Replies

First I'd like to thank you. You have been the absolute first to try to directly rebut my post. The reason I posted this was to refine my argument, and this will serve quite well I think. You must understand, because I am biased that there is a god, and my arguments would be ineffective against my own arguments. So for that thank you.

"You got no replies to #126 because the "logic" is non-existent. Let's see it in some detail.

To start with, your "givens" are completely irrelevant to the point. They add nothing, they show nothing, nor do you reference them in any meaningful way."

Okay this is the equivalent of me telling you that your arguments are stupid, and leaving it like that. But you go on to explain yourself some, so I may be a little off base. I mention every one of my given in the proof.

" You neglect case "A" in spite of it's philosophical implications. But I'll let this one slide."

I neglect case "A" because if it is true, then regardless of any argument we could make against it, everything is meaningless anyway. Not even this argument means anything.

" You assume that cases "A,B, &C" are exhaustive. They aren't (that means you have not considered all possibilities)."

Good argument, but still wrong, either the universe has or has not always been, or it does not exist. there are no other possibilities.

" "If the universe has always existed" DOES NOT imply "then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity"."

Yes it does, If the universe has existed forever, even if stars die, and others are regenerated, then all of those stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Why assume any such thing at all? We know about the life cycle of stars and I've never heard of anyone who suggests that they have been around forever, so you are arguing against a strawman."

Essentially a proof must have a strawman in it. It is inevitable, and must be allowed. But I never asserted that the stars have always been, merely that stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Again, this does not follow from the premise. If the universe has existed forever, or has gone through an endless cycle of Big Bang-Big Crunches, it does not mean that that any particular stars have existed forever."

Thats kinda cool. The Idea of a race attempting to stop a big crunch would be a good plot for a sci-fi novel. (sorry for the non-sequiter). But anyway,

Okay sure I'll give you the second half of the Universe cannot have always been argument(that is single stars exist forever), but I still have the first(stars always consuming resources), so you're still not proved correct.

"True but irrelevant. Stars fluctuate in brightness due to a variety of causes, including age, mutual interference, and violent explosive deaths."

I know I've already given you this half of the argument, but I still want to argue this. Just because the star's magnitude fluctuates, does not impair the speed of light. The light would still reach Earth, and would be visible with instruments, satellites, or even the naked eye.

" So, we have bad premises, bad logic/leaps, and wrong (or, at least, totally unsupported) conclusions.

No need to proceed further."

Good try, but I still have half the Universe cannot have always existed argument, and all of the Universe was created at some point argument. I have at least an A-.

I would like to introduce a new argument. I hope you don't mind. What can be gained by atheism? I mean, sure, if there is no god, then we're all just worm food, but what if there is? I mean If there is a god, I still have what? a 1:1million chance of going to heaven. But believeing in no god, you believe you're just worm food, but If there is a god you have a 0:1million chance of going to heaven. Where is the logic in that? I picture a T-shirt that says: "I'm an atheist, and I'm right, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."

I really do appreciate your debating with me, I like deep discussion, and even if you don't agree with the *entire* Bible, it still must be true, that "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662}

Your last post contains Pascal's Wager. Here is an interesting discussion of it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

You seem to be assuming that anyone who understands biological evolution and finds it convincing (any scientist)is an atheist. This is simply not true. You can hold the tenets of modern science, including the TOE and remain faithful to God; for if God created evolution, denying God's work is the same as denying God. The systems God put in place at the Creation of the universe indirectly created evolution. Thus, God created biological evolution.

There is no need to refute evolution to save your faith, unless your faith has been corrupted by silly science and the cult of creationism. The literalist Bible view requires departure from reality, a somewhat psychotic view of life.

I would like to point out that in your argument you take as a given that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." You then attempt to apply that given to the big bang. What you fail to see is that this entails an unstated assumption, namely that "the laws of physics are applicable at all times in the history of the universe." This is generally accepted by scientists to NOT be the case. When or where are the laws of physics not applicable? Why at the very point in time at which you attemept to apply them, namely at the earliest moments of the big bang. (Technically during the duration of time from the big bang equal to the Planck time, I forget the value, but it's approximately 10^-34 seconds.)