Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Skepdick]

That was its property. It was a very hot and dense so it has capacity to expand. Of course we need to accept that the universe is expanding from a point.

So this stuff that had the capacity to expand....began actualizing this capacity.

Yes.

And you think that event neither requires nor has an explanation.

There is an explanation for it. The stuff was very hot and dense so the pressure was very high at that point. Any system that has high pressure tends to reach lower pressure if it can expand. That was what happened. I studied cosmology long time ago, over 30 years ago, so I do not recall the details but what I provided is the gist of the cosmology.

That doesn't explain the change from potential to actual expansion.

Why not remain in a potential state?
Why hasn't it finished expanding already - why hasn't the potnetial been depleted?

You have zero questions about this very hot, very dense stuff that began expanding heated up; or densed up?

30 years and you've never once doubted; or questioned your indoctirnation?
You've never questioned whether it had to expand because it was hot and dense; or whether we claimed it was hot&dense because it had to expand?

[bahman]

So this stuff that had the capacity to expand....began actualizing this capacity.

Yes.

And you think that event neither requires nor has an explanation.

There is an explanation for it. The stuff was very hot and dense so the pressure was very high at that point. Any system that has high pressure tends to reach lower pressure if it can expand. That was what happened. I studied cosmology long time ago, over 30 years ago, so I do not recall the details but what I provided is the gist of the cosmology.

That doesn't explain the change from potential to actual expansion.

What you are talking about? Potential and actual! The stuff was hot and dense and had the capacity and chance to expand. So it expanded.

Why not remain in a potential state?

Because it has the chance to expand.

Why hasn't it finished expanding already?

Nobody knows!

You have zero questions about this very hot, very dense stuff that began expanding heated up; or densed up?

It was very hot and dense. It started to cool down and became less dense as it expanded.

[Skepdick]

What you are talking about? Potential and actual! The stuff was hot and dense and had the capacity and chance to expand. So it expanded.

Why can't it just stay hot and dense without expanding ?!?

Because it has the chance to expand.

So? It was actually hot and dense already. It had the chance to remain that way too.

Nobody knows!

You don't seem to know why it began expanding either.

It was very hot and dense. It started to cool down and became less dense as it expanded.

Why did it do that?

[bahman]

What you are talking about? Potential and actual! The stuff was hot and dense and had the capacity and chance to expand. So it expanded.

Why can't it just stay hot and dense without expanding ?!?

If there is hot gas and has the chance to expand then it would expand. That is how the old and new engines work. When you heat a gas, its atoms or molecules move faster so its pressure and temperature increase as a result. The pressure is simply the average force exerted by bouncing atoms or molecules of the gas to the walls of the container and each other. If you increase the heat more then you reach a point where the container cannot hold the gas and as a result, explode.

Because it has the chance to expand.

So? It was actually hot and dense already. It had the chance to remain that way too.

If it didn't have the opportunity to expand then it would stay hot and dense. It had the opportunity to expand so it expanded.

Nobody knows!

You don't seem to know why it began expanding either.

I know that I explained it to you in the first comment and the last comment (read below) to a good length.

It was very hot and dense. It started to cool down and became less dense as it expanded.

Why did it do that?

When a gas is very hot, its atoms hit each other hard so the pressure is high at each given point of the gas. If the gas has the opportunity to expand then it would since its atoms exert less force on each other and as a result, it cools down and expands. Why does sit expand? Because there is a repulsive force due to positive potential energy between any two atoms. The farther they are, the less is the force.

[Skepdick]

If there is hot gas and has the chance to expand then it would expand.

So this hot gas trying to expand just appears hot and unexpanded out of nowhere?

That is how the old and new engines work

I'm thinking you've taken the Mathematics of thermodynamics a bit too literally...

Like I said - a man-made Mathematical construction may be obscuring your vision.

If it didn't have the opportunity to expand then it would stay hot and dense. It had the opportunity to expand so it expanded.

I have the opportunity to call you dense. Should I exercise it?

I know that I explained it to you in the first comment and the last comment (read below) to a good length.

Where? The confirmation bias you are peddling?

When a gas is very hot, its atoms hit each other hard so the pressure is high at each given point of the gas. If the gas has the opportunity to expand then it would since its atoms exert less force on each other and as a result, it cools down and expands. Why does sit expand? Because there is a repulsive force due to positive potential energy between any two atoms. The farther they are, the less is the force.

Cute story. So why do you believe it's true?

[bahman]

If there is hot gas and has the chance to expand then it would expand.

So this hot gas trying to expand just appears hot and unexpanded out of nowhere?

That is how the old and new engines work

I'm thinking you've taken the Mathematics of thermodynamics a bit too literally...

Like I said - a man-made Mathematical construction may be obscuring your vision.

If it didn't have the opportunity to expand then it would stay hot and dense. It had the opportunity to expand so it expanded.

I have the opportunity to call you dense. Should I exercise it?

I know that I explained it to you in the first comment and the last comment (read below) to a good length.

Where? The confirmation bias you are peddling?

When a gas is very hot, its atoms hit each other hard so the pressure is high at each given point of the gas. If the gas has the opportunity to expand then it would since its atoms exert less force on each other and as a result, it cools down and expands. Why does sit expand? Because there is a repulsive force due to positive potential energy between any two atoms. The farther they are, the less is the force.

Cute story. So why do you believe it's true?

Did you know anything about thermodynamic of gas? I provided the short story but you call it cute story so I will leave to you to google and see what I said is correct.

[Skepdick]

Did you know anything about thermodynamic of gas? I provided the short story but you call it cute story so I will leave to you to google and see what I said is correct.

I know the theory. It fails to account for the theorizer upon which it depends.

[Age]

Once again...

Not today Josephine

Once again, another one who cannot in absolutely anyway at all back up and support its 'current' views, which it tries to claim are the true and right correct ones.

LOL it could not even clarify what the words 'space', 'time', and 'spacetime' mean, and are referring to, exactly. Although it used those words while pretending to know what it was talking about.

So, once more, for the very slow of learning and understanding, I suggest that if any one here wants to express any view, as though that view is true, right, accurate, or correct, then it will be better and best for you to have obtained the irrefutable proof for it, first, and I suggest obtaining the proof before you even begin to consider expressing and sharing 'your view' here.

[FlashDangerpants]

Once again...

Not today Josephine

Once again...

Not tonight either Josephine.

[Age]

Not today Josephine

Once again...

Not tonight either Josephine.

'Trying to deflect', as seen here, again, by 'this one', again, was another tactic frequently used by these people, back when this was being written, to 'try to deceive'.

Obviously 'this one' is completely and utterly incapable of clarifying and backing up and supporting its views and beliefs here, but this will not stop 'this one' from trying to deflect and deceive here.

Instead of just being open and honest and admitting that it cannot clarify nor prove its claims it will just 'try to' deceive the readers here.

These people actually believed that they could fool and deceive you readers here.

[Gary Childress]

the existence of God

What is God doing now, Gary?

You'll have to ask IC or consult some holy book. I'm just an ignorant human who doesn't know answers to such questions.

[Gary Childress]

These people actually believed that they could fool and deceive you readers here.

When you say, "these people", who are you specifically referring to, Age. Are you referring to me as well?

[Alexiev]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

First, the notion that everything that happens must have a "cause" is incorrect. Generally, what we mean by "cause" is either the intentional act of conscious agent, or a variable we can manipulate. If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, the powder, bullet, accuracy etc. are also involved). So if "cause" is used this way, postulate 1 is circular. Second, in experimental science, the "cause" is sometimes seen as the variable (although other conditions are necessary for the effect). We didn't manipulate the "cause" of the origin of the universe, so we can rule that out.

In addition, even if (as would be silly) we admit the postulates, they in no way confirm the existence of God. A "creator" may have existed once, but, as Nietzsche suggested, He might be dead.

So either way, the so called "proof" fails miserably.

[Gary Childress]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

First, the notion that everything that happens must have a "cause" is incorrect. Generally, what we mean by "cause" is either the intentional act of conscious agent, or a variable we can manipulate. If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, the powder, bullet, accuracy etc. are also involved). So if "cause" is used this way, postulate 1 is circular. Second, in experimental science, the "cause" is sometimes seen as the variable (although other conditions are necessary for the effect). We didn't manipulate the "cause" of the origin of the universe, so we can rule that out.

In addition, even if (as would be silly) we admit the postulates, they in no way confirm the existence of God. A "creator" may have existed once, but, as Nietzsche suggested, He might be dead.

So either way, the so called "proof" fails miserably.

Traditionally, "cause and effect" seem to have meant something along the lines of the classical example of billiard balls. One billiard ball hits another and "causes" it to roll in the opposite direction from which it was struck. I think that was the standard idea of matter of the early materialists. However, as some point out, including Noam Chomsky, the more theorists have delved into physics, the less we seem to be sure that matter is really like billiard balls. Apparently, there are phenomena that defy the standard billiard ball model of cause and effect, such as quantum entanglement which seems to hint at "spooky action from a distance" as theorists call it (such as with the force of gravity), things 'communicating' with each other or reacting to each other instantaneously, faster than the speed of information or light.

I remember reading of an experiment where neuroscientists measured the delay in the firing of a synapse and could tell before a person reacted, what they were going to say or do. Essentially predicting behavior before the person was aware of what they were going to do.

The more closely we focus our attention and learn, the stranger the world seems to get. For example, the classic particle vs wave phenomenon of atomic "particles".

[FlashDangerpants]

Once again...

Not tonight either Josephine.

'this one'

Nope, none of that 'this one' bullshit for me thanks.