A universe exists therefore G-d exists

[warpspeedpetey]

I think the first cause argument is a bit of a moot point, because as soon as you start talking about a first cause, you are getting into the nature of the first cause, and all and sundry will disagree.

However, it is possible(and for many probably) that there is the observable universe, and then there is that which is infinite. This is really beyond human comprehension I think, but it’s fun to think about.

You can call that inifite entity the actual universe in it’s infinite(not observable) form, or you can call it God.

In other words, the universe that which is now observable, could have infinitately existed in an unobservable form making the universe itself, in it’s infinite form the first cause. Call it God if you want, but that’s just a word. Can you say that the infinite cannot create itself? It didn’t, it simply became observable, it alway’s existed(just like the theory of God)

It’s the attributes of this infinite universe/god that we debate about.

once again, this veiw points validity is refuted by the mathematics of cosmology,

 

[ateista]

Tautalogically correct, but not in practice. Atheists judge theistic arguments and then fail them based on atheistic assumptions. This should come as no suprise. Atheists, however, try to pass their arguments off as “scientific” and “reasoned” when they are in fact based on unsupported assumptions.

Well, those assumptions are pretty simple. The universe exists. Our senses give us accurate information about it. Stuff like that. Sure, none of them can be “proven”, because they are the fundamental concepts we all build upon. Their negation leads to incoherence, and leads to death.

Agreed on a physical level, although there is the deeper “final causation” that needs to be addressed as well.

I disagree. It is exactly as valid a question as “what is to the north from the North pole?”. Syntatically valid question, but semantically incoherent.

I argue for true randomness in terms of human free will.

Good. In that case you argue against God’s omniscience. If something is unpredictable due to its nature (freely chosen actions) then it cannot be known until it actually happens.

I don’t think I can argue directly for or against its existence, but I can argue for its logical coherency.

Causation does not mean that everything in the world will unfold in a fixed way due to a fixed process. For example, a bush grows at the tips even though every new growth is caused in an ultimate sense by the initial cells. A chain of causation exists but does not completely determine the outcome, because new cells can form and react due to changing conditions despite the fact that they are ultimately caused by prior cells.

Same problem. Is the result unpredictable to us due to its complexity, or is it truly random?

They typically assert that there is no known logical support for the God “hypothesis”. Therefore, they are making a positive assertation that can challenged.

And you are most welcome to challenge it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, those assumptions are pretty simple. The universe exists. Our senses give us accurate information about it. Stuff like that. Sure, none of them can be “proven”, because they are the fundamental concepts we all build upon. Their negation leads to incoherence, and leads to death.

Death is percieved by the senses as well. These questions are not as obvious as you think. Philosophers (not scientists) have tried to resolve them for ages. What philosophers are you familiar with? In regards to the sensory question, Kant, Descartes, and Plantinga (at least) have dealt with it.

I disagree. It is exactly as valid a question as “what is to the north from the North pole?”. Syntatically valid question, but semantically incoherent.

The example you give is within the realm of science, and thus is constrained by it. Supernatural realities are not contained in the context of science, and thus the situation is different.

Good. In that case you argue against God’s omniscience. If something is unpredictable due to its nature (freely chosen actions) then it cannot be known until it actually happens.

God is not constrained by time, so He knows things timelessly without causing them to happen. We can know the past without causing it to happen. God can know the future without causing it to happen, due to His vantage point.

And you are most welcome to challenge it.

So you acknowledge that you do make a positive assertation and that you are not “neutral”?

 

[Nepenthe]

‘Supernatural realities’ huh? By all means, continue.

And no, I’m actually not looking to shoot you down here (I’d get my rear handed to me on a not-exactly silver platter anyway, most likely ) , by the way, but possibly to take a very different stance.

 

[ateista]

Death is percieved by the senses as well.

Whose senses? The person who dies does not expereince anything after the fact.

These questions are not as obvious as you think. Philosophers (not scientists) have tried to resolve them for ages. What philosophers are you familiar with? In regards to the sensory question, Kant, Descartes, and Plantinga (at least) have dealt with it.

Quite a few, possibly not enough. Philosphers are famous for contemplating “questions” which are only relevant in their secluded ivory towers. After all they have a vested interest in doing so.

The example you give is within the realm of science, and thus is constrained by it. Supernatural realities are not contained in the context of science, and thus the situation is different.

Nevertheless the question I presented is a valid grammatical construct - but without actual meaning to it. You argue for “supernatural realities”, but cannot offer any evidence that such “realities” are worthy of contemplation. As far as I am concerned they are exactly as pertinent as contemplating if Hans and Gretchen were strong enough to lift the evil witch and pushing her into the furnace - and I am sure you know that.

God is not constrained by time, so He knows things timelessly without causing them to happen. We can know the past without causing it to happen. God can know the future without causing it to happen, due to His vantage point.

First, God’s timeless existence is just a hypothesis. Second, even if such “existence” is a correct hypothesis, it does not alleviate the fact that something has either already happened, or has not.

If the future does not exist yet, then it cannot be “known”. A crude analogy would be: we, as spectators are outside the “timeline” of a movie, independent from it and not constrained by it, but we still cannot know the end of the movie, until it actually unfolds.

So you acknowledge that you do make a positive assertation and that you are not “neutral”?

Sometimes I do, due to the circumstances. That does not mean that I am not neutral. Of course I am not always neutral, and you certainly are aware of that.

 

[Sarpedon]

Whose senses? The person who dies does not expereince anything after the fact.

Individuals sense the death of those outside of themselves, and they sense the process of their own death up to a point.

Quite a few, possibly not enough. Philosphers are famous for contemplating “questions” which are only relevant in their secluded ivory towers. After all they have a vested interest in doing so.

If those ivory towers hold the knowledge that can destroy atheism, then they are very, very relevant.

You will not find God through science. If you dismiss philosophy as irrelevant, then you will not find God there. I don’t think you will accept anything else, so you set yourself up for atheism. If philosophy is irrelevant, why are you participating in this sub-forum?

Suppose you are right, that the “ivory towers” are irrelevant. Since when has truth been evaluated in terms of practical usefulness? Would you take such an approach to science?

Nevertheless the question I presented is a valid grammatical construct - but without actual meaning to it. You argue for “supernatural realities”, but cannot offer any evidence that such “realities” are worthy of contemplation. As far as I am concerned they are exactly as pertinent as contemplating if Hans and Gretchen were strong enough to lift the evil witch and pushing her into the furnace - and I am sure you know that.

I don’t provide evidence in accordance with your personal, scientific criteria. I have provided evidence through philosophy, but you seem to lock it up out of sight and out of mind in “ivory towers.”

First, God’s timeless existence is just a hypothesis. Second, even if such “existence” is a correct hypothesis, it does not alleviate the fact that something has either already happened, or has not.

“Happened” and “not happened” describe relative positions in time. God is not in time, so the terms do not apply.

If the future does not exist yet, then it cannot be “known”. A crude analogy would be: we, as spectators are outside the “timeline” of a movie, independent from it and not constrained by it, but we still cannot know the end of the movie, until it actually unfolds.

Sure we can, because we can look online to see what the actors decided to do in the end. The movie is fixed, and that knowledge is easily available. Despite the fixed nature of the movie, the actors still had free will when they made it.

Sometimes I do, due to the circumstances. That does not mean that I am not neutral. Of course I am not always neutral, and you certainly are aware of that.

Is atheism a lack of a belief in something? If you believe that no evidence supports the God hypothesis, then you are asserting something.

The only true neutral position is that of someone who does not take a side either way in the question of God’s existence. And that is a waste of a life.

 

[ateista]

If those ivory towers hold the knowledge that can destroy atheism, then they are very, very relevant.

Fat chance of that.

You will not find God through science. If you dismiss philosophy as irrelevant, then you will not find God there. I don’t think you will accept anything else, so you set yourself up for atheism. If philosophy is irrelevant, why are you participating in this sub-forum?

You know that. For fun.

Suppose you are right, that the “ivory towers” are irrelevant. Since when has truth been evaluated in terms of practical usefulness? Would you take such an approach to science?

I did not say that they are totally irrelevant. Some questions presented by some philosophers are irrelevant.

I don’t provide evidence in accordance with your personal, scientific criteria. I have provided evidence through philosophy, but you seem to lock it up out of sight and out of mind in “ivory towers.”

There is evidence, and there is evidence. Sometimes the fact that millions of people believe in God’s existence is presented as evidence.

“Happened” and “not happened” describe relative positions in time. God is not in time, so the terms do not apply.

Not really. If something has happened, that is not something that can be said not to have happened.

Sure we can, because we can look online to see what the actors decided to do in the end. The movie is fixed, and that knowledge is easily available. Despite the fixed nature of the movie, the actors still had free will when they made it.

Please be serious. There are “you” and there is the movie. Nothing else. You sit in the movie theater, and you watch the movie. Despite the fact that your existence is independent from the timeline depicted in the movie, you cannot know what the ending will be until it actually unfolds.

And that is the point. Until the future actually happens, it cannot be known if there is any freedom of action (or if there is true randomness). If there is no freedom of action (and no randomness), then of course the future can be known.

Is atheism a lack of a belief in something? If you believe that no evidence supports the God hypothesis, then you are asserting something.

There is no evidence which I would find acceptable. And for any specific evidence presented, I always tell, why that evidence is lacking.

The only true neutral position is that of someone who does not take a side either way in the question of God’s existence. And that is a waste of a life.

Beliefs are not subject to volitional control. Someone either believes or does not. There is no middle ground. If someone has never heard of a god, then - by definition - he does not believe in a god, and thus - he is an atheist.

Everyone starts from the same default position - from atheism. A freshly born human does not have a sufficiently complex mind to even comprehend the concept of a god.

It would be an interesting experiment to raise a bunch of children without ever exposing them to the concept of god, and see if any of them would hypothesize some god’s existence.

 

[Sarpedon]

Fat chance of that.

How would you know? You lock them up out of sight and out of mind!

I did not say that they are totally irrelevant. Some questions presented by some philosophers are irrelevant.

Who gets to decide what is relevant? Do you get to pick? Why can’t I?

If someone is going to use philosophy, they should use all of it, just like in science. They shouldn’t filter out things they don’t like. To do so would be like a creationist saying “that bit of science is irrelevant, because we know that YEC is true.”

All scientific evidence needs to be considered. Likewise all philosophic evidence needs to be considered. Locking parts of either of these disciplines in the ivory tower leads to “interesting” results.

Anyway, since when has “relevance” been a criteria for truth? Would you take that approach to science and eliminate all pure sciences?

There is evidence, and there is evidence. Sometimes the fact that millions of people believe in God’s existence is presented as evidence.

I have not used that argument, and I do not consider it especially strong.

Not really. If something has happened, that is not something that can be said not to have happened.

That’s because we are in time and cannot visualize anything else. If there is no time at your vantage point, you are not bound by relative terms that exist within time.

Please be serious. There are “you” and there is the movie. Nothing else. You sit in the movie theater, and you watch the movie. Despite the fact that your existence is independent from the timeline depicted in the movie, you cannot know what the ending will be until it actually unfolds.

And that is the point. Until the future actually happens, it cannot be known if there is any freedom of action (or if there is true randomness). If there is no freedom of action (and no randomness), then of course the future can be known.

What about spoilers? Do you acknowledge that it is possible to know how a movie ends before seeing it?

**Does such knowledge eliminate the free will of the actors when the made the movie? **

 

[ateista]

Who gets to decide what is relevant? Do you get to pick? Why can’t I?

Sure you can. You may ponder the question of “what exists to the north of the North Pole”, if you want to. Or what existed before time “began”. Or what exists outside the Universe. Or what “caused” the Universe. Or what exists “above” the Sun. Or how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. Or what is the taste of the color of sound middle-C.

These questions are all syntactically correct, yet meaningless questions, since they try to apply relationships which are undefined and undefinable. Time, space, casuation are not defined for the Universe, they are only defined within the Universe, just like the direction of “north” is undefined at the North Pole, though it is defined everywhere else. There are no direction of “above” in space where there is no gravity.

Of course you may bring up questions like these, but I will not engage in analyzing them because the questions are semantically nonsensical. Give me a good definition for the relationships I presented above, and I will play the game.

All scientific evidence needs to be considered. Likewise all philosophic evidence needs to be considered.

Sure. All of them.

Anyway, since when has “relevance” been a criteria for truth? Would you take that approach to science and eliminate all pure sciences?

Pure sciences (like mathematics) are interesting mind-games, nothing else. No, I sure don’t want to eliminate them (after all I am a mathematician), but they must not be taken for what they are not. Of course some of the results of these mind-games can be applied to reality, and they can gain practical importance. Icing on the cake.

I have not used that argument, and I do not consider it especially strong.

I know. It was only an example of “stuff” which is considered “evidence” by some people. We must face it: “evidence” is highly subjective. I consider the existing evil a very strong evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity, while you do not consider it evidence at all. Impasse? Of course it is.

That’s because we are in time and cannot visualize anything else. If there is no time at your vantage point, you are not bound by relative terms that exist within time.

Timeless “existence” is undefined. But fortunately, it is not necessary. It is sufficient that God is not constrained by our time.

What about spoilers? Do you acknowledge that it is possible to know how a movie ends before seeing it?

There are no “spoilers” in the Universe. The example I gave you is this: Someone made a movie, it is loaded into a playing device, and you are the only spectator. You are not constrained by the time of the movie, and yet, you cannot know what the end will be unless you wait and see it. Up until then, you may make guess, but you cannot know.

Does such knowledge eliminate the free will of the actors when the made the movie?

Since the spectator cannot know what the actors will do, the question is invalid.

Now, the director can know the end, but in a real movie, with a real director the actors have no free will, they only play out the instructions of the director - they are merely “puppets”. But that is not the problem I presented. God does not actively involve himself with our decisions (the Catholic stance supports this) and therefore he must “wait” until we make them. Not being constrained by our time makes no difference.

 

[Fran65]

Ateista,
One of the things I’ve found interesting in your last couple of posts is your statement that no evidence would convince you of the existence of God. You then in your next post cite evidence against the existence of (of a benevolent) God.

This appears to show a bias which is surprising given your presentation as a very rational person. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[ateista]

Ateista,
One of the things I’ve found interesting in your last couple of posts is your statement that no evidence would convince you of the existence of God. You then in your next post cite evidence against the existence of (of a benevolent) God.

This appears to show a bias which is surprising given your presentation as a very rational person. Do I understand you correctly?

I don’t think so. To my best knowledge I never asserted that I would never accept evidence or proof for God’s existence. That is simply not true, because I would. I just have not seen any, which I would find even somewhat compelling.

Indeed I find the concept of a benevolent deity almost impossible in the light of the observed evidence, but I try to keep an open mind. Of course I accept that God may exist. But a benevolent God is next to impossible. Yet, next to impossible is not impossible.

 

[Dameedna]

once again, this veiw points validity is refuted by the mathematics of cosmology,

Claiming this, does not make it so, sorry

 

[Dameedna]

If something exists outside of time as we know it then it would be conceptually possible for that “being” to know exactly what we would do, without influencing the decision.

I agree with almost every single one of your arguments, but on this one I think the other side actually make a better argument.

Not entirely sure why yet, so probably just ignore my meanderings

There is no evidence which I would find acceptable. And for any specific evidence presented, I always tell, why that evidence is lacking.

I have alway’s thought, that if God actually came up to me, offered me every bit of evidence possible that he existed, I would call the ambulance and have myself commited for the rest of my life. heheh. Of course to some, this will be evidence that I don’t want to believe etc etc etc. It’s not though is it.

While there is the possibility of another explanation, using “god” as the answer doesn’t really help. God, is not a simple answer, all it does is create far MORE questions than answers. That doesn’t really make it a very good answer in and of itself, it’s almost like “I throw my hands up, it must be god , and I’ll never understand God so there’s my answer”.

It’s kind of meaningless really isn’t it? Thank goodness science reared it’s head and gave people the opportunity to explore the other options.

It would be an interesting experiment to raise a bunch of children without ever exposing them to the concept of god, and see if any of them would hypothesize some god’s existence.

Actually, there was a great book that kind of dove into this concept, by Tanith Lee(can’t remember the name but was about a futuristic world where no-one died).

I think people would come up with the concept themselves. If not…why did people come up with it in the first place? It’s what we do and I think it’s quite natural for humans hypothesize a God.

One cannot presume it is simply the result of ignorance(although the nature and actions of God as described by religion can definately be attributed to human ignorance).

Because science will never be able to answer the question of “why” it will alway’s be left begging(even if there isn’t an answer in reality) and as such God will be invoked by some to explain the why. God is quite possibly a by-product of evolutionary forces that aroused in us a questioning nature upon which some humans will never be satisfied until they know it all . Finding answers, has an evolutionary advantage.

Invoking God, allows people to have it all figured out without really knowing anything

 

[Dameedna]

I don’t think so. To my best knowledge I never asserted that I would never accept evidence or proof for God’s existence. That is simply not true, because I would. I just have not seen any, which I would find even somewhat compelling.

Indeed I find the concept of a benevolent deity almost impossible in the light of the observed evidence, but I try to keep an open mind. Of course I accept that God may exist. But a benevolent God is next to impossible. Yet, next to impossible is not impossible.

Actually, I think you did make this assertion though it could have been bad wording on your part. You said.

There is no evidence which I would find acceptable. And for any specific evidence presented, I always tell, why that evidence is lacking.

I read this the same way as the other poster. We have to be so careful how we phrase things don’t we?

 

[ateista]

Actually, I think you did make this assertion though it could have been bad wording on your part. You said.

There is no evidence which I would find acceptable. And for any specific evidence presented, I always tell, why that evidence is lacking.

I read this the same way as the other poster. We have to be so careful how we phrase things don’t we?

Thank you for pointing it out. Indeed it was imprecise wording on my part. I should have said: “There is no evidence that I found acceptable, much less compelling”. Yes, to hurry when posting a comment can really be a dumb thing to do. Sorry for the confusion I have created.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

People will NEVER find A compelling argument. However, individuals will, when taking into account their antecedent probabilities and preponderance of evidence will reach a “tipping point” with one sort of argument or other, if they are truly seeking it.

It is observable that the universe offers as much evidence FOR a God as AGAINST a God. For this reason, the thoughtful person will realize that God must have needs to communicate some sort of revelation to tip the scales.

That revelation, which we find, in turn avers that God values our FAITH. For that reason, God can really only be reached through Faith. There is no REAL argument that will take anyone all the way to GOD.

Nevertheless, good arguments are necessary to help us along the way toward God. That is why God works miracles, as a testimony and a credential for the rational man.

 

[Dameedna]

Thank you for pointing it out. Indeed it was imprecise wording on my part. I should have said: “There is no evidence that I found acceptable, much less compelling”. Yes, to hurry when posting a comment can really be a dumb thing to do. Sorry for the confusion I have created.

Heheh…

One slip of the tongue and freud has probably reared his head

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Claiming this, does not make it so, sorry

i dont claim it, the math shows infinite values as one regresses from present condition back to the big bang. before the math hits the monobloc or singularity.

mathematically the regression does have a definite end. an end that shows an infinity, which, as the good sir bacon said 'one infinity would preclude the existence of any other.

so what can we infer from this?

1. the standard cosmological model says time and space had a definite beginning and previous to that there was no time or space.

2.the math shows infinite values for any pre- big bang environment.

1. no monobloc is shown in the mathematical regression

so i cannot infer that the pre-expansion infinities is G-d as we know Him

but it is extremely interesting that those are the same qualities that we have been claiming for G-d these last 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian faith.

so, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck

so, to reiterate the standard cosmological model disproves the idea of infinite regression. not just my personal claim.

 

[Dameedna]

Warp,

I think that you are under the distinct impression that if you talk about scientific concepts you will appear Knowledgable.

Just so you know, it doesn’t work like that.

 

[Fran65]

There is no evidence which I would find acceptable. And for any specific evidence presented, I always tell, why that evidence is lacking. if any of them would hypothesize some god’s existence.

It is right there in black and white. “There is no evidence which I would find acceptable.”

To be charitable I would accept that perhaps you mean there is no evidence that you know of.