Islam is very misunderstood by people in my opinion

Bro I just can’t believe that you said that. Trying to even compare complexity of something which aspires to create universes and is “spaceless, timeless, ultra-powerful” to human with his complex “body parts”-didn’t you notice that when you are going into Gods area there is no more questioning, no more challenging thought process other than “Gods mysterious ways”?
Look many religious people are throwing some nice and complex thought processes/experiments when it comes to science/philosophy and that’s totally fine-glad that there are people who do that because that means more pressure to progress!

Still why such questioning thing is not appearing also for those abstract, “spaceless, timeless, ultra-powerful” things too?

 

Life is but a dream

 

God is simply the immaterial, spaceless, timeless, creator of the Universe. That's all I'm arguing for. I just told you what God is right there. We can get into more complex things later, but this is all I am trying to say for now. I don't think that's that complex. If I had to tell you what the human body was, I would have to name every protein and molecule. I would also have to tell you when and where the body was. God is so simple there is a term for it. It's called Divine Simplicity. Being spaceless and timeless actually make things simpler because knowing where and when something is complicates it further. Why are you trying to object to these things anyway? All of those attributes must be true for a creator of the Universe.

Who is dreaming the dream, though?

 

the funny thing is as you're depicting everything a human is and seeing it as a complex life form, you're actually stating god is complex when not.

 

No one has still "disproven" anything I have said about God or his attributes.

 

We can't disprove anything you say or vice versa, how you view god is your deal, us on the other hand see the mind blowing complexities this entails, it's straight up magick. your reality is developing you're not even 20 yet, the way you view the world around you will expand past where you are now believe this.

Look at this and tell me it's not complex, each pixel is probably a unfathomable cluster of realities an other craziness, not even apart of our base of physics as we know it.

 

I did prove that God exists right there. Also, there are many ways to prove that other things do not exist. For example, a married bachelor does not exist. I have shown that God exists, and no one has yet disproven that.

 

How did you proved that god exist? Debunking scientific theories and “therefore God did it” approach is not prove for Gods existence-it’s like what those weirdos from Spaghetti Monster comically say - there are lacks in science understanding of world therefore Spaghetti Monster & His noodles did the trick!

Afaik Divine Simplicity excludes doctrine of the Trinity-is that case for you?

 

No one will be able to disprove god, it's impossible, depending on how their brain is wired how they interpret the chemicals and energy flowing through them, you can get humans that don't know or comprehend it's existence, get enough of those to over take those that do believe and wipe out belief and you can have a world of no god.

 

Bro the tricky part here is the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

In other words-if I say that Zeus did all the stuff then burden of proof is on me-not on those hard working scientists/philosophers trying their best to move things forward-indirectly making stuff also more complex when digging deeper.

 

Yeah very true, this just makes me point to the Mandelbrot fractal art again, and waving my arms around pointing at everything and jabbering on like a lunatic because it's insane.

it is like arguing with myself about who knows what when I'm alone

 

Also if you are interested in arguments for debunking Divine Simplicity itself in three different ways it would be good to scan through this one:
https://philarchive.org/archive/MULSIA-2

Still worth to mention-this conversation has insanely high intellectual standards, I am totally shocked and certainly glad for that!

 

oh well then, feel free to send a dm and talk about whatever, I like crazy talk

 

I have given my evidence in the original three-paragraph post I made. Now the burden of proof is on YOU to explain the evidence I just gave. Okay, so I'm only arguing for God at this stage. I'm not arguing for specific things about God. Anyway, what scientific theory did I debunk? The multiverse is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Also, you're assuming science will always be right. Watch these videos for more knowledge. Zeus is not the creator of the Universe, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be impossible because to be spaghetti, you would have to be made of something. The creator of the Universe cannot be material, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot exist.

 

My head is spinning, here I am contemplating the existence of everything there is and was in a single thread with only 3 people, man the hubris is palpable.

 

Lol ok lets play your game

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This is no more than an intuition based on common experience with creation ex materia, and we have no experience with creation ex nihilo, which is what the Kalam is actually about. There is no actual evidence or proof to show that everything that begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause, so the first premise is not trustworthy.

2. The Universe began to exist.
The fact is, scientists don’t actually know yet if the universe began to exist in the Big Bang, and the Big Bang theory begins with the universe already in existence without discussing the creation of the universe. As it is, it is possible that the universe never began to exist, even though the dimension of time does not go back forever behind us. Below is an explanation as to how the universe might not have begun to exist.

“Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.”

3. The Universe has a cause.
Since both premises of the argument are questionable, we cannot trust the conclusion, and the argument only gets us to a cause for the universe, if the premises are correct. It does not get us to a First Cause, or to God. That the cause is a First Cause, or God, is not supported by any of the argument, and that makes it a non sequitur. It could easily be that a cause for the universe is a multiverse, or some other thing, and not a personal God. Note that we could also insert Universe-creating Magical Pixies as part of the conclusion, and would have just as much justification as theists do when inserting God.

——Conclusion——
The Kalam was refuted a while ago, but theist apologists tend to continue using arguments that have already been refuted as if nobody ever refuted them.

If theists won’t accept such version of the argument below, they should understand how the argument doesn’t show that God exists:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

C. Therefore, the universe has a cause, and that cause is the eternal multiverse.

The problem that theists don’t seem to realize is that you need direct evidence or proof supporting the conclusion, evidence for the existence of God, or a First Cause, and they have none whatsoever. Arguments are not evidence, they are arguments, and, if you reject the existence of an eternal multiverse after seeing those arguments, you should reject the existence of God, or a First Cause, and for the same reason.

 

If you say that things can begin to exist without a cause, then if you see something strange, don't question it. It just exists. There's no reason for it existing, so why are you thinking about it. If things can begin to exist without a cause, then why don't we see things pop into existence all the time? If we see something magically appear, then do we say "Well, there's no reason why that happened, so don't question it." Just assuming that something began to exist and that it has no cause is the biggest leap of faith I've ever seen. The Universe did begin to exist. I have shown that a past eternal Universe is impossible. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has proven that the Universe must have a beginning. I have also proven that a multiverse cannot exist in earlier posts, including the three-paragraph post.

 

theorems are not proof

 

That's like saying evolution is just a theory, and I can believe otherwise.

 

evolution is a theory, just like creation is. that's what makes things real to the observer, belief.