how our universe came to be

[dietpepsi]

There are 4 possible explainiations of how our universe came into existense.

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

Reality is/was not self-created because of the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself.

Evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity suggest that the universe is not eternal.

So isn't option 4 the most plausible?

[pinkocommie]

What do you mean by reality exactly?

[Albino_Raptor]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

[pinkocommie]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

That was going to be my next question, but I felt like the choice of terminology, specifically referencing reality, was interesting.  In my experience they usually they say existence.  It's the same old argument though, and entirely flawed logic regardless.

[elliebean]

something cannot be prior to itself.

I rest my case.


But I wanted to ask:

Evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity suggest that the universe is not eternal.

Why the change of subject from "reality" to "universe"?

[i_am_i]

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

What's with all the commas? And why use "moreover?" What is that supposed to mean? Did you read that somewhere and decide to use it because you think it makes you sound intellectual? When are you God people going to learn how to write? Really, man, it's not that hard. Anyway I don't get the impression that you even know what you're talking about. It's not at all thought out, it's just half-baked gibberish.

But thanks for the chuckle.

[dietpepsi]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

According to key scientific data the universe has a beginning.  Likewise, we know that the universe isnt self-created. Nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause. So we can conclude that an eternal creator exists.

[dietpepsi]

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

What's with all the commas? And why use "moreover?" What is that supposed to mean? Did you read that somewhere and decide to use it because you think it makes you sound intellectual? When are you God people going to learn how to write? Really, man, it's not that hard. Anyway I don't get the impression that you even know what you're talking about. It's not at all thought out, it's just half-baked gibberish.

But thanks for the chuckle.

Instead of insulting me, why dont you just tell me why my arguement is flawed?

[happynewyear]

There are 4 possible explainiations of how our universe came into existense.

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

Reality is/was not self-created because of the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself.

Evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity suggest that the universe is not eternal.

So isn't option 4 the most plausible?

You don't seem to be getting much of a debate so I will have a go.

I will go with opinion :
1. Reality is an illusion because everything seems so unreal to me.
therefore reality cannot be
2. self-created nor can it be
3. self-existent nor can it be
4. created by something that is self-existent
because it doesn't exist.



The universe came into existence thru the "Big Bang". (nothing sexual in that)

[pinkocommie]

So a self-existing reality is less logical than a self-existing entity... how?

According to key scientific data the universe has a beginning.  Likewise, we know that the universe isnt self-created. Nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause. So we can conclude that an eternal creator exists.

Your logic is still faulty.  If everything that exists has a cause, what caused your theoretical creator to exist?  If you don't have an answer for that, then your argument is pretty worthless.

[dietpepsi]

Your logic is still faulty. If everything that exists has a cause, what caused your theoretical creator to exist? If you don't have an answer for that, then your argument is pretty worthless.

Not everything that exists has a cause. Only things that have a beginning have a cause. God dosent have a beginning. We know the universe had a beginning and that it didnt create itself.  So what other options are there? Something eternal had to bring the universe into existence. It's the only plausible explanation.

[dietpepsi]

I will go with opinion :
1. Reality is an illusion because everything seems so unreal to me.
therefore reality cannot be
2. self-created nor can it be
3. self-existent nor can it be
4. created by something that is self-existent
because it doesn't exist.

You cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence.

[pinkocommie]

Your logic is still faulty. If everything that exists has a cause, what caused your theoretical creator to exist? If you don't have an answer for that, then your argument is pretty worthless.

Not everything that exists has a cause. Only things that have a beginning have a cause. God dosent have a beginning. We know the universe had a beginning and that it didnt create itself.  So what other options are there? Something eternal had to bring the universe into existence. It's the only plausible explanation.

The only way I could possibly accept your assertion that your god doesn't have a beginning is if I accept that your god is both real and that you personally understand the nature of your god accurately.  Your proof that your god is real hinges on the assumption that your god is real.  Circular logic is illogical.

[Sophus]

You cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence.

No, you can't doubt your existence without proving the appearance of your existence.

[i_am_i]

Reality cannot be an illusion because, illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.

What's with all the commas? And why use "moreover?" What is that supposed to mean? Did you read that somewhere and decide to use it because you think it makes you sound intellectual? When are you God people going to learn how to write? Really, man, it's not that hard. Anyway I don't get the impression that you even know what you're talking about. It's not at all thought out, it's just half-baked gibberish.

But thanks for the chuckle.

Instead of insulting me, why dont you just tell me why my arguement is flawed?

Because I can't take you seriously when you make the mistake of spelling argument as "arguement," for example. When I see that sort of thing I get the impression that the writer is not really thinking about whatever it is he's trying to say, that he's motivated more by emotion than by clear thinking. You don't seem to care about the impression you're making so why should I care about whatever it is you're trying to say?  Why should I waste my time on yet another illiterate Christian?