Important!

[DojoGrant]

I composed this proof for several atheists who have been reading my site. Please let me know if any of my points are wrong or invalid so that I may correct them! Thanks!

1. Atheism hold that no deity or supernatural reality exists. All that exists is that which exists in nature.
2. Because only nature exists, nature has always existed, for nothing greater than nature exists in which to bring it into being.
3. Nature is comprised of the known universe only. Anything more is conjecture.
4. The known universe is comprised of matter and energy.
5. The total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant (E = MC2).
6. Matter and energy are in motion.
7. Motion can only exist if set in motion.
    7a. Ex.: A book does not fall off a table unless knocked off. The earth does not revolve around the sun without gravity.
    7b. Motion, thus, exists due to force.
8. Force is exerted only at precise points in time.
9. If the universe, including all matter and energy, has existed for all time, no force was ever initially exerted, nor could the universe exert force upon itself.
    9a. In other words, if the universe existed for all eternity, it had eternal potential energy, but no way to turn potential energy into kinetic energy.
    9b. To say that kinetic energy has always existed in an eternal universe is to apply an effect without a cause.
10. All known movement in the universe is the effect of some force being exerted upon it. No known movement exists solely "because it does."
11. It is thus impossible for the universe to have existed eternally yet been eternally in motion.
12. Therefore, atheism is false.

[Mary's Knight, La]

here's one point
possibility: gravity caused initial motions at the sudden entrance of the universe into existance gravity started acting that gravity could be the initial force, also works with some sort of magnetic type of force or a combination in this case the inital moment of the force would be the initial moment of the universe.

think of Conway's game of life the whole cells turn on and off, the forces of the rules apply once the "game" starts the "forces" are generated by the presence of other objects, to me it seems a lot like how gravity once there was a cause of gravity and an object for it to act on could have created the original motion.

[DojoGrant]

The atheist is forced to deny an "entrance of the universe," though. The universe must have always existed for the universe cannot cause the creation of itself.

[Mary's Knight, La]

i don't see how the lack of an outside creator denies the possibility of there being a beginning. In fact, if one denies the existance of anything outside nature then one must deny the existance of eternity or being without beginning because using natural means one can only take into account things that happen inside of time.

logic allows us only 2 types of questions on matters like this:
What was the situation at point X?
What lead to point X? (e.g. what happened before point X)

it demands that you take some point X to be the start?

my point is that there are forces that are caused simply by an objects existance think of how polar opposites attract simply because of the objects existing these forces would be possible even in a nature only setting to create an original movement.

in nature only we must look for the earliest possible time, however time only has meaning because things change or move. Thus there would be a pre-change/movement condition viewed as 'The Beginning" following this "Beginning" forces that are exerted solely by existance gravity/polar attraction/whatnot caused the change from "The Beginning" to the "Second Now", that being a state fundamentally different from the "Beginning"

to use my 2 questions on the Beginning
question 1 was answered no objects in motion things simply "being"
question 2 is nothing

you seem to be trying to use St. Thomas Aquinas' proof by movement e.g. the necessity of an unmoved mover however, i was told though this might be wrong that the movement he referred to was an intellectual movement. as in man is moved to pursue some goal because he sees it as good and as something he doesn't have. God gives man the goal he is moving towards because by His own nature He possesses it.

it's sorta hard to use an analogy for it but it resembles physical motion in that in an object that does not have forces acting on it in order for it to gain movement in the physical sense something that has movement already must give movement (velocity) to it.

now let's apply it to say charity. in this case however, nothing can incline man towards charity, in short he moves toward charity only by acquiring the virtue of charity. this chariy must come from one who possesses it. While man can give charity (alms) he cannot simply give his virtue to another. so this virtue must come from God. the more of the virtue God gives to a man the more he has been moved to charity or really the more he has moved closer to the perfection of charity.

[Mary's Knight, La]

i dont know if that first part made sense but if you read it through i think you can get what i'm trying to say e.g. there was some state of existance before the first movement and what caused the movement could be some force that relies only on existance. the whole of existence before the first movement becomes negligible because if we are going with nature only it is only possible to get to the situation that leads to the first movement. e.g. the situation leading to 1 or more objects acquiring velocity.

[DojoGrant]

Mary,

I see what you're saying, and yet I don't. Things cannot begin to move for the sake of beginning to move. The forces of nature have existed as long as nature has existed. And matter and energy have been present as long as nature has existed. Therefore, movement has existed as long as nature has existed.

Or are we still talking past each other?

[Ryslice]

Hi my name is Ryan and I think i can help you fys out with the beginning

[Ryslice]

Wait a moment while I type it all- this follows the whole beginning and the universe theory's

[Ryslice]

Say for exam,ple a leaf falls off a tree, something had to cause the leaf to fall off the tree whether it wasd wind or whatever, so if there were infinite causes backwards the leaf would have never fallen off of the tree, which means there had to be a first cause which is God. and like you guys said previously nature cannot just exist on itself it has to be created by something bigger which is the lord because he is INFINITE and can account for all of the entire space in the whole universe itself

[Ryslice]

Reply back to me on this plz

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Jul 6 2004, 12:02 AM'] 11. It is thus impossible for the universe to have existed eternally yet been eternally in motion. [/quote]
True, but (if you accept either the "Big Bang" or "Divine creation" teachings) then time was created with space and are synergetic anyway, so there was no time before space. So, if you use the word "eternal" as "for all time" then 11. is actually false because it is possible for the universe to have existed eternally yet been eternally in motion.

(For a detailed look at tending from existence to "the beginning" it's interesting to look at it from the mathematical point of view of continuity).

[Philippe]

makes plenty of sense

[Guest mcljj]

RandomProddy,

There could never have been a time before space existed because all matter and energy together, even if combined to an infinitely small singularlity, its still taking up space.

[Guest mcljj]

This is DojoGrant, sorry. My roommate was signed on.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='mcljj' date='Jul 8 2004, 05:03 AM'] RandomProddy,

There could never have been a time before space existed.. [/quote]
Correct because time and space co-exist.

Here's a thought: What's the difference between infinitely small and nothing?

Think about it..