The Existence of God

[Faithkeeper]

So this topic was in the debate hall social thread, and became more or less the entirety of what was discussed in said thread. I don't think anyone really liked the scenario. Most agreed someone should make a thread about it to fix this problem. I have decided to do so. Let us continue...

---------------------------
Just to start this out, I didn't read everything about God said in the topic. I read most of the last few pages, there were a few posts I just skimmed over, I'll start reading in this thread if the topic continues to interest me. I'm obviously not the best person to start this off, but I hadn't seen the initiative elsewhere, so I went ahead and did it. So here I go.

Remember I'm not saying NBT isn't true, I'm just saying it can't exist as the ultimate reality, it can't exist as a self-necessary entity, it can only existed if atcuated by a prior being.

Why?

Why?

Why?

This is why people get so frustrated with you. You make outlandish philosophical statements without ever giving any explanation. Why does the universe need to be self-necessary? How is an inexplainable deity allowed to be the self-necessary catalyst for the universe, but the universe itself could never have been self-necessary without the need for a deity?

I can only assume Dre is arguing along the lines of another argument I've heard that goes something like this:

It's really the issue of why is there something rather than nothing. We start here. By the rules of the universe everything that exists (naturally) either exists because it is self-necessary or because something caused it to exist. Because matter does not self-generate in any manner we have observed, the contention is that the universe cannot be self-necessary and must be caused by another ... force. (I don't know how to word this) The argument continues with the contention that if any natural or physical force were to cause the universe's existence, it would run into the same problem the universe did and therefore it would require some other cause. This is used to establish that no physical or natural force could have caused our universe. Therefore the only option left is that a supernatural force or being, not being restricted by the laws of physics, must have created the universe.

I hope I cleared that up. Because most people are not familiar with many philosophical or theological theories, I find it wise to walk through it one little baby step at a time (by no condescending means). To those already familiar with the field what Dre mentioned would have been ample enough, I knew what he was talking about immediately, but just as the science buffs have to walk me through their crazy physics stuff () you must be very careful to explain every step of the process when discussing philosophy. If you are not careful to do so, they don't understand what you are talking about and immediately write it off as nonsense, even if it had merit.

I'm confused; if God is just pure intellect, how can He do anything?

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by pure intellect, but...

From what I understand, a supernatural God that is undetectable by science could influence the naturally indeterminable elements of quantum mechanics and electron movement, and therefore have a large impact on the earth (these aspects of physics are very closely related to gene mutation and other processes which could have a profound effect on our world) without ever visibly breaking the laws of physics. In this scenario it is assumed that the supernatural God created a self-sufficient universe that he could influence detectably (assumed theism) and undetectably via influence of random occurrences.


My conclusion on the matter from what I've read is: science far from proves the existence of any deity figure, yet falls short of completely eliminating the possibility of such a figure, even a theistic one.

EDIT: When I said random, a much better word would be indeterminable. [changed] (like the 80:20 ratio of reflection on a mirror for those who know what I'm talking about. I assume that if you know something isn't random but indeterminable, you know the reference I make)

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by pure intellect, but...

From what I understand, a supernatural God that is undetectable by science could influence the naturally random elements of quantum mechanics and electron movement, and therefore have a large impact on the earth (these aspects of physics are very closely related to gene mutation and other processes which could have a profound effect on our world) without ever visibly breaking the laws of physics. In this scenario it is assumed that the supernatural God created a self-sufficient universe that he could influence detectably (assumed theism) and undetectably via influence of random occurrences.

Dre claims that the only difference between God and nothingness is that God has intellect. So if God is just pure, disembodied intellect, how can He do anything?

My conclusion on the matter from what I've read is: science far from proves the existence of any deity figure, yet falls short of completely eliminating the possibility of such a figure, even a theistic one.

Agreed.

 

[rvkevin]

In simple terms, the argument from necessity would go:

G=God exists, U=Universe exists
1) If not G, then not U
2) U
3) Therefore G

The only problem is that the first premise has not been shown to be the case and with the current status of theoretical physics, I don't think it carries much weight at the moment. The argument relies on demonstrating that the universe could not have been formed by natural means, which accounts for why the amount of "why" questions is enormous. Why aren't quantum fields the "____"? Why doesn't nothing entail something? Why does a property typically attached to the emergence of material entities make any sense at all when applied to an immaterial entity and why are we justified in applying that property and how does that property have causal power? When you haven't demonstrated your premise, it is not difficult to find objections, especially when it is the result of armchair philosophy.

 

[Sucumbio]

First, rvkevin's absolutely correct.

Now, the existence of God is ... as of now only provable in the mind and as a matter of Faith, and for many, without Reason (not reasons). Moreso a matter of baseless reason; connecting dots with a convenient story that happens to fit some facts, but that could technically be explained by other such stories, or even by science on some level. This would be why we have multiple Faiths, and Science, all trying to explain the same thing.

Perhaps we can first establish that the Universe isn't necessarily something that has to "come" into existence, but rather, that as -we- understand "beginning" it was always there, and that the "beginning" of the Universe (and Time) was simply the moment at which it began to expand. Before its expansion, Time, being a Part of the expanding universe, was something that did not exist in terms of observability before its expansion: all matter, energy, time, space-time, etc. these things existed as a singularity, an infinitely small "point" in an infinitely large vacuum of space.

(PS I can cite science journals etc from which I have drawn these ideas if anyone's interested, but you have google too, and really this is more a philosophical approach, a mind exercise, just something to posit and think on.)

Then it went 'boom' though technically this 'boom' has more recently been thought of as less an explosion and simply a sudden reversal of itself, from a singularity to a non-singularity, ever-reaching equilibrium with its surrounding nothingness, hence, expanding.

What made it start to do this? God? Well ... that's frankly a primitive way of understanding what happened. It didn't "start" at all. It was always going to expand. Since we can only observe what happened from the point of expansion onward, it'll appear to US, as having a "beginning" but technically... there is no actual beginning, no start point. There is only the starting point of our observational range of the expanding universe. So... nothing was needed to start it. It was always going to happen. You could say, it happened immediately after it formed. You could say it was always there to begin with, because there was no Time to begin with, and the absence of Time is non-Time or no Time, and ... yeah.

Cyclic to a fault. Makes your head spin thinking about it, but wrapping your head around this premise to me anyway signifies the meat of the quandary, and within, the solution to the question.

Does God Exist??

Well yes, I believe he does. I believe that God is an alien, a literal extra-terrestrial whose existence is owed to the expanding Universe the same as ours. Or maybe he came from another Universe, who knows such things. I only know that Some otherworldly and seemingly magical being has appeared here on Earth to do things, to move people, to change the hearts and minds of men, and to work miracles, and it rests solely on my Faith to believe these things which lack scientific explanation are the works of God.

But do I believe God HAD to exist "before" the Universe? Nope. Do I believe God HAD to have started the "big bang" and of his own free will? No. I no longer see the Universe as ever having a real start. It always was. It's only its expansion that we see as "starting" and even then, I don't see it as a true start, as someone starts a race, or a timer.

What happens when you die?

I believe that our consciousness which is essentially electricity in the brain, goes to ground, literally, goes to the earth, where the molten core is a huge electro-magnet. Do we retain ourselves? Probably not, but maybe, haven't died yet so I can't say. But there's been some conjecture in past years about a collective unconscious, so it seems to me that it's possible anyway, that all life and living things contribute to a single consciousness of sorts, that the dead may also contribute to even if for a brief second. But this threatens to go off topic. It also establishes that for me anyway, the afterlife and the existence of God are not necessarily as intertwined as most Religions require.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

First of all, we need some kind of definition of what a god is. Only then can we truly proceed with a debate. I, for example, look at these posts and I see all kinds of different definitions of god (including some I can't rightly place). When we ask if a god exists, what is god? I can easy say "My god exists" and then when you ask me to show you god, I present my laptop, or my wiimote, or a stained pair of my mother's underwear and say, "this is god". So we should probably bring up a definition.

My favorite manner of arguing about god mostly includes the following two points:
-Uncertifiability. We don't know that there's a god-in fact, it's by most definitions literally impossible. So why would we put this hypothesis, if you could even call it that, above anything, or indeed, pay any attention to it? (I would argue similarly as far as afterlives go; we don't and can't know if we have an afterlife or what it looks like (okay, fairly, if there is an afterlife, we are all going straight to hell. Any counterpoints? Any?), all we know is that we have this short life here and we can make the best of it)

-Utility. We can explore the outer reaches of the galaxy, discover millions of barren chunks of rock, communicate with species we will almost certainly never meet, and it will have done absolutely no good for humanity. Apply to god in any sense such as Deism where god doesn't play an active role in the universe, or afterlife.

I feel that in most cases, either argument suffices. And faith and theology are, IMO, two of the largest wastes of time known to man.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I believe that Sucumbio has hit the nail on the head. The universe need not have "begun" as such, but it was merely there at least since the beginning of time and therefore causality.

If time didn't exist before the universe, how can you have a causal solution to this problem? Causality has broken down. How can you bring something into existence that's already there? This is the problem with the idea of a causal beginning to the universe.

I think it's more likely that it was a singularity, a zero dimensional point. Then some weird random physics ensues that I don't really know much about, and hey, we have universe.

In fact the it could be argued that the current universe doesn't actually require any energy input. ie. the total energy is 0. This means that the overall curvature of space time is 0. This is made possible by the fact that there is negative energy, through gravitational fields or something. If no net energy has been formed, then the question about "you can't create something from nothing" is null and void. No net creation has occurred. All that's needed for our universe to exist is a quantum fluctuation, and then it's thrown into existence.

Why did it play out this way? It's rather like asking, "why did I roll a 6 instead of a 1?" Only god knows... but wait... I don't believe he does.

 

[Sieguest]

In fact the it could be argued that the current universe doesn't actually require any energy input. ie. the total energy is 0. This means that the overall curvature of space time is 0. This is made possible by the fact that there is negative energy, through gravitational fields or something. If no net energy has been formed, then the question about "you can't create something from nothing" is null and void. No net creation has occurred. All that's needed for our universe to exist is a quantum fluctuation, and then it's thrown into existence.

I remember hearing this in that lecture rvkevin posted in the social thread. To be honest I'm not convinced in the slightest.

If there is no net energy, then how does expansion happen? That zero energy thing doesn't account for that.
If the universe spontaneously happened that way, how many laws of physics have you just broken using physics? The whole thing collapses on itself. How do these quantum fluctuations happen with no net energy? How does anything move with no net energy? It makes no sense at all.

 

[Dre89]

I'm tired of people always saying 'God is just a matter of faith'.

It isn't. If you look at a painting, you can tell that it's nature necessitates a prior truth, you can tell it had to have been painted by a painter. You don't just have blind faith that it was done by a painter, you have reason to believe it must have been painted by a painter.

The universe and God are no different. I can look at the universe, and for various reasons, assume it needed to be caused by a prior being.

Now whether those reasons are justified are debateable, and they will probably be discussed in this debate, but this whole idea that God is just a matter of faith is simply outdated and is usually only said by theists who haven't studied it at an advanced level, and atheists, either for the same reason, or simply because it helps their argument a lot more.

 

[Jam Stunna]

What reasons are those?

 

[Dre89]

Long, complicated reasons. I've put them across in the DH social thread.

But I wasn't saying that 'God definitely exists, because I have reasons for it'.

I'm saying 'the painter conclusion is based on reason, therefore a God conclusion can be based on reason'. I wasn't saying that God definitely existed or not, I was just saying that reason can tell whether He does or not.

 

[SuperBowser]

Long, complicated reasons. I've put them across in the DH social thread.

I don't know if I should lol or cry.

I'd like to see you detail those reasons further (Alt already asked the relevant questions). It just looked like circular reasoning to me.

edit: In response to your post below me: On second thought, I think I'll let other people ask the questions. There's enough asking already.

 

[Dre89]

Well 'detail those reasons' is a bit vague, I don't want to have to replicate thousands of words again.

But if you have a question about part of my reasoning, or think a part of it is circular let me know and I'll try clarify it for you.

But please don't go down the path every atheist/secular does with me and start saying I just assumed God existed and the made premises for it, because I was actually an atheist when I started formulating these premises, then came to believe in a deity as a result of them.

 

[Faithkeeper]

The argument relies on demonstrating that the universe could not have been formed by natural means, which accounts for why the amount of "why" questions is enormous. Why aren't quantum fields the "____"? Why doesn't nothing entail something? Why does a property typically attached to the emergence of material entities make any sense at all when applied to an immaterial entity and why are we justified in applying that property and how does that property have causal power?

So are you more or less saying the argument is only relevant as a "why" question?

The problem we encounter here (not at all saying what you've stated is incorrect) is that God is more or less a "why" subject. It's possible implications to the "how" of the universe are very limited. I definitely see you point (unless I misunderstand), but am hard pressed to see how to take your point into consideration and still continue this debate as it is very much the nature of it.

First of all, we need some kind of definition of what a god is. Only then can we truly proceed with a debate. I, for example, look at these posts and I see all kinds of different definitions of god (including some I can't rightly place). When we ask if a god exists, what is god? I can easy say "My god exists" and then when you ask me to show you god, I present my laptop, or my wiimote, or a stained pair of my mother's underwear and say, "this is god". So we should probably bring up a definition.

That would certainly make things easier, but I am not sure where to start. There are obviously individuals present with very different opinions of what God is, and I'm not sure which one to label "this is God" If we can come to a consensus, I'll change the op. I'm not sure that any of those who argue for the existence for God agree on who/what God is.

My favorite manner of arguing about god mostly includes the following two points:
-Uncertifiability. We don't know that there's a god-in fact, it's by most definitions literally impossible. So why would we put this hypothesis, if you could even call it that, above anything, or indeed, pay any attention to it? (I would argue similarly as far as afterlives go; we don't and can't know if we have an afterlife or what it looks like , all we know is that we have this short life here and we can make the best of it)

I'd say the majority of theists would mention the afterlife, which brings us to...

(okay, fairly, if there is an afterlife, we are all going straight to hell. Any counterpoints? Any?)

I am quite sure the same theists would claim there is some sort of paradise/heaven/reincarnation/ other positive end of the stick. If we are going to grant a hell, we may as well grant a heaven. Which leads me to the conclusion that one should probably not grant an afterlife, in the traditional sense, without first granting a deity figure.

-Utility. We can explore the outer reaches of the galaxy, discover millions of barren chunks of rock, communicate with species we will almost certainly never meet, and it will have done absolutely no good for humanity. Apply to god in any sense such as Deism where god doesn't play an active role in the universe, or afterlife.

I've already mentioned how a supernatural being could influence life to one's advantage in my first post, I believe this would give said deity "utility." If you have a refutation for that point, please make it before setting up a point on the premise that an unrefuted point is incorrect.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on singularity to address Sucumbio's points. Sucumbio, do you think you could link me? (pm or vm is fine) I'd never heard of any sort of scientific consensus on singularity, but I don't generally read scientific journals to be honest, I may very well be out of date in that regard. So the points regarding singularity will have to wait, I'll try to remember to address those at a later point, I don't want to ignore any point, so if I haven't addressed it and I'm still posting, remind me: I very much dislike it when people completely ignore my points without bothering to refute or concede them.

I think it's more likely that it was a singularity, a zero dimensional point. Then some weird random physics ensues that I don't really know much about, and hey, we have universe.

I haven't read up on that singularity yet, but "I think it's more likely" isn't exactly convincing evidence. I think the implications of a supernatural being are indeterminate by nature and therefore impossible to judge the likelihood of. Is my "I think" statement any more credible that yours. Probably not, but if we accept yours, we must therefore accept mine as refutation to yours. This is all theory and I don't really know where to draw the line... :/

If no net energy has been formed, then the question about "you can't create something from nothing" is null and void. No net creation has occurred. All that's needed for our universe to exist is a quantum fluctuation, and then it's thrown into existence.

I may be missing something here, but... matter?

Just to add another facet to the debate:

“I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”

To the best of my understanding he says this in regards to the anthropic principle.

I don't think Hawking is saying there is a God, but I do think the anthropic principle has potential as a debatable point in this debate unless we assume the multiverse. And personally I haven't seen evidence of the multiverse that is any more reliable than theological evidence of a deity figure. I'm not so sure either can be proven. But I'm waiting to be proven wrong.

Well 'detail those reasons' is a bit vague, I don't want to have to replicate thousands of words again.

Please copy/paste. I do not anticipate that every individual reading this thread will have been following the social thread. I believe 5-10 mins of investment in copy/paste of your main tenants would go a long way.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm tired of people always saying 'God is just a matter of faith'.

It isn't. If you look at a painting, you can tell that it's nature necessitates a prior truth, you can tell it had to have been painted by a painter. You don't just have blind faith that it was done by a painter, you have reason to believe it must have been painted by a painter.

The reason you know a painter painted the painting, is because we've seen painters paint paintings.

The universe and God are no different. I can look at the universe, and for various reasons, assume it needed to be caused by a prior being.

Well, I'm sure that you haven't seen Gods build universes.

Now whether those reasons are justified are debateable, and they will probably be discussed in this debate, but this whole idea that God is just a matter of faith is simply outdated and is usually only said by theists who haven't studied it at an advanced level, and atheists, either for the same reason, or simply because it helps their argument a lot more.

I'm sure your reasoning is different than using the painter analogy, because such an analogy is flawed.

I haven't read up on that singularity yet, but "I think it's more likely" isn't exactly convincing evidence. I think the implications of a supernatural being are indeterminate by nature and therefore impossible to judge the likelihood of. Is my "I think" statement any more credible that yours. Probably not, but if we accept yours, we must therefore accept mine as refutation to yours. This is all theory and I don't really know where to draw the line... :/

Well, I think it's more likely to be a zero dimensional point, because such an object is more simple than an intelligent being. Occam's razor for you.

I may be missing something here, but... matter?

Matter and energy can be changed from one form to another. Given the correct conditions, energy could create matter.

If there is no net energy, then how does expansion happen? That zero energy thing doesn't account for that.

Negative energy. According to Krauss, Gravity can have negative energy. It's somewhere in this 1 hour long video. A Universe from Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss

If the universe spontaneously happened that way, how many laws of physics have you just broken using physics? The whole thing collapses on itself.

Name said laws of physics that it breaks. I believe a particle physicist such as Lawrence Krauss would know what he's talking about.

How do these quantum fluctuations happen with no net energy? How does anything move with no net energy? It makes no sense at all.

It seems to be the case. Quantum fluctuations occur in the absence of anything. They're really weird. They won't produce any net energy, but, they'll produce local changes, with both positive and negative energy. Matter and movement are these local changes.

 

[Sieguest]

Negative energy. According to Krauss, Gravity can have negative energy. It's somewhere in this 1 hour long video. A Universe from Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss

The energy that's canceling out the positive the energy of matter. You still have a net energy of zero. So how is the universe expanding with no energy to move with?

Name said laws of physics that it breaks. I believe a particle physicist such as Lawrence Krauss would know what he's talking about.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. If quantum fluctuations create something from nothing. Then you've just broken the law of conservation of matter.

Then you may reference the video and say that there is energy in "nothing". In that case. There was something, and that energy is canceled out by gravity. So nothing should be moving. Yet we're somehow expanding. Another piece of physics out the window.

It seems to be the case. Quantum fluctuations occur in the absence of anything. They're really weird. They won't produce any net energy, but, they'll produce local changes, with both positive and negative energy. Matter and movement are these local changes.

If matter and movement are the result. Then the net force of the universe can't be zero, because something is moving. Unless we throw the fact unequal forces on an object cause an object to move in the direction of the greater force out of the window too.

 

[rvkevin]

So are you more or less saying the argument is only relevant as a "why" question?

The problem we encounter here (not at all saying what you've stated is incorrect) is that God is more or less a "why" subject. It's possible implications to the "how" of the universe are very limited. I definitely see you point (unless I misunderstand), but am hard pressed to see how to take your point into consideration and still continue this debate as it is very much the nature of it.

I don't know what you took from my post, but it was only a general summary of what was partaken in the social thread. It specifically pertained to the argument from necessity. I don't see why it is necessarily a "why" subject. Once a "why" question is answered with "god," then it immediately becomes a "how" subject. They may be more intertwined than you think. "Why does X exist" Once god is posited as an answer to X, the two following questions arise. How does answering this question with god make sense? How does God actualize X?

This is common counter tactic to many arguments for the existence of god, by assuming that god is responsible for a certain phenomenon, such as morality, one can quickly deduce that using the given entity to explain such a phenomenon leads to complications, such as the Euthyphro dilemma. Another example would be the TAG argument, which posits god as for why there are logical absolutes. Once we posit god as the answer, the question becomes, "How does God actualize the logical absolutes" and it turns out that they can't be actualized, that they are always true, it shows that using god as an answer to that phenomenon is flawed. I think the lack of possible implications to the "how" questions results from the lack of merit of positing "god" as an explanation to the why question.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm tired of people always saying 'God is just a matter of faith'.

It isn't. If you look at a painting, you can tell that it's nature necessitates a prior truth, you can tell it had to have been painted by a painter. You don't just have blind faith that it was done by a painter, you have reason to believe it must have been painted by a painter.

The universe and God are no different. I can look at the universe, and for various reasons, assume it needed to be caused by a prior being.

And I can look at my computer and assume that a mouse made it. It is different, because, as said, you literally cannot prove that god created the universe. If you had to prove that a painter painted a painting, you could potentially do it.

Now whether those reasons are justified are debateable, and they will probably be discussed in this debate, but this whole idea that God is just a matter of faith is simply outdated and is usually only said by theists who haven't studied it at an advanced level, and atheists, either for the same reason, or simply because it helps their argument a lot more.

But it is a matter of faith. Unless your definition of god is something well-defined by reality, in which case I ask "why does this qualify as god"? Higgs Bosons, maybe? Is god a rock, a tree? Is god an quantum particle? Define god.

Long, complicated reasons. I've put them across in the DH social thread.

And I'd love to hunt for them for 60 pages.

But I wasn't saying that 'God definitely exists, because I have reasons for it'.

I'm saying 'the painter conclusion is based on reason, therefore a God conclusion can be based on reason'. I wasn't saying that God definitely existed or not, I was just saying that reason can tell whether He does or not.

Yes, but this analogy is flawed (and weak). And additionally, if you see only a beautiful painting, there's no qualifiable reason to assume it wasn't made by monkeys, or elephants, or aliens, as opposed to a painter.

That would certainly make things easier, but I am not sure where to start. There are obviously individuals present with very different opinions of what God is, and I'm not sure which one to label "this is God" If we can come to a consensus, I'll change the op. I'm not sure that any of those who argue for the existence for God agree on who/what God is.

Indeed.

I'd say the majority of theists would mention the afterlife, which brings us to...

I just explained why the afterlife doesn't bother me though; we quite literally can't be sure it exists but we can be sure that we have this life and that we should use it to the best of our abilities.

I am quite sure the same theists would claim there is some sort of paradise/heaven/reincarnation/ other positive end of the stick. If we are going to grant a hell, we may as well grant a heaven. Which leads me to the conclusion that one should probably not grant an afterlife, in the traditional sense, without first granting a deity figure.

That was a joke (I almost wanted to tack on "unless you're mormon or really, REALLY good at PSP" just to make it more clear).

I've already mentioned how a supernatural being could influence life to one's advantage in my first post, I believe this would give said deity "utility." If you have a refutation for that point, please make it before setting up a point on the premise that an unrefuted point is incorrect.

I meant specifically in the case of deism or the like.

And even in such cases, isn't what said god does completely independent from us? We can't:
-Stop it from doing what it's doing
-Convince it to do something different
-Influence it at all if it doesn't want to be influenced
-Assume it wants to be influenced.

This is hardly utility. This is someone ******* around with us while we lay in a petri dish. And we can't even figure out he exists, and even if we could, we couldn't do anything about it.

Oh and if he hadn't, we wouldn't have noticed the difference. Meaning it may just as well be the case that he hasn't done anything whatsoever, but we're reaping the benefits.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I don't know what you took from my post, but it was only a general summary of what was partaken in the social thread. It specifically pertained to the argument from necessity. I don't see why it is necessarily a "why" subject. Once a "why" question is answered with "god," then it immediately becomes a "how" subject. They may be more intertwined than you think. "Why does X exist" Once god is posited as an answer to X, the two following questions arise. How does answering this question with god make sense? How does God actualize X?

This is common counter tactic to many arguments for the existence of god, by assuming that god is responsible for a certain phenomenon, such as morality, one can quickly deduce that using the given entity to explain such a phenomenon leads to complications, such as the Euthyphro dilemma. Another example would be the TAG argument, which posits god as for why there are logical absolutes. Once we posit god as the answer, the question becomes, "How does God actualize the logical absolutes" and it turns out that they can't be actualized, that they are always true, it shows that using god as an answer to that phenomenon is flawed. I think the lack of possible implications to the "how" questions results from the lack of merit of positing "god" as an explanation to the why question.

Ok, I see your point. But I would also conclude there are instances in which the why does not conflict with the how.

I just explained why the afterlife doesn't bother me though; we quite literally can't be sure it exists but we can be sure that we have this life and that we should use it to the best of our abilities.

Yes, but those who believe in a positive vs negative afterlife would stress the importance of this life on the next.

That was a joke (I almost wanted to tack on "unless you're mormon or really, REALLY good at PSP" just to make it more clear).

lol sorry, that completely went over my head.

I meant specifically in the case of deism or the like.

Ok, that makes plenty of sense.

And even in such cases, isn't what said god does completely independent from us? We can't:
-Stop it from doing what it's doing
-Convince it to do something different
-Influence it at all if it doesn't want to be influenced
-Assume it wants to be influenced.

This is hardly utility. This is someone ******* around with us while we lay in a petri dish. And we can't even figure out he exists, and even if we could, we couldn't do anything about it.

When we come here, I think many theists would contend that by following this deity's decrees and by worshiping this deity, one would gain favor with said deity and the deity would "bless" your life and endeavors.

Matter and energy can be changed from one form to another. Given the correct conditions, energy could create matter.

Woooow, I'm going to need some citation for this. I've never heard of energy creating matter. I've never heard of any observation of any matter being created ever.

Well, I think it's more likely to be a zero dimensional point, because such an object is more simple than an intelligent being. Occam's razor for you.

I would assume the physical implications of all matter and energy being converted into an invisible and infinitesimally small point (zero dimensional... it's hard to conceptualize that...) to be rather large as well. I'd probably concede Occam's razor in that regard, but if we are going to discuss probability, why not throw in the Anthropic Principle?

I don't think I need to detail just how fortunate we are that the universe is the way it is. If one of many variables were to change slightly, life would not be possible. I can go into much more detail, but I assume most present are familiar with the topic. The book Stephen Hawking’s Universe concludes that the odds against the accidental formation of a universe such as this would be comparable to shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece. So our existence to begin with is rather unlikely; the existence of life is rather unlikely as well. It is my conclusion that the universe would be simpler without complex life forms. I do not say this to attempt to completely debunk Occam's razor, merely to suggest that it cannot be applied as a blanket theory for finding truth.

 

[rvkevin]

Woooow, I'm going to need some citation for this. I've never heard of energy creating matter. I've never heard of any observation of any matter being created ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U

So our existence to begin with is rather unlikely; the existence of life is rather unlikely as well. It is my conclusion that the universe would be simpler without complex life forms. I do not say this to attempt to completely debunk Occam's razor, merely to suggest that it cannot be applied as a blanket theory for finding truth.

This has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for going with the answer that has the least assumptions (making it more "simple"). Complex life is not an assumption, it is a given.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, but those who believe in a positive vs negative afterlife would stress the importance of this life on the next.

...and run right into my "uncertainty" claim. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to bring an argument to ridicule against any form of afterlife or otherwise unverifiable hypothesis. In other words: "HAHA YOU THINK THAT A BEARDED MAN IN THE SKY WILL LET YOU INTO A PLACE FULL OF HAPPINESS AND CLOUDS IF YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK HE WROTE IN SOME SILLY BOOK, AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL SUFFER ETERNAL TORTURE. HOW ******** ARE YOU?".
^
|
Extreme example, but you see my point. Against unverifiable theories, I will gladly mock the opposition. And let me put it to you this way-it's proven pretty conclusively that for me, having protected premarital sex with someone I love makes my life better. It's pretty much proven for me that giving out blowjobs to friends of mine makes my life better. It's neither proven nor provable that I will go burn for all eternity for doing so, nor that if I abstain from doing so, I will get any reward whatsoever.

lol sorry, that completely went over my head.

It wasn't very obvious. Note to self: make jokes more obvious on the internet. I'm currently 0-2 in the debate hall.

Ok, that makes plenty of sense.
When we come here, I think many theists would contend that by following this deity's decrees and by worshiping this deity, one would gain favor with said deity and the deity would "bless" your life and endeavors.

Yes, but it hasn't been shown (and, in fact, judging by the **** that goes on in the world, this god seems to be a real big douchebag, although I suppose that's another topic), and once again follows under my whole "unprovable" argument, to the point that it is completely irrelevant to the rest of us.

Woooow, I'm going to need some citation for this. I've never heard of energy creating matter. I've never heard of any observation of any matter being created ever.

Nuclear reactions, or see E=m*c^2.

 

[Dre89]

Two things I'd like to say.

Bob, the painter analogy isn't flawed. Are you saying that a person only knows a painting was painted if they've seen one being painted before?

There are plenty of objects that if we'd looked at for the first time, we'd know were created even if we've never visually witnessed that creation.

It's inductive logic. The logic for God's existence is the same as knowing a painting you didn't see painted was in fact painted. Past experience tells us that the painting, or any created object, consists entirely of physical parts, which have always been contingent. In the same sense, inductive logic can tell me that all the 'parts' of the universe are contingent, therefore require a prior being.

Obviously it's alot more complex than that.

Also, I'd just like to add my two cents on the why/how question. I don't bother ask why something exists rather than nothing, because we know soemthing exists.

Atheists may try to argue that the existence of an eternal deity is untrue because it is an unecessary existence, for there would be no reason for something rather than nothing.

I have two issues with this claim-

1. If you work backwards, you can argue that God is necessary in that we know 'something' exists, and for reasons XYZ, the universe necessitates a prior existence, to have caused it, that existence being God. Of course the question is whether XYZ are valid.

2. Something existing in this case is just as probable as nothing existing. Normally, the existence of a positive reality is less probable than nothingness, because the positive reality, or being, requires a cause, there needs to be a potentiality, and a movement of this potentiality to actuality, whereas nothing of the sort is required for nothingness. However, the being we are talking about here is eternal, so if God does exist, there would been no movement from potentiality to actuality, there would have been no cause, so it is just as probable as nothingness.

Hope that all made sense (probably didn't).



Actually this brings me to another point. Those of you who have read my God argument (and understand it, because it seems understanding it is a lot harder than I expected) would know that the general nucleus of the argument is that nature of the universe necessitates a prior being to have caused it, and that this ultimate reality could not be a compelxity.

In terms of the existence of the ultimate reality, I find the why something rather than nothing question to be somewhat pointless, because probablitilty would not be an issue.

Yes the actuating of certain existences are more/less probable than others, but that is when the existences are actuated, or caused. The ultimate reality, whether it be God, the singularity, time-space curvature etc. is eternal, there was no prior cause, so there is no question of probabilty.

It wasn't chosen, or selected that something exist rather than nothing. In this sense, because causailty and its probablity are not an issue, anything could have existed as the ultimate reality, even a complexity. The reason why I know however that it wasn't is because of the nature of the universe. The universe consists of so many complexities that they could not have all been encompassed within a complex being, the being therefore must have been simple to actuate all that currently exists. And it is from here that I proceed with my other premises that a simple deity must exist.

Not sure how much that will contribute but I just wanted to get it out.

 

[Sieguest]

...and run right into my "uncertainty" claim. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to bring an argument to ridicule against any form of afterlife or otherwise unverifiable hypothesis. In other words: "HAHA YOU THINK THAT A BEARDED MAN IN THE SKY WILL LET YOU INTO A PLACE FULL OF HAPPINESS AND CLOUDS IF YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK HE WROTE IN SOME SILLY BOOK, AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL SUFFER ETERNAL TORTURE. HOW ******** ARE YOU?".

Just like you can't prove that it doesn't exist. So lets mock those who don't believe the same as we shall we? It's those types of arguments that degrade these topics to nothing but name calling and profanity.

Nuclear reactions, or see E=m*c^2.

That's only transforming energy, not creating it.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transformed.
*The law of conservation of energy

 

[AltF4]

The assumptions Dre's not telling you about his god argument:

1. There is a world of minds. Separate from bodies.
2. We can magically disregard the problem of locality and causality caused by the previous assumption.
3. The world of physical objects requires a prior cause. But the world of minds magically does not.
4. There is an objective standard for perfection even outside god.
5. Minds are capable of creating universes... as long as your mind has superpowers.
6. Intelligence is "simple", and not complex.

So, yea. If you buy all that, then sure.

The problem, Dre, is that you're trying to purely use logic to deduce the existence of god. In a purely logical argument, there is no room for debate. Either your argument works or it doesn't. So we're left with two options:

1) You're right. You just have proven that god exists. You should be in talks with the Nobel Prize committee and will be remembered throughout human history as the most significant thinker that has ever lived.

2) You're wrong.

Which is more likely?

 

[Deleted member]

That's only transforming energy, not creating it.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transformed.

He was talking about energy being transformed into matter, yes. But that still refutes your original quote where you say "never heard of matter being created, ever."


Now, just te be clear, the debate is about there being some higher power that created the universe right? not some God watching/steering our everyday lives.
Because the Title is somewhat misleading then because this isn't about a god existing now, just that god created the universe (or the big bang).

 

[Sieguest]

He was talking about energy being transformed into matter, yes. But that still refutes your original quote where you say "never heard of matter being created, ever."

Ok, but we can't combine this newly created matter into atoms and such that comprise the objects we find in the universe. That and due to energy creating matter/anti-matter pairs. It's soon just going to be reverted back into energy once more.
See here.

Also, I still don't see how we're expanding in universe that supposedly has a net energy of zero.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just like you can't prove that it doesn't exist. So lets mock those who don't believe the same as we shall we? It's those types of arguments that degrade these topics to nothing but name calling and profanity.

Phrased it wrong. Replace that think with a "know". I like making fun of people who "know" god exists. Although, to be fair, it's hardly a real appeal to ridicule... Never mind, I suppose.

That's only transforming energy, not creating it.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transformed.
*The law of conservation of energy

Well, the total energy of the universe does remain constant (this is a major law of physics). But essentially, energy is matter, so his point is irrelevant anyways.

 

[Sieguest]

Phrased it wrong. Replace that think with a "know". I like making fun of people who "know" god exists. Although, to be fair, it's hardly a real appeal to ridicule... Never mind, I suppose.

I can understand that. Word confusion makes life go bleh in two seconds.

Well, the total energy of the universe does remain constant (this is a major law of physics). But essentially, energy is matter, so his point is irrelevant anyways.

Well then if we live in a universe with net energy zero. And the amount of energy in the universe must stay the same. This means the amount of positive energy in matter will always equal the amount of negative energy of gravity. This still leaves the question I asked earlier. How are we then expanding?

Also I don't think Energy=Matter unless I've read an article I just pulled up wrong. See here.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Just looked through this thread and have found ZERO evidence for the existence of gods.

Would someone post some proof that gods exist?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What if the net energy of the universe is more than 0, then?

The fact that matter can be transformed into energy means, essentially, that they are the same thing and can be interchanged when using equations with an energie requirement (provided you have a situation where you can let them react fully). Particle + antiparticle -> photon. Maybe not the same thing, in our normal lives, but mathematically equatable over a constant, I would imagine.

The reason that article disagrees is probably because it uses a model more sensible to people trying to pick up the basics (that seems like a middle school chem textbook entry). Or, I could be wrong. But the logic seems reasonable, at least for such an exposition.

 

[Sieguest]

What if the net energy of the universe is more than 0, then?

Then you lose the ability to create something from nothing.

The fact that matter can be transformed into energy means, essentially, that they are the same thing and can be interchanged when using equations with an energie requirement (provided you have a situation where you can let them react fully). Particle + antiparticle -> photon. Maybe not the same thing, in our normal lives, but mathematically equatable over a constant, I would imagine.

Does the fact that a boy can get a sex change and become girl mean that boys and girls are the same thing? Granted they're both human, but they don't have the same features.

Matter has a criteria that I don't believe energy meets. Unless we can find out what energy looks like: Like a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
Matter has energy in it. But I wouldn't say that Matter is energy. Because then the apple hanging from a tree is basically, energy with energy.

If there was a mathematical equation saying energy=matter I would agree, but I've never seen a equation that does that.
If you do matter+antimatter=energy. Then you can't say matter is energy. Because you have to add antimatter to it. And the very name of anti-matter shows that it's not matter. It's like saying 1+2=3. 1=/=3 and 2=/=3.

EDIT: Well the equation is E=mc^2 (lol I completely forgot when I was typing this post earlier today, didn't think on it until The Paprika Killer told me.) but you still get the point, something else is still being factored into it so we can't say E=m.

The reason that article disagrees is probably because it uses a model more sensible to people trying to pick up the basics (that seems like a middle school chem textbook entry). Or, I could be wrong. But the logic seems reasonable, at least for such an exposition.

Probably, but saying otherwise would be saying that the basics are wrong.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

So no evidence exists for the existence of gods. Got it.

 

[Deleted member]

Gamer4Fire, would you not bash this topic like that? I actually is an interesting question to pose.

NaCl, the equation goes E=mC^2, really how close does it have to be to E=m for you? ;P

whether mass and energy really are the exact same thing isn't that relevant to the debate though. I don't have much to bring into it right now though, so I'll stay on the sideline.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I am not bashing, I just find the current discussion does not relate to the topic at hand: the existence of gods.

It seems that we have slid off-topic to a debate about physics on a grand scale ie. cosmology.

It is usually considered a good thing when someone tries to pull a thread back on-topic.

If you are really interested about what they are talking about, start a new topic on that subject, specifically.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Double Post WTF?

 

[Sieguest]

NaCl, the equation goes E=mC^2, really how close does it have to be to E=m for you? ;P

I can't believe I forgot that. x.x

C^2 is a pretty big number. Unless we can pull a super scramble of the entire world and change the equation to E=mC^0. xD

whether mass and energy really are the exact same thing isn't that relevant to the debate though. I don't have much to bring into it right now though, so I'll stay on the sideline.

Well, if it were possible to equate mass and energy, then we would have "something" at the beginning instead of "nothing".

 

[Deleted member]

Can you explain that last sentence? As I understand it you refer to the big bang theory.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

And what does any of this have to do with the cost of cows in Texas?

To put this less obliquely, what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[Sieguest]

Can you explain that last sentence? As I understand it you refer to the big bang theory.

In Lawrence Krauss's lecture on the universe, he mentions that the universe is one with a net energy of zero. He then explains that a universe with net energy zero is the only universe that can create something from nothing. That being the case, there is no need for a deity.
He also claims later that there is a lot of energy in nothing. So if we're to say that mass is the same as energy. Then Lawrence Krauss's ideas become irrelevant, because then there is actually something instead of nothing at the beginning. That something at the beginning is actually the idea Krauss is trying to avoid. Because then it comes to the question of "What was that something?"

And what does any of this have to do with the cost of cows in Texas?

To put this less obliquely, what does this have to do with the topic?

If the idea of a universe that has a net energy zero is true. Then there is no need for God in order for the universe to exist.

That's why what we're discussing is actually very relevant to the topic.

Sorry for the delayed responses, my internet started acting up again. (And I was getting ready for Driver's Ed which is in thirty minutes :D)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The energy that's canceling out the positive the energy of matter. You still have a net energy of zero. So how is the universe expanding with no energy to move with?

I'm not entirely sure, but the mathematics suggest that a flat universe will continue expanding at an ever decreasing rate. (I think) And it just happens that a flat universe has 0 net energy.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. If quantum fluctuations create something from nothing. Then you've just broken the law of conservation of matter.

They don't the temporarily pop into existence, using energy and then give it back to the system. In Quantum Mechanics, nothing is always something.

Then you may reference the video and say that there is energy in "nothing". In that case. There was something, and that energy is canceled out by gravity. So nothing should be moving. Yet we're somehow expanding. Another piece of physics out the window.

It's not out the window. The expansion an after effect from the big-bang. The energy at the moment maybe be cancelling out, but the expansion as an after effect from the big bang is keeping everything moving apart.

If matter and movement are the result. Then the net force of the universe can't be zero, because something is moving. Unless we throw the fact unequal forces on an object cause an object to move in the direction of the greater force out of the window too.

Energy =/= Force. Secondly, it's not experiencing net movement in any direction that we know of, we know it's just expanding.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

If the idea of a universe that has a net energy zero is true. Then there is no need for God in order for the universe to exist.

No, the "idea" of a universe that is a closed system as true says nothing about the existence of gods. Just as the idea of an open system would not mean that gods do or do not exist.

Your arguments are invalid in this topic.