A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#691
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- Once you demonstrate the origin of the universe is a 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being', as priorly done, it is safe for a Muslim to assume this is indeed God, for it is thus defined in the Quran
But even if the origin of the universe is neccessary,singular etc., it does not follow (for example) that it dictated the koran to Mohammed, or chose the Hebrew people, or fathered jesus. Scriptures 'define' their gods to be more being the universes's origin.

I might concede something is needed to be the origin of the universe - but i'm not so sure the 'first cause' is the sort of things that can hear prayers.



#692
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
The Quran is a book written by men in which men claim the existence of a god. All gods are the creation of men.
#693
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
On the other hand, as established, a noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists
This is just another unsupportable claim made by men.

#694
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
- Again, the Quran defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being. This, however, does not exclude other tradition, as long as they believe in God too.
So, Kant's noumenon is logically Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute.

But strangely the noumenon does not give us a code of human conduct.

The mere existence of a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute thing does not necessarily manifest a code of human conduct. [LINK]
#695
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. 

You keep stepping in this. 
Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.
I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate. 

The underlined is most unreasonable if you want evidence that points to a specific God. It is like saying show me mathematical evidence yet don't use math. 
Topic's author
#696
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
So then the only place you can prove that your god is the one who created the universe is in the document that claims he created the universe. This makes the document more important than the being: without the document there's no way to know the being. It also only puts your god on equal footing with any one that appears in any holy text or any text at all (unless you can provide a discernment between 'holy text' and 'run of the mill mythological fiction). It's less than a compelling position from a neutral perspective. More than one religion claims their texts or founding tenets are holy, and this position also doesn't address why a religion without holy texts, like a native American religion, must be incorrect,or is at least inferior to those with writings.   
#697
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Yassine
...defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being....
Yassine, this appears to me as meaningless since it has no descriptive, or elaborative content associated with each of these words.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Occupied space Universe//God eternally exists, ergo there is no source or creator.  There there is no direct evidence of origin or source for our eternally, yet finite, Universe/Gods existence.

Disscussion of God//Universe is insignificant andmeaningless unless we have common agreement of definitions as specificallydescribed.  Ive given the mostdescriptive and accurate definitions as follows and none have anyrational,  logical common sense toinvalidate my givens as stated.
 
" U " niverse / " G " od is most wholistic inclusiveset as it includes the Cosmic Trinity below and all of its subsets.
 
Universe//God aka Uni-V-erse #3 below is less inclusive andis not considerate of #1 and #2 below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinities
 
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i }. Ex concepts of Space, God,Universe, Ego Toyota's etc.
 
.....1a} absolute truth --ergo cosmic--
 
.....1b} relative truth --ergo local special-case--
 
.....1c} lies//falsehoods
 
--------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
 
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that,embraces/surrounds the following #3,
...2a} ?
...2b} ?
...2c} ?
 
3} God//Universe as occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erseas follows;
 
.....3a} spirit-2, Observed Time aka reality/energy viafermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd  hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof. Ex atoms,molecules, biologicals, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
 
.....3b} spirit-3, metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positiveshaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
 
.....3c} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( asnegative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.....meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinctkinds of meta-physical in the above cosmic trinity above hence the enumeration#1, 2, 3, 4.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Observed Time aka reality is commonly associated with asine-wave topology ex /\/\/\/\/\/ or as ^v^v^v and defined by diametricallyopposed inversions { >< } from peaks of positive ( ) and negative )(geodesic curvature  of a torus (  )(  )ergo the texticonic representation as (><)(><).
 
Occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse is composed offermions  and bosons that are eachdefined by two or more tori ---my speculation-- interfering with each other. The sum-total of allinterfering tori is occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
i = immature or baby metaphysical-1 ego
 
I = mature adult, metaphysical-1 ego
 
I = immature adult narcissistic, metaphysical-1 ego
 
* i * or * I * = most complex bilateral consciousness
........with woman {Xx } being more complex than man { Xy }.........
 
(  )(  ) = vertical bisection/cross section of atorus, which torus has positive and negative geodesically curved space.
 
( (  ) )  = horizontal { birds-eye-view }bisection/cross section of a torus.
 
SPACE (>*<)  i  (>*<) SPACE
 
SPACE ( Time )  i  ( Time ) SPACE
 
SPACE ( ^v^v)  i  ( ^v^v ) SPACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Humans dont really know what happen at the Big Bangphenomena or what existed before.  Ourinstrumentation only reveals what appear to have existed a few hundred thousandyears after the big bang not what existed before.
 
...."The universe has not expanded from any one  spotsince the Big Bang — rather, space itself has been stretching, and carryingmatter with it.
 
....--See LINK-- Since the universe by its definitionencompasses all of space and time as we know it, NASA says it is beyond themodel of the Big Bang to say what the universe is expanding into or what gaverise."...

The problem I have with the latter quote above, is that they do not describe the medium, substance, fabric of what this "space itself" is exactly//specifically yet they say it is stretching.

A rubber band stretches.  Steel  expands and contracts as does concrete.

I lay out very clearly what SPACE, Space and space is in my Cosmic Trinity. None have ever offerred any rational, logical common sense to invalidate my ideas, as stated.  I doubt any ever will.  Only time will tell.


#698
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheist claim to be present at the creation of all religions but call theists liars. LOL
#699
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "IF THERE MUST BE A CREATOR, THEN WHAT CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT IT?  AND WHICH OF THE MYTHICAL GODS (IF ANY) BEST DESCRIBE THE LOGICAL NECESSITY?"
- You can know a lot about the Creator from both revelation & reason, from essence or from creation itself. The notion of God in all religions except Islam (& closely Judaism) is very human-like & crippled with incoherences & not purely monotheistic & transcendental. 


So, Kant's noumenon is logically Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute.
- Wut? No! Unless you define it as such... as you did just then... As it is commonly referred to in Metaphysics, noumenon is not identifiable with such a being.


But strangely the noumenon does not give us a code of human conduct.
The mere existence of a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute thing does not necessarily manifest a code of human conduct.
- Wut??

#700
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
But even if the origin of the universe is neccessary,singular etc., it does not follow (for example) that it dictated the koran to Mohammed, or chose the Hebrew people, or fathered jesus. Scriptures 'define' their gods to be more being the universes's origin.
- Indeed, that is true. You need to establish that separately, that is the revelation -Quran- we have today was indeed revealed by God, which is an extraordinary proposition to demonstrate, requiring extraordinary proof. For that, we have to show that: current Quran = spoken Quran by Prophet Muhammed = revealed Quran by God. To establish the first equation, it is required to show that the Quran we have today is verbatim what Prophet Muhammed revealed. To establish the second equation, it's required to show that the Prophet Muhammed is indeed a true prophet from God, in that the Quran revealed by him is actually revealed to him by God. Once all this is established, the matter is thus resolved.


I might concede something is needed to be the origin of the universe - but i'm not so sure the 'first cause' is the sort of things that can hear prayers.
- Creating the entire universe is a much daunting task than hearing mere prayers.
#701
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
The Quran is a book written by men in which men claim the existence of a god. All gods are the creation of men.
- You seem to be very keen on making unsupported claims. Why don't establish what you just claimed?


On the other hand, as established, a noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists
This is just another unsupportable claim made by men.
- Wrong! Established* claim, unlike yours...
#702
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I only applied a definition to the FSM that prove a the FSM is necessary.
- NO! That's equivocation. You can't define FSM to be one thing & then conflate that with another definition. If I say, I live in Turkey, I mean the state not the bird -you can't jump & say oh he lives inside a bird. THAT is equivocation. You defined FSM as a necessary being -which you are allowed to do, then you establish that a necessary being exist, thus FSM exists. THEN you jump & define FSM back as a spaghetti monster & say it's a necessary being. No, you can't do this! It's either this or that. A spaghetti monster is NOT a necessary being (it being contingent) not a singular being (it's a spaghetti for god sake) nor an absolute being (it doesn't even exist) nor a transcendent being (it's material)...


Necessary and necessarily Allah are not the same thing. You are the one that said Allah and the FSM are one not me.
- Wut? No! No, I didn't, you did. This is getting ridiculous! If this doesn't make sense to you, there is nothing I can tell you.
#703
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
So what you are saying is that it is ridiculous to believethat the universe was created by a giant plate of spaghetti even if it is noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute?

I presume then that you have some way of proving that.
#704
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
So what you are saying is that it is ridiculous to believethat the universe was created by a giant plate of spaghetti even if it is noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute?
- It simply can not be both! An actual giant plate of spaghetti is strictly none of those things. This is like saying a giant plate of spaghetti is the number '1'. It strictly isn't. Though, you can for notation purposes pose: FSM = 1... in which case, FSM has nothing to do with 'a giant plate of spaghetti'.


I presume then that you have some way of proving that.
- No. That's logically impossible...
#705
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
An actual giant plate of spaghetti is strictly none of those things.
This is a spiritual and transcendent plate of spaghetti. You just have to interpret the definition properly.

#706
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
It's not like a normal mundane plate of spaghetti that would be ridiculous. This is an all powerful universe creating plate of spagetti.
#707
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not like a normal mundane plate of spaghetti that would be ridiculous. This is an all powerful universe creating plate of spagetti.
- No such thing. It's material, it's contingent, it's temporal, it's a body... It can not possibly be any of those divine aforementioned things. 


#708
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
This is a spiritual and transcendent plate of spaghetti. You just have to interpret the definition properly.
- No. Transcendent =/= material. These terms have precise definition & meanings, you need to stop conflating these terms.

#709
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- You seem to be very keen on making unsupported claims. Why don't establish what you just claimed?
The Quran is a book. True
The quran was written by men. True
The Quran claims that a god exists. True
Before man existed there were no claims of gods. True.


Wrong! Established* claim, unlike yours
Then support your claim.
#710
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
It's not like a normal mundane plate of spaghetti that would be ridiculous. This is an all powerful universe creating plate of spagetti.
- No such thing
Prove it.

#711
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
This is a spiritual and transcendent plate of spaghetti. You just have to interpret the definition properly.
- No. Transcendent =/= material. These terms have precise definition & meanings, you need to stop conflating these terms.
Yes that's right. It's not a physical plate of spaghetti it's a transcendent one. A spirit of the perfect spaghetti in whose image all other spaghetti is made.

#712
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Prove it.
- Umm... The next part you just deleted. 


Yes that's right. It's not a physical plate of spaghetti it's a transcendent one. A spirit of the perfect spaghetti in whose image all other spaghetti is made.
- What exactly is a transcendent plate of spaghetti??? Is it a plate of spaghetti or not? If it is, it can't be transcendent. If it's transcendent, it can't be a plate of spaghetti. It simply can not be both.

#713
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
The Quran is a book. True
- It's a recitation, but whatever.


The quran was written by men. True
- Why don't you establish its truth first.


The Quran claims that a god exists. True
Before man existed there were no claims of gods. True.
- Non-sequitur.


Then support your claim.
- Done, support yours.
#714
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
What exactly is a transcendent being??? Is it a being or not? If it is, it can't be transcendent. If it's transcendent, it can't be a being. It simply can not be both.
#715
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
It's not like a normal mundane plate of spaghetti that would be ridiculous. This is an all powerful universe creating plate of spagetti.
- No such thing. It's material, it's contingent, it's temporal, it's a body... It can not possibly be any of those divine aforementioned things. 

The FAN is not material it is transcendent and it is not contingent it is prime and it is not temporal it is eternal it has a spiritual transcendent body not a physical one. You simply don't understand the reality of the FSM. 
#716
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
What exactly is a transcendent being??? Is it a being or not? If it is, it can't be transcendent. If it's transcendent, it can't be a being. It simply can not be both.
- LOL! Bunch of nonsense. Your attempts at being clever are just horribly embarrassing.


The FAN is not material it is transcendent and it is not contingent it is prime and it is not temporal it is eternal it has a spiritual transcendent body not a physical one. You simply don't understand the reality of the FSM. 
- Are you trying to say something?

#717
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
It's a recitation, but whatever.

It's a book, numpty
Why don't you establish its truth first.
Supply ant book not written by humans.
The Quran claims that a god exists. True
Before man existed there were no claims of gods. True.
True. Dispute it.
#718
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
It's a book, numpty
-Ahem, 'Quran' in Arabic literally means 'The Recitation'...


Supply ant book not written by humans.
- Wut? This is no proof.


True. Dispute it.
- Non-sequitur. 
#719
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Yassine
Yassine...defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being....
Yassine, this appears to me as meaningless since it has no descriptive, or elaborative content associated with each of these words.

Unlike what Ive seen from you or others, I actually give plenty of descriptive detailed explanation.

Triangle { polygon } or the five regular//symmetrical and convex polyhedra are neccessary, singular polyhedra,  and absolute truths  exists both as occupied space and a concept, ergo transcendent.

Gravity (  ) and dark energy )( both are metaphysical yet both direct effect Observed Time { reality } ergo they may be the most transcendent phenomena of Universe//Uni-V-erse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Occupied space Universe//God eternally exists, ergo there is no source or creator.  There there is no direct evidence of origin or source for our eternally, yet finite, Universe/Gods existence.
.....naught is created nor lost...see 1s t law of thermodynamics.......

Disscussion of God//Universe is insignificant and meaningless unless we have common agreement of definitions as specifically described.  Ive given the most descriptive and accurate definitions as follows and none have anyrational,  logical common sense toinvalidate my givens as stated.
 
" U " niverse / " G " od is most wholistic inclusive set as it includes the Cosmic Trinity below and all of its subsets.
 
Universe//God aka Uni-V-erse #3 below is less inclusive and is not considerate of #1 and #2 below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinities
 
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i }. Ex concepts of Space, God,Universe, Ego Toyota's etc.
 
.....1a} absolute truth --ergo cosmic--
 
.....1b} relative truth --ergo local special-case--
 
.....1c} lies//falsehoods
 
--------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
 
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following #3,
...2a} ?
...2b} ?
...2c} ?
 
3} God//Universe as occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erseas follows;
 
.....3a} spirit-2, Observed Time aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd  hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof. Ex atoms ,molecules, biologicals, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
 
.....3b} spirit-3, metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
 
.....3c} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.....meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinc tkinds of meta-physical in the above cosmic trinity above hence the enumeration#1, 2, 3, 4.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Observed Time aka reality is commonly associated with a sine-wave topology ex /\/\/\/\/\/ or as ^v^v^v and defined by diametrically opposed inversions { >< } from peaks of positive ( ) and negative )( geodesic curvature  of a torus (  )(  )ergo the texticonic representation as (><)(><).
 
Occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse is composed offermions  and bosons that are each defined by two or more tori ---my speculation-- interfering with each other. The sum-total of all interfering tori is occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
i = immature or baby metaphysical-1 ego
 
I = mature adult, metaphysical-1 ego
 
I = immature adult narcissistic, metaphysical-1 ego
 
* i * or * I * = most complex bilateral consciousness
........with woman {Xx } being more complex than man { Xy }.........
 
(  )(  ) = vertical bisection/cross section of a torus, which torus has positive and negative geodesically curved space.
 
( (  ) )  = horizontal { birds-eye-view }bisection/cross section of a torus.
 
SPACE (>*<)  i  (>*<) SPACE
 
SPACE ( Time )  i  ( Time ) SPACE
 
SPACE ( ^v^v)  i  ( ^v^v ) SPACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Humans dont really know what happen at the Big Bang phenomena or what existed before.  Our instrumentation only reveals what appear to have existed a few hundred thousandyears after the big bang not what existed before.
 
...."The universe has not expanded from any one  singularity spot since the Big Bang — rather, space itself has been stretching, and carrying matter with it.
 
....--See LINK-- Since the universe by its definition encompasses all of space and time as we know it, NASA says it is beyond themodel of the Big Bang to say what the universe is expanding into or what gaverise."...

The problem I have with the latter quote above, is that they do not describe the medium, substance, fabric of what this "space itself" is exactly//specifically yet they say it is stretching.

A rubber band stretches.  Steel  expands and contracts as does concrete.

I lay out very clearly what SPACE, Space and space is in my Cosmic Trinity. None have ever offerred any rational, logical common sense to invalidate my ideas, as stated.  I doubt any ever will.  Only time will tell.


#720
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. 

You keep stepping in this. 
Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.
I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate. 

Again, how is the underlined reasonable when speaking of this specific God when the Bible claims it is His revelation of Himself and of creation?

Please make sense of this for me. 

If I asked you to demonstrate that 2+2=4 and do not use any mathematical concept do you think that would be reasonable? 

If you want me to discuss how belief in God, as Creator, is necessary for making sense of morality or existence or origins, I can offer that argument but it does not point to God specifically, just to a Creator. 

Would you agree that there are two logical views of existence, either we are created or we are here by chance happenstance? Please answer this. I could add a third or possibly a forth scenario but I don't think they hold up (i.e., it's all illusion).