Answer this one Fundies.......

[falcon9]

God is the great uncaused cause.

Your premise is unsupported by substantiation. It apparently relies solely upon religious faith, (which is not substantive support for the premise).

Everything has a beginning,but God trandsends space and time because He created it.He's Eternal-the Alpha and the Omega.

There is exactly zero evidence to support such a religious fiction.

As Abrupt so aptly put it,it's a far more logical concept than the "big bang thoery" which suggests the universe was created from....I dunno....something.

On the contrary, a religious belief with no evidential support whatsoever if far and away more illogical than a physical theory, (for which there is at least some supportive, although not conclusive, evidence).

A creation must have a creator.An effect must have a cause.

That's a logical fallacy since is presumes the universe was intentfully created.  Effects have causes however, if does not follow that the cause of the effect know collectively as "the universe" is a 'creator god'.

[mh874892]

I am familiar with this '6000 years' you speak of, but you do realize that is nowhere in the bible.  I have seen the genealogy and various breakdown tables and such used to construct a chronology of events so as to build an estimate time table, but I think anyone trying to construct a time line based off this may not be appropriately considering all that should be considered.  For those who don't believe in the Bible to attempt to use it as an argument to construct such a dating is silly and entirely pointless.  I believe in God and read the bible and other scripture and I don't see anything about the earth being 6000 years old in it .

God wasn't created, he always was.  I wouldn't spend much time puzzling on that as it isn't something we could ever understand.  To be more precise, we think in terms of 'time' and duration, but such things are properties of our universe that appeared after it's origin.  If you ascribe to the "big bang", then time arose after it did, and mentioning events before the big bang is problematic as one will find it difficult to describe 'before' when there is no 'time'.

So far there are no theories put forth by scientists that could qualify any of the questions that would arise about the creation of the universe without bringing up more questions than the answers they provide.  None of the existing theories (that I am aware of anyways) work within an empty set.  Unless you can demonstrate a way to separate nothing into a negative and positive part of equal (but opposite) values, with substantial properties associated with each of them and the capability that they do not readily reform and neutralize themselves, then I feel any theories could never qualify as "everything from nothing".

That is the absolute best response I have seen in any of these debates. Thank you. It is so hard to explain and argue when Christians base things on faith and others require proof. This covers both sides and gives a completely rational response. Great!

[falcon9]

God wasn't created, he always was.  

That is unsupported speculation based entirely upon religious faith.  As such, it has no rational basis as a substantiated premise.  Your next sentence indicates that you seem to be aware of that you are unable to satisfy the burden of prrof requirement for initiating that claim.

I wouldn't spend much time puzzling on that as it isn't something we could ever understand.  To be more precise, we think in terms of 'time' and duration, but such things are properties of our universe that appeared after it's origin. If you ascribe to the "big bang", then time arose after it did, and mentioning events before the big bang is problematic as one will find it difficult to describe 'before' when there is no 'time'.

The reference is to the time-space continium which includes such concepts as "duration", "before" and "after", yes.  This neglects the theorectical premises of having more than four "dimensions", (as in superstring and other theories).  Mathematically, some 4-D processes 'work' if these 'extra' dimensions are figured-in to the equations.  With some 11-dimensional theories, "time" doesn't have the same attributes as in 4-D space-time, (point-dimensional aspects apply instead).  Within such theories, neither an 'eternal' nor 'creator god' are required to be unnecessarily hypothesized in order to account for sub-quark particles "appearing" And "disappearing, (from and to these other mathematically-posited dimensions).  Yes, these are scientific theories however, they have at least some extensive mathematical basis whereas just saying 'godditit' has none whatsoever.

If you ascribe to the "big bang", then time arose after it did, and mentioning events before the big bang is problematic as one will find it difficult to describe 'before' when there is no 'time'.

There are other theories extant than just "big bang", (even insofar as variations on BB, such as steady-state & cyclic 'bang' theories for instance).

So far there are no theories put forth by scientists that could qualify any of the questions that would arise about the creation of the universe without bringing up more questions than the answers they provide.  None of the existing theories (that I am aware of anyways) work within an empty set.

The empty set objection presents an inaccurate premise in that it is inherently applied to 4-D space-time and changes aspect when applied to additional dimensions, (11-D for instance).  This can get extremely complex in aruing mathematical proofs however, interested persons can look up such things as 'more than 4 dimensions' and 'emergent physics', etc..

 Unless you can demonstrate a way to separate nothing into a negative and positive part of equal (but opposite) values, with substantial properties associated with each of them and the capability that they do not readily reform and neutralize themselves, then I feel any theories could never qualify as "everything from nothing".

Well, that would actually be 'nothing from anything that you can see', (such as non4-D dimensions and precurser emergent phenomenon stemming from them, (e.g., the "tunnel diode effect" for one example).

[sigmapi1501]

But... Who is God's God?

[falcon9]

But... Who is God's God?

Non sequitur, (no evidence of any 'god').  However, I wanted to reply now because this is your 666th post, which is no doubt purely a coincidence.

[sigmapi1501]

But... Who is God's God?

Non sequitur, (no evidence of any 'god').  However, I wanted to reply now because this is your 666th post, which is no doubt purely a coincidence.

Maybe God made me put the word "God" twice in that post in order to fight the devil.

[falcon9]

But... Who is God's God?

Non sequitur, (no evidence of any 'god').  However, I wanted to reply now because this is your 666th post, which is no doubt purely a coincidence.

Maybe God made me put the word "God" twice in that post in order to fight the devil.

More likely, it was just shadow-boxing ... twice.

[sammywantsya]

HAHAHA falcon you still at it? dude get a life seriously.. we are so tired of you barking like an old maid... dammn

[falcon9]

HAHAHA falcon you still at it? dude get a life seriously.. we are so tired of you barking like an old maid... dammn

Look in your mirror, you may discover you're berating yourself.  Or not, depending upon your ability to discern such things.  I'm neither "barking", nor "an old maid" therefore, you are being self-referential.

[sammywantsya]

blahh blaah blaahhh old maid.. falcon you can talk down god or jesus all you want.. its just shows that you like this subject more then any other.. i had been gone for a month and yet you still at it. dude seriously get a life..  you can try to *bleep* me off but it makes me laugh at you all the time same with falcon followers.. sad indeed

[falcon9]

blahh blaah blaahhh ...

Indeed.  There's always the "ignore" function for you, should you continue not having anything cognizant to add.

[sammywantsya]

go bark a tree old maid. you def sound like an old record kiddo.. god damn pple like you ruin the fun of just chyllen..

[JediJohnnie]

But... Who is God's God?

No one.As I said He is the Beginning and the End.There's no "beginning's beginning".

[falcon9]

... god damn pple like you ruin the fun of just chyllen..

Whereas people like you simply reduce the general intelligence quotient.
"You can't fix stupid." -- Ron White

[falcon9]

falcon you can talk down god or jesus all you want.... i had been gone for a month and yet you still at it. 

Your permission to do so isn't required.  The reason the discussion continues is due to the continued empty proclamations of religious adherents and my choice to respond to them.