Is God... PG Version

[GwJ]

You, sir, need to learn a bit.

There is a constant fluctuation of matter being created and destroyed. You know what's funny though? It accounts for the majority of the Universe's mass.

 

[Mike]

Whatever happened to conservation of energy/mass then? Or does that go out the window when talking about the origins of the universe?

Conservation of mass is a classical law of physics. In other words, it is not true in all cases. For example, large amounts of mass is converted into energy in every star due to nuclear fusion.

Conservation of energy is not violated in a universe created from nothing if the total energy of the universe is 0, which is the case for our universe.

 

[Mr.-0]

????? When does matter get destroyed or created? Nuclear Fusion is not matter converting into energy, it's when to atomic nuceli fuse together to form one bigger nuclei. Energy is just released, matter doesn't turn into it.

 

[Mike]

MASS, not matter. Although conservation of matter is violated when particles and antiparticles combine to form photons.

 

[ballin4life]

Whatever happened to conservation of energy/mass then? Or does that go out the window when talking about the origins of the universe?

1) conservation of energy/mass aren't PROVEN. They are just something we have observed in every case AFTER the universe has already been created.

2) the universe could be eternal

3) God is something coming from nothing anyway by your logic

etc

This has been the subject of a million threads here.

 

[Claire Diviner]

What really boggles me in these "Does God Exist?" threads, is that when discussing the existence of God, it's always about the Christian God. What of other religions? Why are they always wrong? In that sense, Christianity and all other religions would be wrong in the eyes of a Bhuddist and so on and so forth. Honestly, it could be possible that Christianity is false and that Bhuddism's reincarnation is true. Or perhaps Allah (who happens to be a different variation of God) is the real God? What makes Christians so sure that their religion is the right one? And why is it that they tend to be so judgmental than all other religions (extremists, like terrorists do not count as judgemental religious people)? Other religions obviously will not agree with Christianity, but it's not like they will down them the way Christians down others for their beliefs. That being said, I know for a fact there are very open-minded and accepting Christians. However, Christians have received such a stereotype, that they as a whole pretty much earned it because of the majority.

If there is a God, why does he create man and all other forms of life? Why create the universe and all the stars and planets if Earth is the only life-sustaining planet in existence (assuming there's no life out there)? If we die and have no form of sentience after death, then what is the point of our existence? Maybe there isn't a God? Perhaps we simply are here as a mere accident? A roll of the cosmic dice, if you will.

Regardless, if there is one constant rule, it's that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - it merely changes. On that note, suppose our bodies die and our conciousness goes with it: the energy used to keep us alive, as well as the energy that's within the very cellular structure that makes up our bodies will simply - in theory - move to become something else, whether it's energy to power a light bulb or maybe to breath new life into another creature. I honestly believe that whateever happens will happen. If I die and find out I'm going to Hell on the grounds that I doubted the existence of God, then I say it's better that than to just rot in the ground devoid of thought. On the other hand, if we die and become mere nothingness, then we wouldn't really have time to sulk about our lack of existence because we'd be dead!

 

[Nicholas1024]

What really boggles me in these "Does God Exist?" threads, is that when discussing the existence of God, it's always about the Christian God. What of other religions? Why are they always wrong? In that sense, Christianity and all other religions would be wrong in the eyes of a Bhuddist and so on and so forth. Honestly, it could be possible that Christianity is false and that Bhuddism's reincarnation is true. Or perhaps Allah (who happens to be a different variation of God) is the real God? What makes Christians so sure that their religion is the right one? And why is it that they tend to be so judgmental than all other religions (extremists, like terrorists do not count as judgemental religious people)? Other religions obviously will not agree with Christianity, but it's not like they will down them the way Christians down others for their beliefs. That being said, I know for a fact there are very open-minded and accepting Christians. However, Christians have received such a stereotype, that they as a whole pretty much earned it because of the majority.

Here's the thing, there can be at most one correct religion. Therefore, if Christianity is correct, all the others are wrong. Once you've figured out that 2+2 = 4, you don't need to waste time considering whether 2+2 = 5, 3, or 42, you've already got the right answer. Hinduism, Buddism, Unknown religion X-ism... they all must be wrong if Christianity is right. As for what makes us Christians so sure we're right... just read the thread. Or one of the others on Christianity-related topics. I'm sure you'll find plenty of arguments there.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

LOL

LOLOLOLOl

 

[Claire Diviner]

Here's the thing, there can be at most one correct religion. Therefore, if Christianity is correct, all the others are wrong. Once you've figured out that 2+2 = 4, you don't need to waste time considering whether 2+2 = 5, 3, or 42, you've already got the right answer. Hinduism, Buddism, Unknown religion X-ism... they all must be wrong if Christianity is right. As for what makes us Christians so sure we're right... just read the thread. Or one of the others on Christianity-related topics. I'm sure you'll find plenty of arguments there.

This is my point exactly: You think Christianity is the right religion while others are wrong based on what is writen in the Bible, and not on what is a known fact. Also, you may think all other religions are wrong, but a Bhuddist or a follower of Judaism thinks Christianity is wrong.

What's more, there are newer religions being created as we speak; last I checked, Scientology is a very recent religion (1911), and only several years ago did Jedi become a religion of all things. Who is to say Christianity wasn't create in much the same way? Oh, wait, it was. It was created following the death of Jesus, who may have been a normal man, but was glorified and immortalized as a deity possibly due to being as popular as he was at the time.

The way I see it, until there is undeniable proof that there really is some truth behind any religion - let alone Christianity - I will assume all religions are mere flights of fancy. I may not be religious, but I certainly will not down someone for believing in what they do. It just bothers me when they try to insist that what they believe in is true without any proof. It's good to have faith - in truth I envy those who do - but don't mix faith in with fact.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Without any proof?!? Seriously, read some of my evidence behind the new testament thread! I have been presenting proof (the majority of it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE) all through that thing.

 

[ballin4life]

Here's the thing, there can be at most one correct religion. Therefore, if Christianity is correct, all the others are wrong. Once you've figured out that 2+2 = 4, you don't need to waste time considering whether 2+2 = 5, 3, or 42, you've already got the right answer. Hinduism, Buddism, Unknown religion X-ism... they all must be wrong if Christianity is right. As for what makes us Christians so sure we're right... just read the thread. Or one of the others on Christianity-related topics. I'm sure you'll find plenty of arguments there.

This isn't true at all. It's entirely possible for multiple religions to be correct. Obviously not ones that directly contradict each other, but it's possible for say Jesus/God to coexist with the Greek Gods (with suitable interpretation of the stories). I mean, God even says "you shall have no OTHER GODS before me" like there are other gods around, right?

 

[GwJ]

@nicholas - You can stop saying that now. It didn't work the first time you did it.

 

[Sieguest]

Here's the thing, there can be at most one correct religion. Therefore, if Christianity is correct, all the others are wrong. Once you've figured out that 2+2 = 4, you don't need to waste time considering whether 2+2 = 5, 3, or 42, you've already got the right answer. Hinduism, Buddism, Unknown religion X-ism... they all must be wrong if Christianity is right. As for what makes us Christians so sure we're right... just read the thread. Or one of the others on Christianity-related topics. I'm sure you'll find plenty of arguments there.

Hold on second here. You're completely disregarding that some religions follow the same foundation. Such as the Abrahamic Religions.

Think in terms of antiderivatives. There is a whole family of functions who derivative may be 2x+3. Just because one fits the bill doesn't mean that the others are incorrect.

This is my point exactly: You think Christianity is the right religion while others are wrong based on what is writen in the Bible, and not on what is a known fact. Also, you may think all other religions are wrong, but a Bhuddist or a follower of Judaism thinks Christianity is wrong.

What's more, there are newer religions being created as we speak; last I checked, Scientology is a very recent religion (1911), and only several years ago did Jedi become a religion of all things. Who is to say Christianity wasn't create in much the same way? Oh, wait, it was. It was created following the death of Jesus, who may have been a normal man, but was glorified and immortalized as a deity possibly due to being as popular as he was at the time.

The way I see it, until there is undeniable proof that there really is some truth behind any religion - let alone Christianity - I will assume all religions are mere flights of fancy. I may not be religious, but I certainly will not down someone for believing in what they do. It just bothers me when they try to insist that what they believe in is true without any proof. It's good to have faith - in truth I envy those who do - but don't mix faith in with fact.

What makes Christianity stand out amongst other religions is, as I've said in times past, that compared to the other religions in the world there is a lot more history and documentation backing the religion.

 

[ballin4life]

Hold on second here. You're completely disregarding that some religions follow the same foundation. Such as the Abrahamic Religions.

Think in terms of antiderivatives. There is a whole family of functions who derivative may be 2x+3. Just because one fits the bill doesn't mean that the others are incorrect.

The religions that stem from the same foundation are more likely to have contradictions though. I suppose if you can resolve them you are right.

But I was thinking more along the lines of just because 2+2=4 is true, that doesn't mean we can't also say 3+3=6 is true as well.

 

[Sieguest]

The religions that stem from the same foundation are more likely to have contradictions though. I suppose if you can resolve them you are right.

In a sense yes. In another sense no. The thing that ties the Abrahamic Religions together are that they stem from the existence of Abraham. One may only find contradictions in the moral aspect and the nature of God when analyzing these religions. That's due to:

1. Abraham had two sons. Judaism was derived from Isaac. Islam was derived from Ishmael.

2. Christianity came about as a radically reformed branch of Judaism.

The morals conflicting doesn't discredit the existence of God, Jesus, or any other persons that may come into question. However confusion about the nature of the God that is served arises due to the different takes each holy text has relation to Him. Christianity pulls ahead of the other two religions at this point because there is more relevant outside documentation for the Bible than the other two religions. This is also the reason why the Christian God tends to come under fire more than other religions. The fact that three world religions are traced back to one person would actually go towards making a case that Abraham did in fact exist and strengthening the authenticity of each of the religions in that group.

 

[ballin4life]

In a sense yes. In another sense no. The thing that ties the Abrahamic Religions together are that they stem from the existence of Abraham. One may only find contradictions in the moral aspect and the nature of God when analyzing these religions. That's due to:

1. Abraham had two sons. Judaism was derived from Isaac. Islam was derived from Ishmael.

2. Christianity came about as a radically reformed branch of Judaism.

There is a contradiction between Judaism/Christianity/Islam in that the first says Jesus is just a guy, the second says he is the Messiah, and the third says he is a Prophet but not the Messiah. Therefore if one of these is correct the other two are wrong.

The morals conflicting doesn't discredit the existence of God, Jesus, or any other persons that may come into question. However confusion about the nature of the God that is served arises due to the different takes each holy text has relation to Him.
Christianity pulls ahead of the other two religions at this point because there is more relevant outside documentation for the Bible than the other two religions. This is also the reason why the Christian God tends to come under fire more than other religions. The fact that three world religions are traced back to one person would actually go towards making a case that Abraham did in fact exist and strengthening the authenticity of each of the religions in that group.

The reason why the Christian God comes under fire is because he is the most popularly supported.

I also don't see how these 3 all existing strengthens the authenticity. They all built on each other. It's like saying that the fact that there are both Catholics and Protestants strengthens the authenticity of Christianity.

 

[Dre89]

I'm pretty sure this is the thread where atheists were throwing around the argument from ignorance card, so I just wanted to say if you're playing that card then you don't understand the God argument.

The God argument isn't "well we have no scientific theory of everything, so God is the best example", the God argument isn't dependant on develpments in science. It's a metaphysical claim, suggesting that the first cause must be self-necessary, eternal, changeless, and unified. Anything observable within a scientific framework will necessitate space and time, and a multitude of complex principles already existing in harmony with each other, so this is skipping the issue at hand.

Unless the theist commits to something like young Earth creationism, developments in physics and cosmology don't really matter, because they are concerned with the physical, and as mentioned above, already assume the existence of multiple principles, whereas the question of God is what preceded those principles, or if anything preceded those principles. The question of whether anything preceded them is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one, because science is confined within the realm of these principles, it can't analyse what is beyond them.

Scientific claim- Time-space has form X
Metaphysical claim- Time-space has form X, and is the first cause/ultimate reality.

 

[ballin4life]

The God argument isn't "well we have no scientific theory of everything, so God is the best example"

Except that this is what one person was saying, so people responded.

 

[jaswa]

John 14:6-7 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

The claims that Jesus make are really exclusive. If Christianity is correct, no other religion can be. So really you should be attacking the person of Jesus, and the Bible (which is addressed in another thread).

 

[Mike]

The God argument isn't "well we have no scientific theory of everything, so God is the best example", the God argument isn't dependant on develpments in science. It's a metaphysical claim, suggesting that the first cause must be self-necessary, eternal, changeless, and unified. Anything observable within a scientific framework will necessitate space and time, and a multitude of complex principles already existing in harmony with each other, so this is skipping the issue at hand.

Calling the argument a metaphysical one is equivalent to calling it an non-credible argument. Metaphysics does not deal with evidence, so any claim it makes about reality is based on made up assumptions.

 

[Dre89]

Calling the argument a metaphysical one is equivalent to calling it an non-credible argument. Metaphysics does not deal with evidence, so any claim it makes about reality is based on made up assumptions.

Ok, even if we were to momentarily accept your claim that nothing can be claimed true unless there is empirical evidence for it (in which case you can't prove that that is a reliable way of deducing truth, because you can't use empirical evidence to prove that empirical methodology deduces truth, which is why people aren't scientisimists), then you still can't empirically prove that the first cause/ultimate reality was naturalistic, therefore the belief that no God exists is unjustified as well.

 

[ballin4life]

Pretty sure he would agree with you Dre but just call it an example of Russell's teapot - there's no reason to believe something that there's no evidence for.

The correct response was to say that requiring evidence is a made up assumption

 

[Dre89]

But conversely, there's no evidence that the universe could exist without a non-naturalistic first cause. Also, virtually all naturalistic explanations of the origin of the assume the plausability of multiple complex principles existing simulatneously as the first cause, which there is no proof of either.

This is why judgement is to be suspended until suffice argumentation is to be provided for either side, because there's no empirical evidence on either side, and there's no prior precedent for us to go off.

 

[ballin4life]

There is empirical evidence in that all the things we see now have "naturalistic" first causes.

Anyway I don't want to misrepresent his position.

 

[Mike]

Ok, even if we were to momentarily accept your claim that nothing can be claimed true unless there is empirical evidence for it (in which case you can't prove that that is a reliable way of deducing truth, because you can't use empirical evidence to prove that empirical methodology deduces truth, which is why people aren't scientisimists),

If it were possible to find truths about reality, the ONLY way to do this would be through empirical evidence: because there is no other method of gaining information about the universe other than through observation, it is required for one to have ANY understanding of the universe.

then you still can't empirically prove that the first cause/ultimate reality was naturalistic, therefore the belief that no God exists is unjustified as well.

If it's something that can be known, it can be studied through science. Everything else can only be said to be fictional or irrelevant, such as your claim of a god "outside time and space".

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Mike
Hold on, are you claiming that there's nothing that could convince you of a God? NOTHING at all?

 

[GwJ]

@Nicholas
Hold on, are you claiming that there's nothing that could convince you of Isis? NOTHING at all?

 

[Mike]

@Mike
Hold on, are you claiming that there's nothing that could convince you of a God? NOTHING at all?

Of course not. I will believe in it if there is sufficient evidence to support its existence. So far there is 0.

 

[Dre89]

Mike by your own admission, the claim that God does not exist is also fictitious, because it is not empirically verifiable.

Yes observation of the universe is crucial, but this stems from the assumption that our perception of the external world correlates to reality, which is a philosophical premise. Empirical methodlogy is verified by philosophy, not empirical methodology itself. These two sentences show that we conclude truths outside of empirical evidence, so the fact that the God question is not empirically verifiable does not render it meaningless. If it did, then the question of whether we should use observation would also be meaningless, and therefore empirical observation would be invalid.

Regardless, certain God arguments are in fact base don observation anyway. The cosmological argument for example stems from the observation that no natural being has the traits required to be the first cause, because we have observed that all natural being are caused by something prior.

 

[Mike]

Mike by your own admission, the claim that God does not exist is also fictitious, because it is not empirically verifiable.

You are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed that a god cannot exist.

Yes observation of the universe is crucial, but this stems from the assumption that our perception of the external world correlates to reality, which is a philosophical premise.Empirical methodlogy is verified by philosophy, not empirical methodology itself. These two sentences show that we conclude truths outside of empirical evidence, so the fact that the God question is not empirically verifiable does not render it meaningless. If it did, then the question of whether we should use observation would also be meaningless, and therefore empirical observation would be invalid.

It doesn't matter if our perceptions "correlate to reality". If such a reality cannot be observed through our perceptions, then it is not a reality at all - it is irrelevant! Anything that is observable is said to be a part of reality. It is not about truths and non-truths, it's about explaining what is explainable.

Regardless, certain God arguments are in fact base don observation anyway. The cosmological argument for example stems from the observation that no natural being has the traits required to be the first cause, because we have observed that all natural being are caused by something prior.

What do you mean by "natural being" and "first cause". There is already an explanation for the creation of our universe.

 

[Dre89]

So anything a cockroach can't perceive is not a reality.

And I give up after that last sentence you just wrote. Maybe Jaswa can come in and explain my position like he always does.

 

[jaswa]

Sarcasm? Or do I actually need to save the day!!

Mike, just wikipedia first cause or cosmological argument if you know squat about them, to get a base understanding.

 

[Mike]

So anything a cockroach can't perceive is not a reality.

We can observe things that cockroaches cannot. And because we live in the same universe as them, anything we find existing will exist for the cockroach as well.

Do you understand that if a reality is not limited to only things that are observable, then all realities must contain an infinite number of ridiculous and indisprovable things?

And I give up after that last sentence you just wrote. Maybe Jaswa can come in and explain my position like he always does.

The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause must be God.

As I have already said we already have an explanation for the creation of our universe. If you are going to post here, actually debate. Don't troll around.

 

[GwJ]

If one believes in a first cause being God, Mike, there is no room to debate.

 

[jaswa]

Mike, explain the creation of the universe to us?

 

[Dre89]

Mike- no we don't have to accept the existence of an infinite number of unfalsifiable beings, because there is no reason to assert their existence. The God argument is from necessity. The whole point is that a natural being, because of the properties it has, is insufficient for being the first cause. So what must be the first cause must have properties contrary to a natural being, such as self-necessity, being eternal, changeless, simple/formless, unified etc. This is why atheists who say "what about an FSM" don't get the argument, because the FSM does not meet a theist's criteria for being sufficient to be the first cause, yet ironically it meets an athiest's critieria.

That's obviously simplified. And no, science has provided us explanations of the origin of the universe if we presuppose the existence of time, space and potency, but these themselves need explaining.

Any claim about the first cause is a metaphysical claim, because you are saying X is sufficient to be the first cause/ultimate reality.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Can you explain why there can only be one god?

 

[ballin4life]

Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be the first cause. It's just meant to show that we don't usually believe in unfalsifiable things. Or you could take it as an argument that just because there is a first cause, that doesn't mean it has any of the usual properties we assign to the Christian God.

 

[Dre89]

Academic theism rules out the possibility that the FSM could be the first cause, because it asserts that the first cause must be simple, unified, eternal, changeless and self-necessary. The FSM or polytheism do not fulfill this criteria.

They do however, fulfill atheistic critieria, because atheist's believe that the first cause can consist of mutiple complex finite principles functioning in harmony, which is what the FSM and polytheism are.

 

[ballin4life]

How does the Flying Spaghetti Monster not satisfy those?