Proof of God

not going to philosophize with you bud. but nice picture. up there with jazz music stops ;)

>It had to come from somewhere, as it is not eternal
You haven't answered the question. Why?

Time is a law of nature that functions in relation to space and matter. God created the matter and energy from which time is able to flow. This is why God precedes time as we know it

Why what? Why it had to originate from somewhere or something? Or why it is not eternal?

Your temporal sense is just a way your brain interprets thermodynamic exchange. There's nothing innately temporal about the nature of the universe. It is strictly a human interpretation of the order of things. For all you know, trees or star clusters are sentient in a manner that the whole is greater than just the sum of their activity, but on a completely different timescale than our fast neural interactions.

>Why is it not eternal

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, suggests that matter is not eternal. The expansion of the universe would suggest that it has a definite beginning

Are you referring to time, because temporal in this sense is referencing the mundane

It sounds like you're saying time necessarily exists alongside matter, meaning matter did not "come into being" in a temporal sense.

time does necessarily exist alongside matter. Can you explain the second part further? Im not sure that we are referencing temporal int he same way, namely because it has two different definitive uses

right, which is why I said that ENERGY is neither created nor destroyed. Additionally, matter (which we attribute to having mass) is convertable to energy and vice versa. What about the expansion of the universe suggests that it had a definite beginning? Because it implies a point source for everything? This is illogical as it suggests an outer bound of the universe which conjures notions of a balloon expanding in an empty room when clearly an "infinite universe" expanding within "something else" is impossible as the infinite universe would also contain the "something else"

OK, I'll give it a go. And no, you're not worth writing a whole books worth of text to answer your silly OP.

>1. If all is temporal then all has a beginning
no, it could have always existed.
Things can exist outside of time. Time its self wasn't even always around. light doesn't even experience time between its emission and absorption. Quantum level stuff does all sorts of weird time-y stuff.
>2.If all have a beginning, all came into being
no beginning needed
>3. If all is temporal and all came into being it must have come into being from non-being (nothing)
not all is temporal and that is not a logical jump
>4.
>5. Therefore some is eternal
>6. That which is eternal brought into existence that which is temporal
baseless assumption
>7. Therefore, that which is eternal created that which is temporal (the eternal creator)
or the 'creation' could just be eternal instead. Also see my first answer.

the only thing you proved is that your a fucking Moron with a shitty philosophy degree

Well, one could argue that the laws of thermodynamics that you are referencing are part of the creation that this being has engineered, and as such could be altered so that energy COULD be created. This would not hold true for the laws of thought, as they would be a part of the creator's being. If reason applies to being, then it also applies to the being of God (the highest being). So he would be bound by what is logically possible, but not necessarily what is naturally possible. As such, mathematics are an epistemological structure used in the observation of the material world. They show us the relationships between things in the natural world such as forces, volume, shape, etc. These are all subject to bending from the God that created them

You're just inserting a creator into the current state of affairs as they are perceived. Nothing you said implies a creator. You're assuming an outcome and basing your reasoning on this assumption.

Again, I believe you are conflating temporal with time rather than the definition of

Nice argument

Are you saying that I'm begging the question?

How can the creation itself be eternal if it could not be itself from non-being. To say as much would violate the law of non-contradiction

By temporal I mean existing only sometimes. By something "coming into being" I mean one moment it doesn't exist, then some time later it does. In that sense, the universe didn't come into being, it always existed. And probably matter always existed, since it's doubtful whether there is such a thing as a time before the Big Bang.

>relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs
Then what does being "temporal" have to do with having a beginning? Can you prove spiritual things don't always have a beginning?

I suppose that's the definition of begging the question.

try this on for size, all your prepositions are based on flawed assumptions. who made you the arbiter of the matters of the natural world your philosophy degree

>Can you prove spiritual things don't always have a beginning?

The proof is listed above. I don't know how you can say the universe always existed when the matter couldn't have come into being from nothing. Matter cannot have always existed as it is not eternal, due to the law of entropy. The concept of time before the moment of creation is irrelevant because time did not exist, there was only the eternal

You keep putting the word "creation" in front of things which implies a begging state of nonexistence which, in itself, is wrapped the concept of time and space.

The other possibility is that both time and space are infinite both forwards and backwards and as far as you know this is the case.

The concept of creation to denote the arising of something distinct (as we define it) can actually be retraced to a series of thermodynamic exchanges that are a matter of statistical happenstance baked into the nature of the system

lol my presuppositions are based on reason, which is the foundation for all knowledge. Care to name which of my assumptions are flawed? How are they flawed? You're using reason right now.

>"infinite universe" expanding within "something else" is impossible as the infinite universe would also contain the "something else"
This is a misunderstanding of cosmology. The universe is expanding, but it's not necessarily expanding *into* anything.

you havent proved that spiritual (which I assume you mean to be non-temporal) isn't subject to your concept of creation.

Additionally if you're saying "spiritual means non-temporal" you're not actually saying anything since this is just a definition that us humans have decided upon for purposes of communication (and in this instance, very vague communication)

>you havent proved that spiritual (which I assume you mean to be non-temporal) isn't subject to your concept of creation.

It's the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached while keeping in line with the law of non-contradiction

I understand that. To say that the universe has a beginning volume of zero (a point source) and then progressively expanded from there is the notion I am trying to say is fallacious since volume can only exist within the universe, as with concepts of "in" and "out" which are spacial-based concepts that necessarily require existence within our universe in order to comprehend.

they're not based on reason alone they're based on your flawed reasoning

why is it the only reasonable conclusion?

>This does not prove which God, but it does prove the existence of a God.
Wrong. What part of your argument says an eternal cause for the world should be assumed in any way equivalent to a god? A non-intelligent inanimate flux of eternal proto-spacetime is not a god, it's a structure.

You can measure volume from within a manifold without reference to anything external to the manifold.

Even easier.

1. Nope
2. again, no beginning needed
3. Then there couldn't be a 'creator.'
4. What did you expect when you assert two contrary statements?
5. or all
6. a baseless assumption still
7. or the 'creation' could still just be eternal instead. Also see existence outside of time. And also this

>Aristotle's laws of thought are flawed reasoning

Care to explain in detail how it's flawed?

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form.

...ok?

Here's a follow up for you.

Define "God"

Not proof of God at all. None of this implies a creator, let alone the jew god you worship and corresponding works/culture/inhibitions/history. If there were some 'creator', I would know this 'creator' better than you because I don't have other beliefs projected onto it.

i dont know where to begin
>unfounded premise
>self contradictory reasoning
>redefining "god"
yeah, no

That's fine. Fuck Jazz music, that shit sucks. I'm a trance man.