What created God?

[Necrosis]

i would never say anything so stupid as "everything needs a creator", because it is self defeating (hint hint)

hahahah, i never said everything needs a creator but entropy, redshift, singularity electormagnetism, the torus all say this universe is finite and had a beginning(big bang). your arguing for eternal and so am i, but im using facts and your using fiction, the universe isnt eternal some non-thing is, could be god could not be, but i have reason to beleive it is him.ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes.

[sandycoosworth]

hahahah, i never said everything needs a creator but entropy, redshift, singularity electormagnetism, the torus all say this universe is finite and had a beginning(big bang). your arguing for eternal and so am i, but im using facts and your using fiction, the universe isnt eternal some non-thing is, could be god could not be, but i have reason to beleive it is him.ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes.

you need to stop making assumptions dumbass, i am not arguing for eternal

"ever creation, that is not eternal or infinite needs a creator yes."

which is another way of saying everything that exists has a creator

which is another way of saying the creator doesnt exist because it has no creator

if you were smarter you would see that all the arguments you make go back to this point and it is self defeating, alas youre(and thats different from your btw) too dumb

[Necrosis]

the point is that i keep having these arguments with you and it is clear to anyone(if anyone would like to jump in do so) that you have downs syndrome.

pay attention like you had to in the nothing into something thread.

imagine eternal as a sheet of paper with to planes, that is the arrow of time can go in any direction infinitely(through the dimensions of width and length) our arrow is one way, one dimension. eternal would show that it does not need creation, because by definition it superceeds it. so listen this universe is not eternal nor infinite, so it could be part of a universe that is eternal(probably) or god could have did it, not sure but i beleive it to be god.

so if your not arguing for eternal, your saying there was a first cause, then what was the cause of the first cause using your logic. atheist argue that the universe is eternal, you are bringing shame to them by your ridiculous circular logic.

you are my bottom bitch. my arguments are not self defeating. eternal=no cause. infinite=no end. so look up the definitions if you want.

what was the cause of the first cause then, if there is no uncaused cause or eternal? answer this question riddler.

[sandycoosworth]

so if your not arguing for eternal, your saying there was a first cause, then what was the cause of the first cause using your logic. atheist argue that the universe is eternal, you are bringing shame to them by your ridiculous circular logic.

you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds

you use words like eternal and infinite as some sort of proof, when they are nothing more than reiterations of the same self defeating argument you keep trying to make.

another time:

"Any way you slice it you cannot hold the argument that everything needs a creator but the creator, which is exactly what dipshits like mymomsmokespole are trying to do
"

open your mind and close your mouth

[Necrosis]

haha, you say your not arguing for eternal yet evoke cyclical universes and multiverses to avoid first cause ahah. something that doesnt last forever needs a cause, eternal does not. get it through your head , you are applying concepts of time to something outside of time. cause is a function of matter with regards to its implicit and explicit interdependence. time and matter are reliant on themselves, something non-materia does not operate in time. so when you keep saying that god needs to be created you are applying dualistic concept of time to him, which is either ignorance for science and what i have been saying or you are plain dumb.


time had a beginning, called the singularity.

it is not self-defeating because you are using time constraints when i am not. its like trying to use eucledian concepts to describe non0eucledian concepts. cause is a result of time, no time=no cause, universe has time=cause called a singularity.

[Necrosis]

your asking the question "what does red smell like"? you cant answer it because your using two contradictory terms. much like you are asking "if this universe obeys time and cause is a product then god must obey this constraint" not so. outside of time cause is not a valid question. by the way the question you keep asking has been delt with and it is ridiculous that you cant see that saying this universe needs a cause therefore god needs a cause is convaluted. you sound like carl sagan who's argument you are using which has been defeated.

[Necrosis]

http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm

here this should put your mind at ease.

[sandycoosworth]

again you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds

you are trying (and failing) to blend philosophy and physics.

if everything needs a first cause, that would include the first cause, therefore the argument is self defeating ... you are too small minded to appraoch the situation from any mindset other than assuming there is a cause, and thats why you will get owned every time and never understand the situation(which is to say you will never understand that you can never understand the situation)

hope this helps dumbass

[Necrosis]

again you only see eternal and first cause, yet as i said before the universe could be cyclical with time resetting itself, or any number of alternate realities beyond the grasp our (and especially your) minds

you are trying (and failing) to blend philosophy and physics.

if everything needs a first cause, that would include the first cause, therefore the argument is self defeating ... you are too small minded to appraoch the situation from any mindset other than assuming there is a cause, and thats why you will get owned every time and never understand the situation(which is to say you will never understand that you can never understand the situation)

hope this helps dumbass

for one your premise of a cyclical universe is simply stating that it is eternal if it is not, it had a first cause. nothing cannot create something. a oscillating universe would have to be eternal, if not created, matter and time were created so before the singularity time and cause are not applicable.

your second point is the point im making dumbass ahahah. if there is no uncaused cause you have infinite regression of causes which would mean we are not here, which to the contraire we are, so there would have to be something eternal. stop being so dumb time creates cause, it is merely a dimension one that does not operate apart from matter. if everything needs to be created nothing would be here, follow, infinite regression of causes, so eternity is fact. your arguements are funny especially when your arguments prove my points. hahah.

ahah i perfer to go along with science today and say this universe is the only one, plus based on general relativity universe A could not coerce with universe B so your alternate realities or universes is plain dumb and is a straw man fallacy. also, lets use your logic, what if one of those realities is god-you probably wont accept it- so i dont accept your faith in other realities.

[logical?]

what is your point? i said that time is a construct of or dimensions, big bang was the beginning of space time, there is a finite amount of past time. no laws control nothing so your point doesnt make sense, nothing doesnt exist sorry, any law conceivable would no effect nothing. i have already thought of logical reasons why nothing cannot create something go to the avant link and read for others input if you like.

something that is not eternal needs a creator this universe is not eternal, so something else was the first cause per se, but eternal doesnt need a cause. i have to argue the same points because you guys dont grasp them.

Try thinking outside the box...

Nothing doesn't exist in this universe, obviously. Yet, why not outside it? And why not before it?

[Necrosis]

Try thinking outside the box...

Nothing doesn't exist in this universe, obviously. Yet, why not outside it? And why not before it?

1)why not outside it, thats possible although this universe is not finite, nor eternal entropy rules that out and if it was inifinite there would be no night sky, because each point would be equidistant from that other hence everywere in this universe would be equally illuminated. so if nothing exists outside the universe, the creation of the universe or the singularity called the big bang came from nothing(not possible).the big bang has a starting point, so it is infinite since infinite cannot expand it is already there.if nothing does exist outside the universe, the universe would have to be eternal, with no starting point. my thinking is as outside of the box as you can get. im not being standoffish im just saying your left with two logical conclusions
 - the universe is eternal
 -or some non-thing is eternal

2)i have already went over why nothing could not create something. something cannot come from nothing, something has characteristics that have to be derived from another form of something. a parent(something) say A has to contain B for the child(say the universe) to contain B. if A does not contain C the child cannot contain C. nothing contains nothing so the something A cannot be derived from nothing. for a multy person argument go to www.avantlabs.com and go to metaphysics and the thread entitled why is there somthing insted of nothing. this should answer all your questions on why nothing never existed since something(us)does exist.

[logical?]

- Not trying to be a prick here, brother, but can you punctuate 1) so I can understand it? Sorry dude, but I can't reply if I don't understand what you're writing.


- You've completely missed my point, usmokepole. That's why I said try thinking outside the box...

You're thinking that something can only come from something, which I generally agree with. However this is a concept which pervades our universe, our system. Why must it be the same outside our universe? There might be another universe where something can come from nothing.

After all, you seem to be able to extend different rules and laws to God pretty easily- he's not of this world, so he doesn't obey the same laws as us etc.

So try extending it to other things...

It's your argument dude, not mine....

[sandycoosworth]

this is why his argument is self defeating ; he sets up constructs and then says they apply to everything but god

[Necrosis]

i answered both of your questions in the other thread, stick to one thread, i dont want to answer the same ridiculous questions over and over.

[logical?]

The questions are rediculous? Is that because you have difficulty thinking of a coherent reply?

Seriously. I'm glad we agree- my questions are rediculous and your answers are rediculous.

[Necrosis]

we dont agree im basing my answers on something called logic and reasoning, you are making up hypothetical situations which dont exist and which dont apply to the situation, because they change the goalposts.

[logical?]

you are making up hypothetical situations which dont exist

Oh, you mean like 'God exists'? 

[Necrosis]

i suppose it is hypothetical since i have no concrete proof  .

[logical?]

Like 'if I was having steak for dinner, I would be happy' 


Bloody fish!

[Tre]

If that higher power is indeed God, who or what created Him?

"Man."

[NeoSeminole]

"Man."

already beat you to it.

man (I'm surprised nobody has said this yet)

[Tre]

already beat you to it.

Oops - my bad.  Great work! 

[Necrosis]

already beat you to it.

whats your idea on how the universe came into existence?

you really only have two logical choices. the universe is eternal

or something came from nothing. what is your atheistic position?

[Necrosis]

multiverse theories just push back the question, you still have to explain how those universes would avoid death, and how some unknow physical law allows new universes to dis-obey entropy. based on what we know, as fact and reason those are the only two logical options. if you have some others id love to hear them.

[doison]

multiverse theories just push back the question, you still have to explain how those universes would avoid death, and how some unknow physical law allows new universes to dis-obey entropy. based on what we know, as fact and reason those are the only two logical options. if you have some others id love to hear them.

Why does the universe have to avoid death?  Death is essentially a product of time.  what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended? First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint.

In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.