Albrenia wrote:Antityranicals wrote:1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.
Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:
We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.
The Universe might have changed state from the Big Bang, but that doesn't really mean that is when it was 'Created'. The singularity 'prior' to the Big Bang was never 'created', so it has no 'cause' to our knowledge.
Thank you, now you're actually being rational. So what you're saying is that the singularity which was to be the universe existed for all of eternity?