Logical explanation: why a god must exist

What would be the correct description of nothingness ? What property´s would nothingness possess to even be conceptually acceptable without our reality in place in which it can only have a figurative sense...

thank you for pointing out a fundamental flaw in my thinking. Before the universe was not nothingness, there was only 1 thing. That eternal, omnipotent being I keep calling God. Being outside of time means there is no limitation for him, so picture a white board that expands forever in every direction. Now draw a small black circle on the white board. Everything inside the circle is the universe, everything white is God. There was not 'nothingness', only God. So in the physical sense, there was nothing. No matter, no time, no space, momentum, energy, but there was God. A being not bound by these things because He created them.
So thank you again for pointing out this error. It could have caused a great deal of confusion.

Even if it is the case...whatever...you must/should joined them both in a bigger set...give me a good reason why not ?

give me a reason why you should... why should the creator be bound to a creation and with what would you bind them?

Nothingness isn't a thing that can posses properties. It's a lack of all things, properties, etc. Nothingness doesn't exist as a concrete object.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

And I will give you a very reasonable one...You claim interaction between them...if you claim one created the other them both are mathematically bound in ONE !

The same is to say there´s nothing to nothingness...no issue...

(...there´s only EVERYTHING ! UNITY ! ONE !)

well they're bound in the sense that God is the cause of the universe. They're bound in a relationship of creator and created, but your argument would seem to suggest that since you and I are interacting, we are now one. That's not true, though we are having one conversation. All that means is that there's interaction... I don't see how interacting would make 2 into 1.

To prevent transcendence you utterly NEED UNITY !

...and yes, you and I form a set of communicating information...otherwise how would I understand any of your words ? or anything else for the matter ???...

...huh?
I mean no offense, but I am getting tired of circular talk about the properties of nothing. If you are not going to show me POSITIVE evidence, empirical, forensic, or philosophical, that logically refutes the previous claims throughout this thread that the only logical and scientifically feasible way for the universe to be is via creation, then I don't think there's anything left to be said.
Every time I asked for the evidence, I was handed back either insults, loosely related theories that neither agree with or disprove my statements, or a combination of the two.
So again, I'm asking respectfully for evidence of a scientific or philosophic nature that pertains to my claims that the best-fitting conclusion about the universe is that it was created.

In short, my arguments were
The universe needs a cause
That cause has to be outside of the universe
That cause does not need a cause of its own as - being outside of time, an entity of the universe - it is technically infinite
The universe cannot be infinite because infinity is only feasible in theory or outside of the natural world. This is proved by philosophical arguments I posed earlier.
The GTR, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, presence of 'Great Galaxy Seeds' and Cosmic Background Radiation, and the Law of Causality are all completely consistent with a Creationist view.
While there are some theories that are not condemned by this scientific evidence, they also do not fit the evidence as well as a Creationist view does.

There was a lot more, but quite frankly, I'm hungry.

Just to add a bit to one of your points HeroicOvenmitt, an infinite series of finite things is just as unable to account for itself as any single finite thing is able to account for itself.....therefore, as Frederick Copleston once said, in order to explain existence at all, we must come to a being/thing which contains within itself the reason for its own existence.....a necessary being as he called it

It's simpler than that. You pretty much have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, and evolution has been utterly debunked and demolished over recent decades. The only other option involves somebody (presumably God) who is significantly brighter than we are.

You really must be joking...playing the victim, what a laugh !
You have not demonstrated any of your claims...frankly they are well beyond any kind of possible demonstration...as for my arguments, well they prove consistent, as for the case, a God and a derived created Universe would necessarily require a mechanical model of relation of some sort in order for one to give rise to the other or to interact with it...the very same argument you use before for cause and effect...A MECHANIC MODEL OF RELATION between two entity´s which may not be transcendentally different to the point of not recognizing each other´s information packages when interacting...but then, if I remember it well, you claim they are fundamentally different in nature...one is to be called "spiritual" (whatever that means) and another material...quite obviously such interaction is not possible to explain by any logical model without recurring to tricks of magic like supernatural powers and other such like nonsense...much less to prevent their NECESSARY mathematical unity in case of compatible non transcendent natures, which would result in a pantheistic approach to a self organizing Universe ruled by the Law´s of Nature and mathematical models and not particularly for intentions thoughts will or words which are as we know them human traits...
Finally, to say that this kind of argument is not intellectually honest by any possible standards and that those who use it have the conscious intention to be deceptive in order to manipulate the masses according with their pitiful self serving agendas...a sad reality that needs to be vanquished soon...and hopefully, that is under way now !

With nothing further to ad, regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

*sigh*
You said this to me earlier
“You have not "evidence" but instead some leads, like the quantum collapse of the wave function in a set of several fuzzy possibility´s...Its a well known working model now...”

But I say it is you that has not brought forth any evidence, and any examination of the past pages of this thread will demonstrate that.

Fil, please re-read some of my previous posts where I cited some of the BEST-DOCUMENTED scientific principles, such as the GTR, the laws of thermodynamics, the law of causality(which=science at it's core), the presence of 'great galaxy seeds' and cosmic background radiation, the acceleration of the universe's expansion, all consistent and supporting of the theory of the universe having been created.
As for 'playing the victim', you have clearly lost any shred of objectivity that you once had in this debate. The following are quotes of yours directed at me.

“you are not just sloppy but arrogant."
“Hell, wake up !!!"
“Bullshit Science, nothing else...”
“Have a nice day and keep up with the Disney thing if it makes you happy...”
The last one I find interesting as you will never see a creationist ride anywhere on Disney's property.

I am tired with your sarcasm and the lack of evidence supporting your claims. Again, I'll point out that not once did you give me evidence for your theories - that is, scientifically verified or philosophically and logically plausible evidence. When I asked about traversing infinity, the validity of the GTR, and why vacuum energy should not be subject to the same laws as other energy, you told me that these don't matter if there are parallel universes. Now let me go back through this ONE more time.

The Universe exploded into being at the big bang.
That is the start of the natural world and all natural laws.
The Law of Causality tells us that the big bang requires a cause, as the big bang is part of the natural world.
The cause of the big bang is either A) nothing or B) something
Since any semblance of logic would tell us nothing is not a cause, the answer must be B.
If there was a cause for the universe to start, that cause had to be conscious, or else it would not have chosen to create the universe(if you don't believe that you're stuck with the endless chain of something coming before).

Now you said
"Further, Many worlds, or parallel Universes, throws Anthropic principles right down the trash bean..."
While I am unfamiliar with trash beans, I think that's where your argument would belong. When I asked you to give me evidence for the existence of these parallel universes you did not respond to the question.

That cause has to be God.
This God, being outside the laws of nature(which He created), would not be subject to the Law of Causality. God is supernatural where the Law of Causality is natural. Therefore, God needs no cause. He is infinite because he is not bound by the natural things such as time and space.

In response to your argument about why God couldn't communicate with us, I still fail to see your point. Why would the one who created the material world not be able to communicate with the material world\? Additionally, I think you're bringing into the debate the materialistic world view, which would say that there is nothing real but the tangible world. This is quite frankly false. And I have only to ask this question: how much does the hate that you seem to feel for me weigh?
I'm not asking about the raging hormones, but the feeling itself. That feeling, is not made of any material, yet your words clearly portray its existence.

I asked you earlier, has the GTR, the laws of thermodynamics, and the mounds of astronomical evidence that we have collected been overturned by your 'cutting edge' theories about alternate universes? I heard no evidence from you on the matter, so I am assuming that no, they have not, and no, you have no scientific evidence.

Until you are willing to let go of these a priori attachments to flawed philosophy, you will not be willing or ABLE to look at the evidence in an objective manner. While I have my biases, and do not claim a 'perfect philosophy' myself, I am still open-minded to the evidence presented to me.

So, IF you choose to respond to this at all, please include among your insults and theories
A) GOOD evidence. I would hope an explanation of that is not necessary.
B) GOOD logic. Ditto of the above statement.

You have done the EXACT same thing with this post as you did with the others. I asked respectfully for you to provide evidence that would PROVE ME WRONG and you DID NOT.
If you will not refute my logic and the science, which I have presented with documented, verifiable science that overturns what I said, then please do not reply at all.
Until such time as my statements are proved wrong, foolish, and ignorant, I leave you with Psalm 14:1.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

The basis of this theory - known as the Multiple Universe Theory - is that when some scientists try to observe electrons, they can never tell exactly where the electron will be, which makes them think it's not actually there, but in another universe.

The reason scientists can never observe an electron and predict its location is because for an electron to be seen, a photon has to interact with it and this changes the path of that electron. Point being, this theory is based on not being able to predict the location of an electron when it's observed. The ones theorizing that there're parallel universes miss the point that this unpredicatability is caused BY THE OBSERVER. It's not that the electron is hopping between universes, it's that when you try to see it, you're also pushing it somewhere else.

Additionally, this theory forgets that it is impossible to have an infinite number of finite things, something well established in this thread already. Oh, and there's still no evidence for it as any universes other than our own are beyond our ability to detect.

Well, I'm not surprised these brilliant mathematicians went insane over the concept of infinity. It is literally beyond the ability of a finite mind - one bound by the natural world and the natural laws - to comprehend. That is not to say we cannot know it is there, that infinity can be is firstly, what your arguments have centered around and secondly necessary for any theory you put forth because there's always the 'what came before' problem(except with a creationist viewpoint).

I fail to see how 'flat' space and the expansion of the universe tie into a rebuttal. I already stated that the universe is expanding faster and faster and that it is not infinite(the universe cannot be infinite as it had a beginning and technically, today is its end). Could you please explain what your arguments are exactly?

In resume, the recent years counter to the previous last above posted video...no bias you peak and chose...

The above last of the 3 videos favours your view, see the forth part of it...or do I have to play devils advocate in your turn ???