"A 30 Second Argument for God"

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think it's a fallacy to think that because Krauss's argument is flawed (if he is saying that nothing is defined as the quantum vacuum then his argument is flawed) the notion that there is a first cause is validated. It just means that Krauss's argument is flawed. It doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong.

There is a problem with talking about "before" ...[text shortened]... exists to the statement that God is close to the God of Scriptures without any additional evidence.

DeepThought, the labyrinthian nuances of formalized logician thought you've given the original post text and its correlations with Aristotle's "ontological argument" exceed my immediate academic frame of reference and grasp. Here's a thought which may hold promise of benefiting all of us involved in this thread: You could "Leave a Comment." and post the author's reply.

http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/a-30-second-argument-for-god-19111/

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. true
2. supposition
3. false. there are infinite choices
4. supposition
5. ... not proven.

"1.I exist.
2.If I exist, something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3.There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4.The universe is not eternal.
5.Therefore, God exists." (From the OP)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]1. true [Me, too, and unlike Descartes' observation, I am/We are therefore I/We think.]
2. supposition
3. false. there are infinite choices [DeepThought has already replied with a question.]
4. supposition
5. ... not proven [Nor is the obverse statement that God doesn't exist.]

Originally posted by divegeester
That definitely took me less than 30 seconds to click "reply"

Well, dive, assuming you read it first... thanks for the positive note.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
2.If I exist, something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.

I hope to live long enough to see science come to some firm conclusions about the very start of the Big Bang, though I doubt I will. Lee Smolin is a scientist who is willing to speculate about that, but I think he would admit that he really is just speculating. Science is still too far from a theory of everything to make firm statements.

Anyway, until that time comes, item 2 is just supposition on the part of the author of the 30-second argument.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd like you to name one of the infinite number of choices for eternal things which aren't God or the universe.

I did.

Now you want more!?!!?!

(Have you seen "Oliver"?)
YouTube

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I hope to live long enough to see science come to some firm conclusions about the very start of the Big Bang, though I doubt I will. Lee Smolin is a scientist who is willing to speculate about that, but I think he would admit that he really is just speculating. Science is still too far from a theory of everything to make firm statements.

Anyway, unt ...[text shortened]... that time comes, item 2 is just supposition on the part of the author of the 30-second argument.

"It truly is a question of either matter before mind or mind before matter." (OP/2 of 2) Paul, I'd appreciate your comment.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I did.

Now you want more!?!!?!

(Have you seen "Oliver"?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc

"Oliver": one our family's favorites. Still hear Eric or Heidi saying, "More please; may I have more?" while holding a soup bowl in both outstretched hands. Then my wife or I would look down upon them with mock sternness: "More? You want more?!" And we'd all do a family hug and laugh. Nice touch with "Now you want more!?!!?!" in your reply to DeepThought.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes. I do think "what you [I] posted" makes considerable sense". It's not my modus operandi to prejudge: if some thinkers state that it's "utterly ridiculous" I'll consider the merits of their empirical and/or rationalism based insights and arguments and reply accordingly.

So, given that several posters have pointed out obvious problems with it, have you now changed your mind?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"It truly is a question of either matter before mind or mind before matter." (OP/2 of 2) Paul, I'd appreciate your comment.

My vote would be "matter before mind," but if I'm wrong then as far as the details of the situation go, most Believers are also wrong. Different religions posit different original minds (deities), and at best only one of the religions is correct. Any single religion comprises only a minority of the world's Believers.

More than 200 people were killed yesterday when a passenger jet blew up. One of the corpses came through a house roof and ended up in the kitchen. Bob, can you support any of the following?

i) God didn't want the corpse to damage a house, but He was powerless to push it off the trajectory determined by natural forces of gravity and winds aloft.

ii) It is God's policy to totally stay out of the timing and manner of human death and of disposal of the body.

iii) God wanted to make a statement and therefore deliberately arranged for the body to enter that house.

If you go with (iii), do you think the onus is on God to make it clear to everybody (or at least to all Believers of your type) precisely what His statement was?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think it's a fallacy to think that because Krauss's argument is flawed (if he is saying that nothing is defined as the quantum vacuum then his argument is flawed) the notion that there is a first cause is validated. It just means that Krauss's argument is flawed. It doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong.

There is a problem with talking about "befor ...[text shortened]... sts to the statement that God is close to the God of Scriptures without any additional evidence.

If you are saying that you believe something can come from nothing, then that seems to me to mean that you believe magic is real and not just an illusion.

Originally posted by divegeester
That definitely took me less than 30 seconds to click "reply"

We are apparently slower readers than Grampy Bobby.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I hope to live long enough to see science come to some firm conclusions about the very start of the Big Bang, though I doubt I will. Lee Smolin is a scientist who is willing to speculate about that, but I think he would admit that he really is just speculating. Science is still too far from a theory of everything to make firm statements.

Anyway, unt ...[text shortened]... that time comes, item 2 is just supposition on the part of the author of the 30-second argument.

I believe the best choice at this time is to believe in the Christian God. If science eventually proves that to be unreasonable or false, then we should consider another alternative.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My vote would be "matter before mind," but if I'm wrong then as far as the details of the situation go, most Believers are also wrong. Different religions posit different original minds (deities), and at best only one of the religions is correct. Any single religion comprises only a minority of the world's Believers.

More than 200 people were killed ...[text shortened]... clear to everybody (or at least to all Believers of your type) precisely what His statement was?

I believe Jesus explained what is happening today in the following parable:

Matthew 13:24-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

Matthew 13:36-43 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Parable of the Tares Explained

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

RJ, I am impressed by how much effort you put into evangelizing. Keep up the work!

You are the ideal RHP member to hand this challenge to--
https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

"... without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened."

If you are able to answer the challenge, kindly paste your narrative as a fresh thread in our Spirituality forum. May the Lord maketh His face to shine upon you, should you take on this task.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
RJ, I am impressed by how much effort you put into evangelizing. Keep up the work!

You are the ideal RHP member to hand this challenge to--
https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

"... without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascensio ...[text shortened]... pirituality forum. May the Lord maketh His face to shine upon you, should you take on this task.

I believe someone that knows the original language would be better to do something like this so that he could make sure he is using the most accurate translations. Even then, the fact that none of the accounts are fully from the authors eyewitness account seems to make the harmonizing even more difficult.