There is no evidence for God

It contradicts a lot of scientific principles especially violating Newton's law's of motion. Yes it works everywhere except at the point of the singularity.

Tell me, if we all originate from a singularity, isn't the first push of all the matter into space(the initial expansion before the creation of subatomic particles) a signature of the first cause in this universe(which I believe was part of God's act). If that exertion on all known matter at the start did not happen then life could not have been created. We may not be able to prove that God created the Universe but isn't there a possibility to prove that God created us.

How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know they cannot be applied? You and I both know nothing about what is before and and what is outside of this universe. But we both believe there was/is something, where you say the laws of physics don't apply and where I is say a god exists. But then i would also say that a god isn't bound by the laws of physics and that anything outside of this universe therefore must be some sort of god.

Your argument for why there must be a god relies on the existence of the physical laws of this universe. For your argument to hold you have to show that the laws of physics of this universe also apply when the universe, space, time etc does not exist. You are focusing mainly on cause and effect for example, which requires time, but since time is part of this universe it cannot exist if this universe does not exist. Hence cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe.

But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the nature of a god is that it is beyond human comprehension, just like the place where space, time etc. doesn't exist is beyond comprehension. The difference is people who don't believe in god are trying to comprehend it a cannot whereas i know i will never be able to comprehend it and call it a god

Those scientific principles only apply in this universe. Why must they apply in the absence of the universe?

It's a pretty useless God that does such a small and simple task, and something that is far more complex than what it is doing.

That's assuming that you need a 'God' to create that initial expansion, which is by no means a given.

Your argument for why there must be a god relies on the existence of the physical laws of this universe. For your argument to hold you have to show that the laws of physics of this universe also apply when the universe, space, time etc does not exist. You are focusing mainly on cause and effect for example, which requires time, but since time is part of this universe it cannot exist if this universe does not exist. Hence cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe.

The singularity occurred in this very universe. So the scientific principles does contradict this generally well accepted theory. If you believe the scientific principles is not applicable to the Big Bang, you are indirectly claiming it to be outside a closed system. This means you are implying indirectly that the Big Bang is external to the Universe. Doesn't that contradict your current position.

If God/or something else did not do that very task we would not be here. It doesn't matter how complex the task is. We owe it to that divine force.

That's the Humean definition, but it's by no means the only accepted definition. There's no consensus in physics or philosophy that causality requires the existence of time. Many would say causality is a fundamental metaphysical principle and the basis for all inquiry, including scientific investigation.

We don't even have to use the word causation and time; we could replace it with reason or explantation and run the argument from contingency, which would be valid even if the universe is timeless.

To all if not most atheists,

"Nothing exists but natural phenomena.

Scepticism is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.
Occam’s Razor is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.

If you see something that seems impossible, you imagined it or were fooled.

Our thoughts are entirely a property or function of chemicals in the brain.

There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature.

There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which transcend nature.

There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which are supernatural.

If you don’t have a good theory as to why something works, you can dismiss the evidence that it works anyway.

The laws of physics are explained by science.

The laws of physics don’t change or, if they do, they only change in ways scientists can predict and measure.

Science is how we determine if things are true or not.

Religion and science are warring forces.

Faith is about believing without evidence.

"Logic works just because it does.

The laws of physics work just because they do.Science “overcame” or “surpassed” religion.

Science had to fight off belief in God to advance.
Science had to fight off religion to advance.
Science had to fight off Christianity to advance.

Christians believe things solely because they’re in the Bible.
Ex-Christian atheists understand the Bible better than Christian scholars.
Fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist atheists understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist liberal Protestants understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.

Most Christians and Jews should be Creationists because the Book of Genesis describes how Planet Earth was created like a science text.

People who think God and spirituality are rational things to pursue are mentally ill.

Asking what makes existence possible at all is not a real question.

I totally agree that the Christian god doesn't exist. But for the big bang to happen something must have caused it. Whatever that cause is it is beyond human comprehension and is the creator of the universe.

I'm going to answer your question with another. If you walked into a room and in the centre of the room was a cake and i told you that one day that cake just appeared would you believe me or would you think someone put it there? You would think someone put it there. And thats why I believe something must have caused it.

But you'll never know because outside of this universe as you said the same laws don't apply. It's like trying to imagine a colour not on the spectrum. And do believe there must be a cause because we have now determined the universe does have a start point and something cannot start without something else happening. Whether that something is outside of this universe, in a multiverse, acting in the 10th dimension we will never know, which is why it is a god.

How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know they cannot be applied? You and I both know nothing about what is before and and what is outside of this universe. But we both believe there was/is something, where you say the laws of physics don't apply and where I is say a god exists. But then i would also say that a god isn't bound by the laws of physics and that anything outside of this universe therefore must be some sort of god.

The singularity was not *in* this universe. It *was* this universe. The scientific principles we know apply in this universe are so intertwined with this universe it would be foolish to assume they exist in the absence of this universe, I.e we can't really talk about the Big Bang as if it occurred in this universe.

Explain an example of causation occurring in the absence of time

All we see and know is natural phenomena as our world is the natural world. If someone claims there is phenomena that is not natural then the burden of proof is on them to show it.



These are definitions.



At first, yes, just as would most religious people actually. But if sufficient and observable, testable and repeatable evidence were produced then it's likely people would change their minds, as they have done across history and in the history of science itself.



As far as we know, yes, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Altering and damaging parts of the brain is known to affect personality and other mental functions, providing further evidence that the mental faculties are dependent on the brain. There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the mind has some supernatural component or origin.



As far as we know there are not. Indeed, by definition one could say that if anything exists in the universe then it must be natural as there is precisely no evidence for anything outside the universe and physical reality.



If nature is defined as physical reality then we can agree with that statement given that there's no evidence for anything external to nature.



No evidence for such forces.



Not necessarily. Theories don't appear overnight, they usually are years in the making so the evidence will be taken into account and compared to more of it that's found and will be incorporated if it makes sense and dropped if it doesn't.



The laws of nature are scientific laws, yes.



Yes, relative to our understanding of a particular law of course.



A rather vague statement. Science helps explain the natural world, but there are many mundane situations where science as such is not needed to prove something is true. CCTV and recording devices as well as objects such as documents etc can all prove something happened without having to invoke science per se.



Again, this is rather simplistic. I guess at their core you could say they oppose each other as one asks you to believe without seeing and the other purports that only that which can be tested and observed is real. However, religions across history have adopted scientific principle, either through choice or by force and religionists tend to employ the scientific method to any other religion that isn't their own.



That is a definition of faith, yes, and the one most commonly used in discussions of this nature.



Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.



Yes, laws are just the way they are, this much is obvious.



In its early development, science indeed had to free itself from the shackles of religion to advance, in the West at least.



Not necessarily.



Why are you asking me to determine what someone else should believe about their holy book?



Not necessarily.



Don't agree. Also, it's more conducive to a debate to ask someone a few questions at a time, not bombard them with 20 million.

Impressive, but you have not produced any evidence in support which I asked for. If something is logical an evidence can surely be procured.

But you'll never know because outside of this universe as you said the same laws don't apply. It's like trying to imagine a colour not on the spectrum. And do believe there must be a cause because we have now determined the universe does have a start point and something cannot start without something else happening. Whether that something is outside of this universe, in a multiverse, acting in the 10th dimension we will never know, which is why it is a god.

Still the theory contradicts with the scientific principles(such as some of Newton's law of thermodynamics). Let me rephrase my previous post with the concept that it "was" the universe.

"The singularity was this universe. So scientific principles does contradict this generally well accepted theory. If you believe the scientific principles is not applicable to the Big Bang, you are indirectly claiming it to be outside a closed system. This means you are implying indirectly that the Big Bang is external to the Universe. Doesn't that contradict your current position?If God/or something else did not do that very task we would not be here. It doesn't matter how complex the task is. We owe it to that divine force. "