YTMND Search

 (0.00)

 (1.00)

You have proven that, according to scientific beliefs currently agreed upon, something outside of our current space, time, and matter trinity "caused" our universe. However, you have not proven that the cause of the universe is a conscious all knowing God. That's jumping to conclusions. There could very well be a physical process outside of out current space, time, and matter that served as the cause for our universe. According to String Theory, there probably is.

 (1.00)

it isn't very logical to assume that there was nothing prior to the big bang, because the observeable universe to you starts at a single point does not mean that there was something before it, you are basing your "logic" as to the nature of the universe from a point within and completely missing what is outside our 4th dimensional world (time+3 spatial dimensions) the growing acceptance of the birth of the universe being caused by the collision of 5th dimensional membranes or branes for short shows that there was no single point and that time existed prior to the big bang. your first cause wasn't god but a cosmic fender bender http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

 (0.00)

Asserting that an entity called "god", which transcends space, time, and matter, was somehow the creator of space, time, and matter, is an inherent contradiction, because it would mean god does not reside in the knowable realm of space, time and matter, thus he himself is not knowable to us in the realm of space, time and matter, thus it is an assertion that one knows the unknowable, thus, the theory is invalid as inherently self-contradictory.

 (5.00)

We can only try to figure things our as best we can as human beings. Whetman was trying to prove that God (creator of the universe) exists by using the best theories that we have. It's the best we can do. If someone says that the casuality theories cannot apply to outside space time and matter because we dont know anything outside space time and matter I say to them, "do you have a better theory?"

 (2.00)

Stop the arguing for God's sake! This isn't even a true rebuttal at taking his argument, it's attempting to humiliate this guy with semi-science. If God is in the "supernatural" as he argued, then yes natural laws don't apply to him so he can pretty much do whatever he wants or whatever those laws are. In either way, there's blank space there which we cannot define and that's called "faith," not "proof." You forfeit, mediocre day sir!

 (5.00)

5. We may not know anything outside of time space and matter but there is something responsible for our existance and that is God. Call it what you want, go as far back in time as you want but there is an ultimate power somewhere down the line and that is what we as human beings should call God. From a religious standpoint, putting your faith in an idea that cannot be proven (by proven I mean visible by in the spectrum that our human eyes can see or believable by modern logical thought) and worshiping (feeling fear and gratitude) it is part of what seperates us from the other species on earth. Some people don't worship or think of God as a being that created us but I think a basic belief in a higher power somewhere is essential to every great human mind.

 (1.00)

If a God created the universe from beyond space and time, then "he" should have no effect on our universe.

 (0.00)

 (0.00)

Where do you counter the simple fact that "The first cause" might = Space/Time/Matter? OOOPS. You're entire arguement is this: Everything came to be from something, so it must be god. What created god? You squash THAT arguement by saying "God always is. He's the first cause" Wow, great arguement, einstein. I could say my left nut was the first cause. Your whole arguement is based on nothing.

 (1.00)

 (4.00)

I don't buy your arguement but you're smarted than the typical theist. I would counter simply that the jump from establishing that there is a first cause that is beyond time, space and other natural phenomenon to the statement that the first cause is god is not supported by your premises or your arguements. Why should that first cause be god and not something else? There is no evidence that first cause is sentient or omni-benevolent.

 (3.00)

You still haven't proved God exists. It's equally plausible that space-time-matter came from nothingness, timelessness, etc as it is plausible that it came from some 'divine being.' It's only due to the nature of logic that we have such difficulty imagining something out of nothing. That's what makes your argument so compelling - b/c it makes logical sense. However, my point is that we must step outside the confines of logic in order to understand something out of nothing.

 (0.00)

Objection 3: apples to oranges. Where exactly is he doing that? He says space, time, and matter were caused. Your, "apples to oranges" comparison amounts to: 1) If A, then B. 2) C, therefore B. It not only makes no sense, it's irrelevant. Further, in objection 2, where you say God wouldn't have the time to create the universe, is meaningless. The non-existance of time is not the same as not having the time.

 (1.00)

CAUSALITY IS A PART OF THE UNIVERSE. Causality only exists as part of our universe, along with energy, time, space, matter, etc. Your arguement rested on something "causing" the universe, ignoring the fact that you cannot cause anything to be if causation does not exist yet. You then took the hole in your logic and called it God.

 (4.00)

You get a 3 for being probably the only advocate of the First Cause argument to state your point in a formal, consise way as opposed to the rhetoric most others use. And an extra point for Sean Connery in a mortar-board with a stick. Problem is, you fail to convince me; I agree there is probably something beyond space, time and matter as you say. However, I do not agree with the idea that it has to be a God(s), just because we can't think of anything else to fill in the blank.

 (5.00)

still didn't really explain why matter, time and space cannot have necessary existence, or be exempt from needing a first cause. If God is allowed to have those attributes applied to him, why can't the universe itself have them? I agree something "weird" is happening (as something "weird" is happening to explain preception and intelligence). The question is, where is this weirdness happening? And I don't see a reason why it would more likely be "God" than the universe itself.

 (5.00)

This is the by far the Heaviest ytmnd I've ever seen. Plus I agree that God exist outside of space time. The bible call it the Eternity for a reason.

 (0.00)

Paris Hilton. In any case, if causality did exist, you can't assume that the cause was a God. Even if what preceded our universe did not carry the properties of time, space, and matter, this does not mean that it was God. Perhaps what preceded the universe had other properties by which things were defined. For that matter, we don't even know that what comprises our universe began with the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory suggests not that it is The Beginning of all time, space, and matter, but rather the beginning of the organization of these properties that we recognize as our universe, and their evolution into the pattern of today. In short, God cannot be proven or disproven. Faith (n.) : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 (0.00)

As with all arguments attempting to prove (or disprove, for that matter) the existence of God, this one has holes that sink the ship. The critical mistake is the assumption that we can make assumptions about ANYTHING preceding our universe, which is simply not the case. This lack of knowledge arises from the singularity of the Big Bang. We cannot (in the foreseeable future, and probably ever) know what existed before the Big Bang, or if indeed anything did "exist," whether it be a God, another universe composed of time/space/matter, or an average-sized, slightly overripe mango. We know nothing of if causality applied before the Big Bang. Maybe the preceding universe got bored, and decided to go out, get wasted, and Big Bang, or maybe it wasn't

 (0.00)

After reading over the comments from both of these sites, I only thought of one vaild coclusion, if the Law of casuality exsists, then this creats an ever constant loop, If This "God" or Entity created the universe, Matter space and Time, Then what caused this Entity? Then what caused that entity, and the one before that, and the one before that,I agree you can't prove or disprove god, but how much sense does that make, honestly?

 (4.00)

Cont.- Are we to really so full of ourselves that we beleive we should know everything about how the universe works and such? I think not, hell, I believe that as of now, the human brain isn't even capable of comprehending such things. So many people go back to the beginning and say "God did it". Sometime in the future, assuming we survive that long, I think that the human race will be able to understand such things, and an answer will be found. I'm going to sound rude here, and I don't want to, but it sums up how I feel sometimes. I don't want to place all unknown forces in this huge universe simply as the unexplainable actions of an invisible space wizard. I know that came out harsh, but thats how it often looks.

 (1.00)

What you have shown is not proof of any God, merely possibility. "Why God Exists" is a very misleading title. You also fail to mention anything about the possibility of no causality in the universe. Since this "first cause" had no cause, what's to say that the rest of the universe had no cause? Certainly, observable relationships occur throughout the universe: winning is related to training, nuclear explosions are related to atomic bombs, NEDM is related to the initial site. However, nothing necessarily needs to be caused; so long as the universe has non-infinite portions, each point in time-space or piece of matter does not need to move independently. Instead, it can move as one, sort of like a giant calculation slowly figuring itself out all at once.

 (5.00)

"God" was brought into being at a time when people only knew about the continent they lived on, they did not know about space, the earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe. "God" has taken the place of this ifinity, it has brought meaning to what people could not understand. The argument about .999~ = 1 is that it will eventually stop, which it doesn't, it goes on for an infinite length, just like how the universe has been expanding and contracting for an infinite ammount of time. "Infinite" is hard to grasp, so God takes its place. So god does exist, but its existance is just a placeholder for the infinite amount of time, not some supernatural being.

 (1.00)

"I only had enough space in the YTMND to show that God exists - without going really indepth into WHICH God exists and what exactly His properties are. So yes, the goal of this YTMND was ONLY to prove that a God exists." Your logic proves that the universe began, but doesn't prove WHAT caused the universe to begin. It could have been God / a god, or maybe it was something completely different. You can't prove that it was God who created the universe, OR that a conscious, thinking entity did it.

 (1.00)

Your theory is wrong. Mildly intelligent, but wrong. Entropy says that energy declines due to the expansion of space but theres documented proof that eventually the universe will collapse, thereby reseting the system. Therefore its possible the universe has existed for an eternity before now. Also, "non-alive cannot make alive" is a terrible argument. When the universe began it was primordial basics like hydrogen. These are the basic blocks for life. I believe in god for differn't reasons. 1 for not funny

 (5.00)

...were in contact with an omniscient being which created existence in a manner which has been proven false. Theists everywhere hate science for attacking their claims on a homo-centric set of beliefs. It ignorant to do so if "god" is everything. There are things smaller than the smallest know subatomic particles and perhaps things smaller than that. They exist everywhere and comprise all matter, define our concept of time and build our concept of space... that is what god is and that is everything.

 (5.00)

That's the best argument I've ever seen put together. However you will not sway me to believe in the God which you described. You described a sentient god, capable of the rational decision to begin the universe. I believe that god is space, time, and matter, all of which are linked through the undiscovered fundemental foundation of existence. My qualm is that you portray god as "Him" and though you do not make this comment but that people believe that men, specifically jesus christ, mohammad, and Moses...

 (5.00)

say that you believe in the process of evolution and the big bang. even though all creation radiated from a single infinitely dense point in space, what created that point? say that point was created from the collapsing of the entire universe into a single point. this would suggest a cycle. but when did this cycle begin? how was it started? even believing god is essentially a watchmaker and created the universe and then sat back and watch still proves that an intelligent being was in fact responsible.

 (1.00)

I'd like this if it were an original idea, but it's not. You take things we "know" for "fact" like three-dimensional space, linear time, etc, and then add in something completely unrelated: Causality. 20000 years ago, fire was (probably) magic. 2000 years ago, electricity was magic. 200 years ago a butane lighter was magic. Imagine what you "know" is the "magic" of "God" will be the humdrum-ho-hum of everyday life tomorrow.