Come on, how can you use the word logic and preach about god .It just doest work .So you cant except evolution or scientific fact but chose to trust a book of nonsense ?

I have answers but you wont hear them .Facts and proof .You bring stories and blind faith.

WHICH CAME FIRST: SPACE, MATTER, MOTION OR GOD?

This is another variant of the “chicken or the egg” problem, but as you will see, it’s MUCH easier to solve.

The answer to “which came first” is: NONE!

But before we get into the details, we must first understand what ‘motion’ means. If there was only one object in the Universe, can it have motion? How could this lonely object move? What is it moving against? It obviously can’t move with respect to the nothingness of space. How could this object even be said to be in motion? It can only move with respect to another object.

What reference can this object use to establish its motion, if there is no other object by which to gauge its relative change in ‘location’ with respect to that object? Motion is a dynamic concept. Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship. The speedometer in your car can detect your car’s motion by translating the change in location of the spinning tires from the surface of the road, to the change in location of points on a spinning shaft which are detected by a sensor. The two objects are the sensor and the spinning points.

Obviously, the concept of motion is dependent upon an object’s change in ‘location’ with respect to some reference. But what is ‘location’?

Location: The set of static distances from the test object, to all the other objects in the Universe.

Location is the only concept that can unambiguously be used to define motion. It absolutely takes into account all the remaining objects in the Universe. All it takes is a single object in the Universe to move, in order for all the other objects in the Universe to instantly change their location, and hence MOVE. Location is a static concept (a photograph), whereas motion is a dynamic concept (a movie).

A single lonely object in the Universe does not have any motion because it has no change in location. Sure, if this object is a person, he can move his arms and legs, but they only have motion with respect to his body. If God appeared out of nowhere and accelerated this person to the speed of light, then the person would have motion with respect to God. But if God suddenly vanished, then the person would have absolutely NO motion, NO speed, and nor would he feel any. And of course, he would be perfectly still because he is NOT moving; he is NOT changing his location. Motion is an illusion of sentient beings with memory. They are able to keep a log of their previous locations and call it motion. That’s why you only feel the effects of acceleration, because your body is being pulled against the gravitational pull of another body.

So motion is scientifically defined as follows:


Motion: Two or more locations of an object.



So now let’s continue to answer the big questions….

Q: Can matter exist without space?

No!

Why?

Because matter needs the background of “nothingness” to give it shape/form and allow it to have internal structure. Otherwise, how can we possibly classify something as “matter” or “entity”? Matter needs to be spatially separated from the background of space; otherwise the motion of matter would be impossible. How will an object change its location with respect to another object if both objects are not spatially separated from the background?

Space is not a medium by any stretch of the imagination. Space is nothing, and thus can only be scientifically described with negative predicates. If matter did not have the background of space to contour it, then it is obvious that the Universe would be a single continuous solid block of matter; with no atoms, no gaps, and no possibility of motion. This is clearly not the case; otherwise life could not have risen from such a scenario. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to have motion without space. It is ontologically impossible for any entity, including a God or a Singularity, to exist or have any sort of presence without the background of space contouring it and giving it form.



So now that we have rationally explained why the existence of matter is necessarily dependent upon space, we have shown that space precedes matter and that space precedes motion. So the next question is:


Q: Can we have motion without matter (matterless motion)?

No!

Why?

That matter precedes motion is not only rational, but it is an ontological contradiction to posit that motion precedes matter in any way. Exactly what is going to move, nothingness? Motion is a property restricted to real objects that have ‘location’ with respect to all other real objects. Since real objects have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ (i.e. they exist), they are necessarily composed of matter. Can you conceive of any entity, including a God, a spirit, an angel, a ghost, or a Singularity, invisible or otherwise, which does not have shape and structure, and which is not composed of matter? I bet you anything that you cannot. If you disagree then please describe such an entity in detail with positive predicates. Only space (nothing) can be described with negative predication.

Motion necessitates a “change in location”. This means that ‘location’ PRECEDES ‘motion’. But ‘location’ can only be realized when there are two or more objects in the Universe, that is, matter must be present. Therefore it is only matter which can ultimately have motion. Matterless motion is impossible!


SCENARIO OF CREATION: It Necessitates Motion!



Our first ultimate question will ask….

Q: Why can’t matter be created and set in motion by a God or a Singularity?



We already explained in laborious detail why it is impossible for a “Creator” God or Singularity to be an Uncaused First Cause in our refutation of the First Cause Argument. Now let’s try to run through Creation again, but from a different perspective – the perspective of MOTION.

Let’s try to understand exactly why ANY claim of a “Creation” event (which absolutely necessitates motion), is self-refuting.

1) The CLAIM of an alleged “Creation” of the Universe sets the stage for a necessary origin where there was no space and no matter.

2) Such a claim absolutely posits that motion (change in location of matter) was not possible, AND yet, that motion (change in location of matter) was indeed possible in order to initiate the “Creation” event (requiring motion). This is clearly a contradiction because when there is “nothingness”, nothing can move to initiate an event (motion).

3) The very instant that a “Creation” event is initiated it necessarily mandates motion, which necessarily mandates that matter is absolutely present. This matter can either be present in the ‘form’ of a God, or a Singularity, or it implies that the Universe was ALREADY THERE, similar to what it is today.

4) It’s easy to understand, that since “matterless motion” is impossible, any initiation of a “Creation” event necessarily implies that matter was ALWAYS THERE to begin with….there is no other option!

5) So in order for God or the Singularity to move its being, and initiate a “Creation” event, it MUST necessarily be made of matter. We already explained why “matterless motion” is impossible in the previous section. If God’s being is matterless/incorporeal, He cannot change the location of his hand and wave it to initiate an event. God’s being cannot be negatively predicated with terms like ‘matterless’ or ‘incorporeal’. Only “nothing” can be negatively predicated. In this case, God or the Singularity would be no different than the nothingness of space – God would be “nothing”.

6) Since the only conclusion that favors a God necessitates that He consisted of matter wrapped by space, then how was this supposed God any different than how the Universe is today? If you take all the matter and space in the Universe today and call it “God”, then what have you accomplished? The word “CREATION”, by necessity of its implications, is self-refuting!

From this critical analysis of Creation, it is obvious that matter is eternally in motion. Therefore the Universe is eternal

that is absurd! Even though a thing might not move, it can still be in the dimension of time, experienceing a succession of moments.

To suggest that the universe is eternal in the dimensions of space time and matter is also just plain wrong.

it makes way more sense to recognize that our existence was created by an intelligent designer, who exists beyond the dimensions of space, time, and matter, and is able to move within the existence he created, much like a car maker can get into his creation.

and so again I ask; we exist in the dimensions of space time and matter. This is the fabric of our essence, this is reality.
All three of these must have come into existence all at the same time in order for reality to be reality. Our existence can't exist without space, and time, and matter.

And all of these dimensions must be physically caused by something. What caused these dimensions "out of nothing"?


Only one thing can suffice for this dilema. A Creator God that exists outside the dimensions of space time and matter, existing in an essense that CAN be self starting (can be an uncaused cause), and able to act within the dimensions he created.



Exactly. That's what Jesus was talking about when he said "God is a spirit, and if we are to acknowledge him we must acknowledge him in spirit and in truth"

You see, Spirit CAN be self starting, an uncaused cause. Spirit CAN exist outside the dimensions of space time and matter, and spirit CAN move within the dimensions of our existence.

So you see, God IS a logical, simple, and obvious variable in the equation of our existence. A creator God makes more sense. Our dimensions must be caused, they can't be created without a cause.

I answered enough now its your turn , oh wait you cant ?

you have yet to answer the question, you have sidestepped it, postulating wild theories of multiple universes (even though we can't even see outside of our own) and mixing and matching the dimensions of our existence, and still not explaining how space, time, and matter can all come into being without a cause.

You can believe in a universe besides our own. You can't see it, you can't identify it, but you believe in it.

I'd say it's the nonbelievers who are taking it all in faith.

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I would contend that we both have a measure of faith. And i say you gotta have at least one God because you have to account for the dimensions we exist in. Now God on the other hand might not be space in time, or matter, and so he might not need a Creator. I suspect however far one goes up this chicken-egg scenario, the most high God will exist in a dimension in which he could be self starting, I.E. like a Spirit, or Love, or Truth.

so you can't dismiss the one who caused our existence. You gotta go at least once outside our existence into the unknown and say that whatever is there in that unknown "outside the circle of our existence", is what caused us.

but we both believe something, and when we get right down to the details, it takes a measure of faith to believe it.

I contend we are both theists, you just happen believe in the god of nothing. When you understand how week and wimp your god is compared to the power of my God, you will wonder why you ever put your faith in the god of nothing.

hey, listen to the first 20 seconds of this, and see if it's worth listening to, you might learn something about what I've been preaching the last 20 years.

http://www.accradio.com/index.php/dr-bar...tian-conscience

If you say I must have a God then I would say to you I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.

That link you put up is just the kind of crap I would expect from a brainwashed Christian .

What makes your brainwashing any better?