The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1J

[Defense - The universe is in motion] I presented an arguemnt against the enternity of the universe. I did so by arguing that an eternal universe would contradict Newton's first law of motion. Your refutations were 1) Newton's laws are outdated, and 2) we have found examples of bodies in motion without being moved. Your entire argument here is weak and completely unbacked, as you have provided no sources to support your claims. I trust this slipped your mind due to your illness, though, as I can imagine it is not easy trying to think when you feel miserable :) However I did look into this, and found, to the contrary, that all ideal gases do behave according to Newton's laws of motion (a). I assume you are refering to nonideal gases when you claim they do not behave according to Newton's laws, but I will await your supportive evidence, as I could find little on the subject. My arguments stand as plausible evidence for my case, and will remain thus unitl my opponent can provide supportive sources for his currantly empty claims. [Defense - The universe is not eternal] "...if the Big Bang theory is true, which it most likely is..." I am under the impression, then, that we are in agreement that the universe was was eternal, but had a beginning. Correct me if I am wrong. You say I support the A Theory of time as opposed to the B Theory, but frankly I do not see how these theories of time have anything to do with the debate at hand. I have quoted a man who is regarded as on of the greatest mathmaticians of the 20th century saying that the infinite has no rational application to the tangible world. I am refering to the real, tangible events that took place over a period of time, whether you want to believe the A Theory or the B Theory of time. Either way, it makes no differnce in my argument. "...you assume instances of infinity can't be found in reality." I did not assume anything, but quoted a very legitimate source that said this; a source which you have yet to provide a counter argument for. You, on the other hand, have boldly claimed that this argument is false, and defended this claim by refering to an aspect of the infinite that bears no weight in the debate at hand. I agree that the infinite has rational application, but only concerning ideas. Because the infinite is purely ideological, it is bound to dealing in purely ideological fields. The necessary past events implied by an eternal universe are not at all ideological, but would have been real, tangible objects in volved in real, tangible events. You argue using the example of motion, to which the infinite does apply. Furthermore, motion is not an idea, but is in fact a tangbile thing. Having said this, motion is, in essence, numbers. There is nothing to the concept of motion but numbers. It is these numbers, then to which the infinite applies, because numbers are not tangible things. [Defense - Issues with the Big Bang] I argue that the matter necessary at the beginning of the Big Bang would have to have come from somewhere for a simple reason: something cannot come from nothing. I know, you have evidence that something can in fact come from nothing, and you find it in the field of quantum mechanics. Allow me to address this for you. You would argue that we see somthing coming from nothing in evets such pair creation of bosons, where in the particle and its antimatter partner seem to appear out of nowhere (b). What I do not understand is why you assume the bosons appeared out of nowhere. First of all, we know that neither energy nor matter can be either created or destroyed (c, d). Secondly, who is to say that these bosons are coming from nowhere? Take, or example, electron orbiting an atom. When they increase in energy, their orbit jumps aways from the atom. When they decreae in energy, their orbit jumps towards the atom (e). Oddly, the electron seems to be nowhere during this quantum jump! Does this mean it disappeared into thin air, and was recreated from nothing in the next orbit? It would be absurd to think so. The same applies to all things similar. I understand that it is hypothisized that these particels come from nothing, but be that as it may, it is only hypothisized, and that against the already accepted laws of physics. You could, then, make an argument based on this information, but it would be weak at best compared to scientific theories and laws, which I am presenting. [Defense - Cosmological argument, definition of God] In defining God, I was doing just that; defining God. I meant nothing by it in terms of what I was arguing for, but was simply creating a picture one could have in his mind. Remember also that I am defending the existence of a metaphysically supreme being. So yes, it could be any of the possible "gods" you refered to. I am not specifying a particular god or gods, only arguing that a metaphysical and supreme being must exist. [References] (a) - http://physics.bu.edu... (b) - http://liberatedmind.com... (c) - http://www.tutorvista.com... (d) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (e) - http://www.tpub.com...