I hope you will find this text interesting. According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)
It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time. To conclude the above paragraphs: Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause. Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator). Ergo: There is no universe. Fact: There is a universe. Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof). (Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.) Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creatorâ"Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderlyâ""not capricious," as Einstein put itâ"Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjectsâ"humankind. It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah â"which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from www.netzarim.co.il) The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isnât self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator. The most common counter arguments are answered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments) Anders Branderud
Okay, a couple of things which are completely unrelated to the actual content of the post:
1) I'm moving this to the appropriate forum.
2) It will interest many to note that this exact same text has been circulated on no less than thirty other forums. Simply quote any contiguous segment of the OP into Google and read the list! Similarly, the user who posted this has posted under the same pseudonym and in all those cases this is the only post made by that user.
This is the kind of stuff that makes us suspect the poster is a bot.
Now I shall rebut the entire post based on one semantic issue.
Kirby, you'd better pay close attention to this one.
It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
This article commits the fallacy of equivocation because it takes "cause" in a colloquial sense in one sentence, but in a formal philosophical sense in the next.
Science never said its job was to establish cause for the existence of the universe. What science does is description. "Cause", in the physics sense, is a description of temporal-phsycial association, not establishing reason.
Having said this, the rest of the article is based on this fallacy, therefore I've rebutted the entire article.
Tomer, users don't give mods permission to do anything. If he wanted the thread deleted, he would've done it.
Also, if we're assuming a creator as a law of physics, the law of causality would apply to the creator too. Of course, the law could be changed to accommodate the creator, but for us to do that and have causality maintain law status there would need to be irrefutable proof that a creator exists in the first place - leading to a circular argument.
ALSO, it's quite possible the law of causality was formed after the Universe started.
But yeah, the first pure win against atheism on this site since what? Forever?
Atheist pure win record since I started debating about religion on this site is something like 50ish pure wins to about 7 pure wins (53-7, almost all your 7 wins coming from BigP08)
At any rate, I don't speak for atheism or Christianity, or any other religious viewpoint for that matter. I'm a moderator in the argumentative sense as well as the forum cop sense.
Also, that one argument fails does not mean the other side wins.
