God debate comment

[MegaTherion]

I am making a claim of logic. I am claiming that things don’t simply happen for no reason and that every action has a cause. There must be a first cause and that first cause we say is God. You on the other hand simply say no without a logical argument to oppose it.

Ok, there seems to be confusion as to what a claim is.

This is a claim: “A god created the universe.”

This is not a claim: I don’t know how the universe began.

Your claim requires evidence, and I don’t think you have sufficient evidence to support that claim.

As I’ve explained, we don’t know whether the “cause” of the universe was the Hindu gods, your god, Cthulhu, something mortal, or something natural. Furthermore, we don’t even know if the concept of “cause” applies before their was time.

On top of everything else, your claim that “every action has a cause” undermines the idea that there is a “first cause.” If there can be a “first cause,” we might as well say it is the Big Bang itself, as we at least know that the BB did happen.

You will never be able to substantiate the claims of scientists (unless you are a scientist and even then you most likely won’t be able to substantiate them all) yet you expect us to reject eyewitness testimony for everything we profess.

Scientific claims are not based on “eyewitness testimony.” They are based on independently verifiable evidence. Anyone who wants to could study the evidence and reach the same conclusion.

Now, no one has all the time in the world, so I can’t personally examine every piece of evidence humanity has ever uncovered. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t be confident in scientific findings – because we have established a peer review process in which an entire community of experts watches each other and checks each other for mistakes, weeding out claims that do not have sufficient evidence.

That is the reason that it’s not 'faith" to accept claims that survive the peer review process.

PJM:

The fact that “I am” proves without doubt that the Great " I AM" also is a reality.

This is one of the silliest things I have ever read. Your conclusion does not remotely follow (and it certainly doesn’t follow “without doubt”).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MegaTherion

The origin of the universe is a mystery, but it doesn’t help to try to solve that mystery by proposing an even bigger mystery unjustified by evidence (“god”).

It helps even less to solve the mystery by supposing that the universe always existed, which with the BB is unlikely, or that it created itself. What alternatives (with any scientific evidence) are there other than these three?

God-created Universe

Uncreated Universe

Self Created Universe

 

[crowonsnow]

God-created Universe

Scientifically speaking, that would depend on a definition of the god. A god created universe, again scientifically speaking, wouldn’t mean an instantaneous magical abracadabra beginning from whatever some ex nihilist might mean by “nothing.” It might mean produced by very advanced intelligences that may routinely pull off big bang events in their labs just like we detonate H bombs.

Uncreated Universe

There are no observations that point to any other kind.

Self Created Universe

Not sure what any given creationist might mean by “self created.” You’d have to ask one. If by self created a given creationist simply means existing naturally, that makes sense.

Perhaps the weirdest aspect of creationism is that it presupposes nihilism. It says there shouldn’t be anything. But then it backtracks and says there should be this god thing. It’s just not a strong argument because at every challenge it breaks its own rules and contradicts itself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Scientifically speaking, that would depend on a definition of the god. A god created universe, again scientifically speaking, wouldn’t mean an instantaneous magical abracadabra beginning from whatever some ex nihilist might mean by “nothing.” It might mean produced by very advanced intelligences that may routinely pull off big bang events in their labs just like we detonate H bombs.

There are no observations that point to any other kind.

Not sure what any given creationist might mean by “self created.” You’d have to ask one. If by self created a given creationist simply means existing naturally, that makes sense.

Perhaps the weirdest aspect of creationism is that it presupposes nihilism. It says there shouldn’t be anything. But then it backtracks and says there should be this god thing. It’s just not a strong argument because at every challenge it breaks its own rules and contradicts itself.

you can only say that if you ignore thomistic proofs, i have yet to see an atheistic argument surmounting that.

simply saying that Thomisic proofs moves the burden of self creation from the universe to G-d, is simplistic.

Thomistic proofs only apply to the physical. causality only applys to the physical, and at that only in the presence of time.

we have always claimed G-d to be non-physical.

we can prove the universe must necessarily have a non-physical cause

unless you can provide some logical argument as to why any non-physical phenomenon should be subject to causality. i see no reason to believe that it is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

My point is that the atheist has no more of a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe than does the theist. At least the theist offers an explanation (without scientific proof) based on a reasonable inference: that Something caused the universe to come into being. The atheist cannot offer any explanation, scientific (there is no such) nor imaginative, since he rules out imagination (and revelation) as an explanation for anything.

As usual, the atheist ends up holding an empty hand.

 

[jimmy]

No. I’m not assuming that the universe is self creating or created at all. You’re the one assuming that. The universe just exists to me. It doesn’t need any magic or any cosmic magician to abracadabra it into existence. And that’s not even the issue. The issue is your inconsistent use of logic.

What you are saying is that it isn’t logical for something like a universe to not have a cause but that it is logical for something you call the god to not have a cause.

I’m just pointing out that your theological logic is logically inconsistent.

It is perfectly consistent. I am not claiming a succession of events within God. As has been assumed in many of the posts, God is eternal and immutable. The material universe on the other hand is not eternal; matter is subject to time and change. Consequently it must have a cause.

You claim that the universe just exists. Has it always just existed? That seems to be your claim since you said above that the universe was already here. A universe without a beginning is a logical contradiction because the present would never have come to exist.

Regarding Megatherion’s post;

It is not a question of whether my god or the Hindu gods created the universe. We do not profess faith in one god among many gods. We profess faith in God who either exists or doesn’t exist. Either there is a being who is absolutely ‘other’ or there isn’t. It is a completely different concept. Either there is a being who is completely non-contingent and independant or there isn’t.

Scientific claims are not based on “eyewitness testimony.”

Of course it is. It is based on one man’s reading of the signs. It might be that many people follow the same logic as that one man and consequently they come to an agreement but it still comes down to a reading of the visible world. But the thing is that the vast majority of people do not understand the techniques and experiments that scientists use so they are not going to be able to reproduce their findings. The vast majority of us do not understand the logic or mathematics that led to Einstein’s general theory of relativity but we accept it because it is generally accepted by scientists. It is a matter of faith. Some of it sounds pretty strange and unbelievable but we accept it.

 

[MegaTherion]

You claim that the universe just exists. Has it always just existed?

Maybe. You apparently concede that something can be “eternal” and always exist. So perhaps the singularity that preceded the Big Bang is eternal and always existed.

We don’t really have enough evidence to say one way or another.

When there is not enough evidence, the correct answer is “we don’t know.” The fact that religions pose answers does not make any of those answers remotely true or even likely.

It is not a question of whether my god or the Hindu gods created the universe. We do not profess faith in one god among many gods. We profess faith in God who either exists or doesn’t exist.

My point was that we do not know what came before the universe (if there was anything before the universe or if it even makes sense to talk about “before” the universe)

There’s not enough evidence to say if the Hindu gods created the world, your god, Cthulhu, something mortal, something natural, or…who knows what!

It goes back to my point: we don’t know.

Regarding science requiring “faith”:

But the thing is that the vast majority of people do not understand the techniques and experiments that scientists use so they are not going to be able to reproduce their findings. The vast majority of us do not understand the logic or mathematics that led to Einstein’s general theory of relativity but we accept it because it is generally accepted by scientists. It is a matter of faith. Some of it sounds pretty strange and unbelievable but we accept it.

Yikes – the above represents such a total misunderstanding of science that I barely know where to begin.

You have completely ignored my post in which I explain why faith is not required for accepting claims that pass through an exhaustive peer-review process in which experts check each other’s work.

Do you think your understanding of history is faith-based? Geology? Cosmology? These areas have tons of evidence behind them. If you consider any of them “faith,” then your definition of “faith” is so broad as to be useless.

It doesn’t matter if the layman cannot reproduce the findings – the point is that anyone with the time and inclination could train , study the evidence, and come to the exact same conclusions.

I’m really exasperated at the thought – do you live in a world where people just choose whatever they’d like to believe in? That’s not how reality works.

 

[crowonsnow]

My point is that the atheist has no more of a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe than does the theist. At least the theist offers an explanation (without scientific proof) based on a reasonable inference: that Something caused the universe to come into being. The atheist cannot offer any explanation, scientific (there is no such) nor imaginative, since he rules out imagination (and revelation) as an explanation for anything.

As usual, the atheist ends up holding an empty hand.

Believing in magic isn’t much of an explanation. Creationism has three fundamental problems:

It says we should pretend that magical creatures exist that can do anything we wish.

It says there shouldn’t be anything except these magical creatures.

It equates the universe with nothing, in essence stating that with a little magic, 1=0.

That doesn’t qualify as explaining anything.

 

[crowonsnow]

It is perfectly consistent. I am not claiming a succession of events within God. As has been assumed in many of the posts, God is eternal and immutable. The material universe on the other hand is not eternal; matter is subject to time and change. Consequently it must have a cause.

You claim that the universe just exists. Has it always just existed? That seems to be your claim since you said above that the universe was already here. A universe without a beginning is a logical contradiction because the present would never have come to exist.

You understand that your proposed solution to a flawed belief that there shouldn’t be a universe is to have us pretend in magical creatures that pull universes out of their hats? That is extremely weak.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe. You apparently concede that something can be “eternal” and always exist. So perhaps the singularity that preceded the Big Bang is eternal and always existed.

We don’t really have enough evidence to say one way or another.

there is no evidence of that singularity, we can see nothing before roughly 1x10 (-35) seconds from where the singularity is presumed to be.

here is a statement from a previous conversation from a physicist i was discussing this exact issue with a couple of months ago

Quote:
that aside, i would like to know, in a direct manner whether you have an argument that proves the existence of that monobloc.

The existence of the universe. If there were no monobloc then there would be no universe. The universe exists hence the monobloc existed.

when questioned the physicist make a thomistic argument for the singularity.

he just replaced the word ‘G-d’ with the word ‘monobloc’

When there is not enough evidence, the correct answer is “we don’t know.” The fact that religions pose answers does not make any of those answers remotely true or even likely.

except we do know, nothing physical can cause itself, therefore there must necessarily be something ‘non-physical’

further a regression from current conditions to the BB yield an infinite mathematical values at 1x10(-35)

i would call that extremely strong scientific evidence of G-d

My point was that we do not know what came before the universe (if there was anything before the universe or if it even makes sense to talk about “before” the universe)

we do know thomistically that prior to the physical universe there was necessarily a non-physical first cause.

There’s not enough evidence to say if the Hindu gods created the world, your god, Cthulhu, something mortal, something natural, or…who knows what!

It goes back to my point: we don’t know.

we can show a non-physical first cause it cannot be a natural (physical), with the convergent prophecies of Christ we can give Christianity a mathematical argument, placing it beyond any reasonable doubt.

i would call that a massive amount of evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You understand that your proposed solution to a flawed belief that there shouldn’t be a universe is to have us pretend in magical creatures that pull universes out of their hats? That is extremely weak.

instead we should beleive in magical eternal particles, which accidentally caused creation for no reason?

regardless of physics, logic, or reason

that is extremely weak

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

Believing in magic isn’t much of an explanation. Creationism has three fundamental problems:

I say it is a reasonable inference, based on the BB, that something caused the universe to come into being. I call that something God. What do you call it? You can’t call it anything because you can’t prove scientifically that something other than God caused the universe to burst into existence.

You might say we believe in magic, but only if magic is defined as God’s mysterious power which cannot be understood in its fullness because of the finite nature of human intelligence.

Other than the BB, the atheist is stuck with no explanation whatever of how or why the universe came to be. He would probably rather believe that it always existed, which would preclude the need for a Creator. But the BB, which is science, certainly doesn’t help him there, whereas it helps Genesis which announced the great creation event three thousand years before the BB was discovered.

 

[crowonsnow]

You might say we believe in magic, but only if magic is defined as God’s mysterious power which cannot be understood in its fullness because of the finite nature of human intelligence.

Other than the BB, the atheist is stuck with no explanation whatever of how or why the universe came to be.

The universe always existed, even at T=0. What’s so difficult to understand about that? Creationists and other mystics just appear afraid to let go of their superstitions. It really doesn’t matter if it’s called magic or religion or mysticism or something else.

The BB event doesn’t violate the law of conservation of mass anymore than driving an automobile. So why the need to pretend that magic is real? Again, I think it’s just superstition, and perhaps misplaced loyalty.

And why are creationists so hung up on the BB event anyway? Do you think it’s just a matter of scientific illiteracy?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

The universe always existed

How do you know? There no scientific proof of that, whereas there **is **scientific proof of the Big Bang which indicates that the universe had a start in time.

 

[crowonsnow]

How do you know? There no scientific proof of that, whereas there **is **scientific proof of the Big Bang which indicates that the universe had a start in time.

The proof of that is as simple as trying to make any given elementary particle disappear. It’s impossible to do that. Ergo the universe always existed. Ergo the law of conservation of mass.

The BB is an event just like two water molecules crystallizing. The energy in that event is still around. Nothing vanished. What is it that makes a person want to add magic? Only persons pretending that 1=0, that they can make particles disappear and cease to exist as matter or energy or anything think the universe can magically disappear.

That’s why I ask if it’s really just a matter of scientific illiteracy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow
*
That’s why I ask if it’s really just a matter of scientific illiteracy.*

What I can’t seem to convey to you is that science cannot say anything about an eternal universe, whereas it has said plenty about a universe that began quite a few billions of years ago.

Please supply the scientific evidence that the universe is eternal. There isn’t one iota of such proof, much as your atheism depends absolutely on that being the case.

Ergo, there is no scientific basis for atheism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The proof of that is as simple as trying to make any given elementary particle disappear. It’s impossible to do that. Ergo the universe always existed. Ergo the law of conservation of mass.

The BB is an event just like two water molecules crystallizing. The energy in that event is still around. Nothing vanished. What is it that makes a person want to add magic? Only persons pretending that 1=0, that they can make particles disappear and cease to exist as matter or energy or anything think the universe can magically disappear.

That’s why I ask if it’s really just a matter of scientific illiteracy.

so matter always existed, for no reason, it just was, always. yet G-d cannot.

no space, no dimension, no time. why would you believe that matter existed?

are you just having faith that matter existed?

and you wonder why we think of atheism as a religion.

 

[Dameedna]

Edited.

 

[Dameedna]

What I am presuming is that there was a beginning to the universe, which is established in the theory of the big bang.

The big bang can only point back to a singularity which is simply a tool to derive mathematical forumla from. Sort of like “infinity”. It has no real meaning.

The argument above is simply that there was no time and no space and then universe simply unfolded to create time and space. It just happened because.

No, it’s not saying it happened “because” anything. It happened. We do not yet know, exactly what happened. As with Newtons beleifs all of it could be scrapped when we gain new knowlege.

The concept however, that something could alway’s have existed remains.

It is not an argument at all.

It is your argument. God…simply is.

The universe, simply is.

There is no difference. Honest question…why do you support one view over the other if you can accept, by default something must exist? It could be anything at all.

 

[Dameedna]

No. I’m not assuming that the universe is self creating or created at all. You’re the one assuming that. The universe just exists to me. It doesn’t need any magic or any cosmic magician to abracadabra it into existence. And that’s not even the issue. The issue is your inconsistent use of logic.

What you are saying is that it isn’t logical for something like a universe to not have a cause but that it is logical for something you call the god to not have a cause.

I’m just pointing out that your theological logic is logically inconsistent.

Yep. It’s really a matter of what you can accept “has alway’s existed”.