I will now prove the existence of God to you all:

I dont see no Mars in the Bible.

>2. The universe exists in time.
This is definitely the wrong approach. The time doesn't seem to be some sort of 'container' in which the universe is contained, but rather an internal attribute of space-time. You can't seperate universe and time, they are not two different things.

>3. Therefore the universe had a beginning.
1 and 2 are wrong premises, so: NO

he's not saying that everything implied by 4 is also implied by 1-3. i take it that he's saying that 4 implies *one* thing, that the universe had a beginning, which 1-3 establishes.

6 is an assumption.

The most plausible theory I've read is that we're all highly sentient Sims in some neckbeard's video game.

The fact we are growing more aware that the universe is a simulation and nothing is real is why scientists are constantly finding glitches and errors in the fabric of space that by all rights shouldn't be there.

So if there is a god, it's a cheeto stained manchild.

4 doesn't imply that the universe has a creator, it explicitly states that something created the universe. I think this follows from the universe having a beginning. If something has a beginning it was created somehow. 4 doesn't say how it was created or whether there is a "creator", it just states that an event or an action outside of time had to be responsible for the creation of the universe.

I'm saying that 1 and 2 establish 3. Then 3 establishes 4.

>4. Something had to create the universe.
No. The universe could be eternal or an expression of an eternal condition.
Also while it might be a trivial macroscopic observation on earth that thing don't appear from nothing, this is far from trivial.

>1. Everything thatexists in time had a beginning.

Prove it.

>2. The universe exists in time.

Actually time is a component of the universe, and intrinsically linked with space. The universe does not exist in time.

"created"

something having a beginning does not imply creation. Creation implies a creator. What could have happened is formation, which does not entail a creator.

>5. The thing that created the universe has to exist outside of time.
Unless time is eternal or things can appear from nothing.

>The universe exists in time

>6. Only something akin to a God can exist outside of time.
Wtf is this bull shit?
With akin to a God do you mean some dude in the sky who cares about people not sticking their dicks up other peoples assholes?
Srsly?

>7. Therefore God created the universe.
Congratulations, you are officially retarded now.

it's wrong that 3 establishes 4 i'm pretty sure.
Firstly, if you're thinking that since 4 implies 3 (which you said here it seems ), and 3 is established (by 1-2) then 4 is established, you're wrong. That's affirming the consequent.
Secondly, even if that's not what you're thinking, 3 doesn't entail 4. To get something valid, you need a premise to the effect of "3.b. If something has a beginning then it has a creator." and it seems like there are counterexamples to that

I will now prove that OP is a faggot

1. Not all faggots are OPs
2. All OPs are faggots
3. Therefore OP must be a faggot

this is clearly question-begging, any OP would simply deny your 2nd premise

That's the joke.

would substituting "space-time" in for "time" in all places fix the problem you have with it? I think it works both ways

How are they wrong?

Why is that theory the most plausible to you?

I tried to refute this by stating 1-3 to establish that it had a beginning and was not eternal. What are your objections to that?

>Prove it
Time allows for cause and effect to occur. There are no instances of an effect not being the result of a cause.
>Actually time is a component of the universe, and intrinsically linked with space. The universe does not exist in time.
read my first line in this post. Would saying space-time fix the problem you have with it?
I'm just saying "created" in the sense that something caused the universe. cause and effect sort of thing, not a creator creation sort of thing
Time is tied to the universe is it not?
by akin I just mean something which has characteristics we would attribute to a god. not any particular god like the christian god, just something we'd consider godlike.
>3.b. If something has a beginning then it has a creator.
that's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying all effects had a cause. 4 isn't about saying a creator exists just that a cause had to be responsible for the universe

why's that the joke?

I take it that to say something has a creator is just to say that something created it. But OK so why not "3b If something has a beginning then something had to create it"?
How else are you going to get from 3 to 4?

Anything before the beginning of the universe cannot be explained through what we see in the universe now. It's possible there was a God like creator. It is also possible that nothing become something. Neither are provable. Because logic is a part of our universe.

>would substituting "space-time" in for "time" in all places fix the problem you have with it? I think it works both ways
No it wouldn't because 2 would still be illegitimate. If space-time is the universe or a part of the universe, the universe can't exist within it, unless it exists within itself which means it can't have "a beginning".

>I tried to refute this by stating 1-3 to establish that it had a beginning and was not eternal. What are your objections to that?

Well one of my objection to that is that your logic in 1-3 was flawed.

>But OK so why not "3b If something has a beginning then something had to create it"?
I'm fine with adding that. Do you think there are counterexamples to that?
>It is also possible that nothing become something
how can nothing exist? wouldn't that nothingness be something?
>No it wouldn't because 2 would still be illegitimate. If space-time is the universe or a part of the universe, the universe can't exist within it, unless it exists within itself which means it can't have "a beginning".
so then just change 2 to "the universe exists as space-time

what's flawed about it?

"The universe was created by something that exists outside of time" seems like a pretty airtight statement to me.

>Time allows for cause and effect to occur.
Does it? Or does cause and effect allow time to occur? Also many things are possible mathematically, there could be cause-effect reactions with virtually no time between them or even with infinite time between them. Point being, you (we) don't even understand enough about it to make this trivial claim.

>There are no instances of an effect not being the result of a cause.
There are (physical) effects that are not predictable and don't have a cause detectable to us. So no the evidence we have doesn't even support this claim of yours.>Time is tied to the universe is it not?
yes it even is a part of the universe
>by akin I just mean something which has characteristics we would attribute to a god. not any particular god like the christian god, just something we'd consider godlike.
What humans consider 'godlike' doesn't have any authority over how the (possible) cause of the universe has to look like. None.
>4 isn't about saying a creator exists just that a cause had to be responsible for the universe
Well again, the universe could be "eternal" or it could come to existence without a cause.

>"The universe was created by something that exists outside of time" seems like a pretty airtight statement to me.
If you think about it, it's not really:
What would "outside of time" imply?
It would imply that cause-effect relationships can exist "outside of time" which in itself is a bold and unprovable statement.
If there is no time you can hardly say that one thing "caused" the other.

OK. Whether there's a counterexample depends on what you mean by "has a beginning".
From looking at 1, I feel like you might just take "has a beginning" to mean "exists in time" - that would certainly be enough for 1 to be true. If so, you end up saying nothing more by 3b than "If something exists in time then something had to create it", which seems to beg the question - you're just saying that everything in time was created, without any real support. If you don't mean to just say this, what do you mean by "has a beginning" that's not expressed by "exists in time"?

t. craigcuck

I reject axioms 1, 2, and 6 on the grounds of insufficient evidence and misunderstanding of definitions.

>Also many things are possible mathematically, there could be cause-effect reactions with virtually no time between them or even with infinite time between them.
there's still time in both of those extremes
>There are (physical) effects that are not predictable and don't have a cause detectable to us.
not being predictable or detectable doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause, we can't predict the weather accurately a month from now but we know it has a cause. also I assume you're alluding to quantum physics, if you are then you should know that physicists can manipulate what happens without knowing why it happens. the fact that we can manipulate what happens shows that what happens is caused by something
>What humans consider 'godlike' doesn't have any authority over how the (possible) cause of the universe has to look like.
it's a good thing I didn't say that

>It would imply that cause-effect relationships can exist "outside of time" which in itself is a bold and unprovable statement.
>If there is no time you can hardly say that one thing "caused" the other.
that sort of action would be attributable to a god

your post is pretty confusing to me but I'll try to answer your question. I'm not saying that "has a beginning" is equal to "exists in time", just that all things which exist in time also have a beginning. Everything I said so far says nothing about whether or not it needed an event or action to cause the beginning, that is what 3b does.

>1. Everything that exists in time had a beginning.

Why does this have to be true?

>Time allows for cause and effect to occur. There are no instances of an effect not being the result of a cause.

Prove that time is required for cause and effect.
>read my first line in this post. Would saying space-time fix the problem you have with it?

No. Because the universe does not exist within time; time exists within the universe. The universe is ultimately beyond time, because time is a feature of the space within the universe.

>2. The universe exists in time.
But that's wrong, idiot. The universe does not exist in time. Time is a property of the universe.

>1. Everything that exists in time had a beginning.
no
>2. The universe exists in time.
no
>3. Therefore the universe had a beginning.
no
>4. Something had to create the universe.
no
>5. The thing that created the universe has to exist outside of time.
maybe
>6. Only something akin to a God can exist outside of time.
no
>7. Therefore God created the universe.
maybe

Again we get to the point that we applying universal logic to scenario where it doesn't exist. So there may have been literally nothing. Or there may have been something akin to universe that had different laws and different logic. We don't know and it's all speculative. But the heart of my point is we cannot make assumptions about anything that happens before the universe. ( Even the phrase before the universe may not make sense since time may only exist within our univere) because it is impossible to know anything about even things like logic may not exist at least not in the same way we think about it.

>So if there is a god, it's a cheeto stained manchild.

I've had this on my mind for some time now.

really insightful

Very well, but please tell me why I should waste my time going to church every sunday. Why should I look up to old men in funny hats. Why should I utter meaningless prayers. Why should I hate homosexuals. Why I should reject science. And most importantly, Why should I interpret a book of tales to be real?

>1
Fallacy of composition

>2
Time is not the container of the universe

>6
Baseless assumption and a leap of logic.

Are you religious? If you are, why do you adhere to your specific religion? What about it leads you to believe that this is the only true religion?

Number 4 is a logical fallacy. It's like looking at a puddle on the ground and claiming it was created by Aquarius. And if you really want to use the argument of a creator, then who created God? God is complex so surely he has to be created right?

If there was nothing: no laws of nature, no logic, no causality

What stopped a universe from spontaniously popping into existace?

If the universe is made out of nothing, then what is nothing made out of?
CHECKMATE GAYTHEISTS!

oh hello there thomas aquinas

>2. The universe exists in time.

Proof?

None of those premises have been established to be true.

the universe doesnt exist IN "time", it IS "time".

>The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

muh ontological verbal diarrhea

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.