe.

Who needs a mental check up now?

Just dress warm and keep deluding your self with your half-baked psuedo intellectual tomfoolery.

I repeat: YOU NORR INTELLIGENT ATALL - ONE KOBO!

Every moment the Universe changes into something else. The thing that proceeded the current state of the Universe was. . . the Universe.

See contradictory garbage. You just open ya yansh for national assembly, jus begin the sh.it nonsense all over the place. You norr efen get shame at all. Akata bush man. Ewu.

You say every moment the universe changes into something ELSE. If that is true, then your second statement is wrong, when you say that the thing it changes into is still . . .  . the universe!

Bro, ytou  need a shrink! Reading kiddies scoience books that you are not old enuff for is evidently giving you mental problems.

Ode oshi. Olodo rabata roboto

Have no idea.

Na the summary of ya brain be tyhis = admission of ignorance.

So jus\t leave it at that an buzz off with your undiluted dimwitted stooopidity.

What manner of monkey imagines a house withjout a builder.

Tad sad! A little knowledge is very dangerous!

@enigma how is it possible to discuss a subject without identifying or defining it? U create zero topic for discussion. No one needs to be omniscient to gain an item of knowledge. U failed to provide any characteristic of god u wish to talk about and yet u expect one to be omniscient! Besides what the chances for a subject other than matter, life, that can think, reflect, omnipresent, disconnected from time to exist?

More feckless bravado. I suppose you need to be good at something. It is certainly not logic/reason/learning/writing.

see dis hare brained douchebag. because person dey use pidgin show am im fooolishness, im tink say na in sabi grammar, abi. ok, now, no wahala. na grammar you want, na ORIGINAL, CAPITAL VICTORIAN GRAMMAR you go get.

LETS GO!

Kay 17:

@enigma how is it possible to discuss a subject without identifying or defining it? U create zero topic for discussion. No one needs to be omniscient to gain an item of knowledge. U failed to provide any characteristic of god u wish to talk about and yet u expect one to be omniscient! Besides what the chances for a subject other than matter, life, that can think, reflect, omnipresent, disconnected from time to exist?

SHARRAP DIA, KONKOLO ILLITERATE! DEFINE DIS, DEFINE THAT: IS THAT ALL YOU EMPTY HEADED TODDLERS CAN SCREAM EVERYDAY? USE A BLOODY DICTIONARY, YOU BOVINE SCALLYWAG.

Gray Beard:

Lol, see illiterate o.

Your words -


In one breath, you say that you do not know what existed before the big ban.g

I then remind you that it is a singularity.

Then in another breath you say that the singularity is the universe.

Then now, in the bolded above, you are screamning about how the singularity is different from the universe.

Who needs a mental check up now?

Just dress warm and keep deluding your self with your half-baked psuedo intellectual tomfoolery.

I repeat: YOU NORR INTELLIGENT ATALL - ONE KOBO!

Ok now I have to explain to you the past and present. Are you living in the Universe now? Were you living in the Universe a minute ago? Were you living in the Universe 1 year ago? In each of those time periods the Universe was almost completely different from what it is/was. The universe was smaller, had a higher temperature, was organized differently. It changed. However, it did not stop being the Universe just because it got bigger and colder(among other things). That is why I took the trouble of distinguishing the different time periods the Universe has gone through. That is why I used words like "current", "past", "state", "form","now". That is why I have been saying from the beginning that under the premises YOU presented, the Universe must have always existed if only in a different form. It is to recognize the fact that the Universe has changed and is still changing. Like I stated earlier do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? There is no special name for the current state of the Universe unlike that of the oldest theoretical state "singularity".

But of course you could not just stop and think about it could you? If you do not understand what I am saying to you just ask instead of jumping up and down and screaming liar. It just makes you look silly.

I consider the state of singularity as part of the big slam phenomenon you apparently do not. Fine it makes no difference to me or my arguments if you consider them separate.

Gray Beard:



See contradictory garbage. You just open ya yansh for national assembly, jus begin the sh.it nonsense all over the place. You norr efen get shame at all. Akata bush man. Ewu.

You say every moment the universe changes into something ELSE. If that is true, then your second statement is wrong, when you say that the thing it changes into is still . . .  . the universe!

Bro, ytou  need a shrink! Reading kiddies scoience books that you are not old enuff for is evidently giving you mental problems.

Ode oshi. Olodo rabata roboto

When you were a baby where you a human being? When you grew into a toddler where you still a human being? The answer is obviously yes. You changed but that did not stop you from being human.

The Universe is bigger and colder(among other things) now than it was five minutes ago, it is/was still is the Universe. The Universe is even bigger, colder, more massive now than it was ~13.75 Billion Years ago but it  was/still is the Universe. Seriously if you are having difficulty understanding just ask.

@graybeard since u believe the universe had a creator (who is invisible to all). Then like david hume, what is the purpose of the universe? Who created this very complex being God?

Idehn:

Ok now I have to explain to you the past and present. Are you living in the Universe now? Were you living in the Universe a minute ago? Were you living in the Universe 1 year ago? In each of those time periods the Universe was almost completely different from what it is/was. The universe was smaller, had a higher temperature. It changed. However, it did not stop being the Universe just because it got bigger and colder. That is why I took the trouble of distinguishing the different time periods the Universe has gone through. That is why I used words like "current", "past", "state", "form","now". That is why I have been saying from the beginning that under the premises YOU presented, the Universe must have always existed if only in a different form. It is to recognize the fact that the Universe has changed and is still changing. Like I stated earlier do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? There is no special name for the current state of the Universe unlike that of the oldest known state "singularity".

Oya, u norr bin want pigdin again, abi - make we begin dey fire oyibo grammar propadendentium -

All protocols duly observed, since we have now transited from the mode of distorted English into pure and advanced cosmological dialectics. The quote sourced from the poster above is sought to be contradicted by this poster by the following questions. Questions which render bare and lay lucid the several contradictions of the poster above in his irascible bid to entrench a most dogmatic and utterly unfounded atheistic world-view.

The Poster above is required to answer the following questions, as we set forth this debate in a lucid light, given that the poster above experienced challenges following the discussion at the time when this poster adopted a more informal tone.

The questions are as follows –

1. Why did you claim that you did not know what existed before the big b.ang only to come around later and describe in detail what existed before the big slam – the Singularity.

2. Why did you claim that the singularity is the universe, and then proceed to insist that they are absolutely different things.

3. I did point out to you that that event (the big b.ang) was a defining event that caused the universe to come into existence. Your position was that the universe did not come into existence, and that the singularity itself was the universe.

4. I pointed out to you that the universe is not changing as such into anything ELSE, but is only growing. You have implicity agreed with this by using the example of a growing child, no? You must accept that you were wrong when you said the universe is changing into SOMETHING ELSE because using your example, a child does not change into another creature – it only grows.

In case the import of the above has missed you – it is simply to demonstrate that the “change” you cite as a reason for the big ban.g is not a given – all that we see in the current universe is expansion. That is insufficient to explain the radical change that the initial expansion represents – because the state prior to that was not a growing universe which we currently have. The state prior to that was absolutely different. In one line – the question remains – what triggered the big ban.g? Your previous explanation simply will not do, because you say that the singularity has always existed. Why didn’t it simply continue “always existing”?

If it had always existed for all past eternity, why did it not change state prior? What occurred at that specific moment to trigger the ban.g which had not occurred for all its existence in the eternal past. As a science-lover you cannot claim that you do not recognize elementary principles of cause and effect. What was the cause.

If you say “I don’t know” again, then please also accept that you have no right to exclude the idea of creationism. Simple.

Somewhere up in your post you again alluded that the consequence of my principle is that the universe has always existed. I am tired of correcting you on that. The consequence of my principle is rather that something else must have existed prior to the universe, because it requires a causative element.

Now smarten up for once, Olodo.

Ewu.

PS - Edits contained in underlined portions of post above.

^^^ Deepsight is that you?

wetin be dat?

Kay 17:

@graybeard since u believe the universe had a creator (who is invisible to all). Then like david hume, what is the purpose of the universe? Who created this very complex being God?

That is not the question for the day oga sir., the question is whether this world was created, or popped out of stephen hawkings yansh. . . that is the question. if you want to know about God, why dont you abandon science and try reading ya bible

Gray Beard:

That is not the question for the day oga sir., the question is whether this world was created, or popped out of stephen hawkings yansh. . . that is the question. if you want to know about God, why dont you abandon science and try reading ya bible

Who made Steven Hawkings and authority over the existence of the universe?. . . .Why not the Koran or the Hindu vedas? They are also words of the creator/creators of the universe, no?. . .

mazaje:

Who made Steven Hawkings and authority over the existence of the universe?. . . .Why not the Koran or the Hindu vedas? They are also words of the creator/creators of the universe, no?. . .

Na jus play i dey take am play na. . . , . .na fight?

Gray Beard:

Na jus play i dey take am play na. . . , . .na fight?

No be fight ohhh. . . .

But i hope say you know say koran na handbook for terrorism. . . . hindu na pagan

It is good you have began consulting a thesaurus, as you have become vastly more intelligible.

1. Why did you claim that you did not know what existed before the big b.ang only to come around later and describe in detail what existed before the big slam – the Singularity.

As I said before, I consider the state of singularity(the state of the Universe at that time period), a part of Big Ba.ng Theory. If you do not so be it. It makes no difference to my arguments.

2.   Why did you claim that the singularity is the universe, and then proceed to insist that they are absolutely different things.

I have provided a definition of the Universe earlier. The theorized state of singularity satisfied the definition, at the time it existed. Therefore, I called it the Universe also. However, I have repeatedly noted the distinction between the past and present states of the Universe. The Universe can and does change all the time and has a history. It does not stop being the Universe because of this.

3.   I did point out to you that that event (the big b.ang) was a defining event that caused the universe to come into existence. Your position was that the universe did not come into existence, and that the singularity itself was the universe.

The singularity was merely one particular state of the Universe. The Universe has had a different state for every unit of time it exist, because it is under constant flux. It is simply that no one cares to give each and every one of them special names/distinctions. In fact they are typically lumped together in Epochs depending on shared similarities(existence of antimatter,dinosaurs, dominance of mammals etc. . .).  

4.   I pointed out to you that the universe is not changing as such into anything ELSE, but is only growing. You have implicity agreed with this by using the example of a growing child, no? You must accept that you were wrong when you said the universe is changing into [b[SOMETHING ELSE[/b] because using your example, a child does not change into another creature – it only grows.

The state of the Universe is different. The new state is the "something else". However, it still satisfies the definition of Universe. The new state is still everything in existence.

I then combine this fact with the premise that you cannot get something from nothing. If the Universe always existed then it satisfies the premise does it not? However, do you concur that the state of the Universe is different now than it was at every time in the past since the big ba.ng?

Together I must come to the conclusion that the Universe has always existed if only in a different state/form. One example of a different state would be that that of the singularity. Another example would be the current Universe. The fact that the conservation laws are true confirms the continuity of the past and present states of the Universe. The energy/mass/momentum in the Universe during the past is directly related to that of the present.

In case the import of the above has missed you – it is simply to demonstrate that the “change” you cite as a reason for the big ban.g is not a given – all that we see is expansion. That is altogether insufficient to explain the radical change that the initial excpansion represents. In one line – the question remains – what triggered the big ban.g? Your previous explanation simply will not do, because you say that the singularity has always existed.

I consider the expansion of the Universe(among the other things) a change of states/form. I am not arguing for the causes of the big ba.ng. I am arguing that the premises that it needs to be true and appear to be valid under similar condition(conservation laws) make a simple requirement. This requirement is that all the energy/mass/momentum that were present at the beginning of event(I consider this the singularity), also be present prior in some form. Otherwise you would have obtained something (the energy/mass/momentum in the singularity), from nothing. Whatever, the state of all that energy/mass/momentum prior to the state of singularity it would still be considered the Universe, because it would still have been everything in existence. What it looked like I do not know. It is merely where all the premises we are using is taking me.

I further support the conclusion by recognizing that the Universe is a thing of constant change. I consider the fact that all the fundamental forces (Gravity,Strong/Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetism) separated from a single force is one example of change between the beginning of the big ba.ng and present a change. I consider the fact that the temperature of the universe has declined substantially a change. I consider that elementary particles such as quarks/gluons(among others) can now exist for extended periods of time a change. If the the Universe is capable of change since the big ban.g, as I see it, there is no particular reason to  draw a line right before the big ba.ng.

If it had always existed for all past eternity, why did it not change state prior? What occurred at that specific moment to trigger the ban.g which had not occurred for all its existence in the eternal past. As a science-lover you cannot claim that you do not recognize elementary principles of cause and effect. What was the cause.

I can only speculate on the state of the Universe prior to the big ba.ng, but I would assume that the Universe has been in constant flux before the big ba.ng. It is possible the Universe has a "life cycle" where it oscillates between expanding and collapsing states. There is a lot we do not know about the Universe. There may be a force that will reverse the expansion of the Universe. But it is still currently just speculation.

I am only following the premises that have been brought to the table. If something has always existed it would not have needed to come from nothing.
However existing forever does not imply that it has to remain the same in every aspect.

de summary is that you have your own theory, and there is nothing within that theory that rebutts the concept of God.

rather it is obvious since there is cause and effect, and since nothing causes itself, that something external to the universe must have caused it.

FINITO!

U urself have said it all in these words -

I can only speculate

abeg, no force us to accept ya speculation as fact, okay?

Gray Beard:

But i hope say you know say koran na handbook for terrorism. . . . hindu na pagan

According to who? Which God appeared to you and told you personally that the Koran and the Hindu Vedas are not his word but the bible?. . . .Christianity is a pagan religion as far as over 70 percent of the world population are concerned, no?. . . .

mazaje:

According to who? Which God appeared to you and told you personally that the Koran and the Hindu Vedas are not his word but the bible?. . . .Christianity is a pagan religion as far as over 70 percent of the world population are concerned, no?. . . .

Aneg bros, norr blaspeheme. Blood of Jesus. Ftaher forgive him for he know not what he say.

Koran na demonic book. Na shaitan inspire am. Hindu na idol.

Jesus Christ remains the only legitimate fiogure amongst all these religions

Na muslim family cut dis girl nose because she run commot from husband wey dem force am to marry. in fact na her own brothers hold her for ground, make the husband cut her nose like dis - -

^ islam is evil! make we talk am as e be!

Gray Beard:

de summary is that you have your own theory, and there is nothing within that theory that rebutts the concept of God.

rather it is obvious since there is cause and effect, and since nothing causes itself, that something external to the universe must have caused it.

FINITO!

I am not providing a rebuttal the concept of God. No where in our conversation has the God concept as you defined using Websters even come up. It has always just been "something else" not God.

I am making an argument that all the premises/theories on the table, point just as easily to a Universe that has always existed in some form/state. My personal speculations of the nature of the Universe prior to the big ba.ng does not change validity of my arguments. Disregard them if you are so inclined.

A universe that has always existed necessarily satisfies the premise that something cannot come from nothing.

If X is something, then it must have always been something.

@ iDEHN.

How do you explain conscious mind and purposefulness? that is something that does not rhyme with the idea that there is no conscious God

Gray Beard:

Na muslim family cut dis girl nose because she run commot from husband wey dem force am to marry. in fact na her own brothers hold her for ground, make the husband cut her nose like dis - -

Christians have killed uncountable people to in the name of the bible and Yahweh,no?. . .Islam is just 1600 years old. . .When Christianity was 1600 years old, the thing that comes to mind is violent acts the like crusades witch trials and the inquisition. . . .There is no act of violence that is being committed in the name of Islam that has not been committed in the name of Christianity. . .Study your history book pls. One of the greatest crimes against humanity the holocaust was carried out by Christians on the Jews. . . . . .