- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
After his conversion to Christianity and motivated by his new faith, he fought for the abolition of the slave trade as a Member of Parliament in the British Empire starting in 1787 and continued until the Slavery Abolition Act was signed into law in 1833, three days before he died.
If you believe that the laws of logic are true, then you believe in something that you cannot see or touch.
If you believe that you have a mind, you believe in something you cannot see or touch.
If you believe in honesty, justice, tolerance...
If you believe in numbers and letters...
All of these things are immaterial,yet very real.
Here is where I think we agree...
-the big bang happened, likely around 14 billion years ago.
-the Big Bang had something profound to do with the universe as we know and can measure it today.
-time, space and matter are properties of the universe
-the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observation
Where we disagree...
-whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang
-whether or not the universe is or could be eternal
-whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang.
Is that a fair assessment so far? Would you add anything?
I really don't think that I am merely assuming that the universe is finite in time. A quick google search should confirm that for you.
You say that the Big Bang obviously had a cause, and I agree. That is the central tenet of my argument. When astronomers and astrophysicists speak of the big bang, they are speaking about the beginning of the universe. So you are right in saying that the Big Bang does not equal the universe. But you are assuming that something physical , the singularity, existed prior to the beginning of matter. That is simply absurd.
In cases like this, logic and the laws of logic are all we have to talk about the beginning of time, space and matter. Science is blind prior to t=0.
Again, I am not merely assuming God's timelessness, it is established by the arguments. The fact that the universe is finite in time is well established in scientific literature. Again, these are not assumptions. And you labeling them assumptions does nothing to reduce their truth value.
God didn't begin to exist without cause. The premiss is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence.
God's begininglessness is not assumed by the argument, it is established by it.
Examples of things that begin to exist without cause, please...(not God as established by my arguments)...under your view, this should happen all the time.
The universe can't be infinite in the past because an infinite regress of cause and effect is an actually infinite set of events. Any mathemetician knows that an actually infinite set of anything is impossible. Therefore an eternal universe is impossible. This is not speculation.
Time and matter came into existence at the same moment. Consult Einstein.
I already told you about an impersonal set of mechanical causes. Are you seriously talking about a personal set of mechanical causes?? Read my arguments carefully.
You have done nothing to show that my premisses are faulty.
You seem to provide a pretty decent explanation of the Trinity here, xaeon.
I heard the Trinity described as being similar to Fluffy, the three-headed dog in Harry Potter. One being, or substance, with three loci of consciousness.
Your statement that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent throughout the Bible doesn't hold water though. The idea is communicated quite consistently throughout the Bible.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement