Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, saying that all realities require a cause is the same thing as saying all realities require an explanation outside of themselves. But this cannot be the case. I’m not sure how else I can express this. If there is NO reality that exists of its own nature – without any external cause/condition – then nothing ELSE in all of reality could receive existence.
 
Last edited:
I would still be a spiritual person, in the sense that I would still meditate and practice loving your neighbor. I wouldn’t pray, obviously, but I still think spirituality would be valuable to practice.
 
Yes it does. Gravity caused the Big Bang, just like it caused the formation of the solar system
 
Last edited:
I don’t know which way to take this, because it misunderstands the position to just be looking for a cause for the beginning. But the OP would be admitting Platonic Realism with his most recent statements, which is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Nah. Just not letting you get away with a claim that empirical measurements are the only reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
For the external reality there is nothing else. Epistemology still “rulez”. For abstract questions (like mathematics) the axioms and the rules of transformation are the methods. If that alleged external reality has an interface to the physical reality, then it falls under the same category - empirical tests. And your alleged “soul” has such an interface. It is your job to present the epistemological method, if you wish to be taken seriously. If you cannot, you will fall into the category of “presented without evidence…”

If you would make a claim about the fighting methods of the angels and demons, it would be your responsibility to provide the evidence. Your usual method - throwing back the ball and asking what evidence would the skeptics accept is a weak attempt to wiggle out of the question for which you have no answer. This is the reason that I consider you intellectually dishonest.

Just like the proponents of esp, telekinesis and other assorted paranormal powers, the skeptic is under NO obligation to present some method how could these assumed abilities be substantiated. It is the responsibility of the “apologists” to present the method and the evidence, and it is the responsibility of the skeptics to poke holes into their evidence. And the apologists of the paranormal lose every time.
 
And the apologists for the one, holy, and Catholic faith win every time. The atheist arguments, based on circular “reasoning” and presented, usually, with a plethora of non-sequiturs and straw men, fail. Every time!
I will say this, though–if I didn’t already believe, five minutes or less of listening to atheist sophistry would make me one!
 
Last edited:
What is gravity without things? We have to talk about things first before we can talk about their effects.

In any case, It’s irrelevant what the first physical act of existence is. Unless you are talking about something that exists necessarily, has always existed, and has never changed, you are not talking about the first cause. You are not talking about fundamental reality.

If you are saying that all of reality began to exist at some point in the past, then that is clearly an irrational proposition.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
To the degree Dark Matter is the name we give to the phenomenon of unexplained acceleration, that the phenomenon exists approaches 100%.
Click to expand...
No because dark matter is hypothetical and has not been observed. Further, there are observations that do not fit the dark matter theory and there are alternative explanations for the observed gravitational effects which are cited as evidence to support the dark matter theory, such as modified Newtonian dynamics and entropic gravity.
 
It is pretty obvious the Santa and the Easter Bunny don’t exist too.
 
I’d pray to the God of math to rescue us from crazy percentages.
 
Sophia said:
For the external reality there is nothing else.
Click to expand...
And, unfortunately, this is where you part ways with believers in God. If you want to define “reality” (aside from mathematical axioms) as “everything that can be measured empirically”, then you’ll always be at odds with believers in God – since, a priori, you have defined a world in which God does not (and can not!) exist.
Sophia said:
Your usual method - throwing back the ball and asking what evidence would the skeptics accept is a weak attempt to wiggle out of the question for which you have no answer.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it is no such thing. It’s merely an attempt to ask you how we might define God… and your only answer is “you cannot”. I’m OK with that answer… but it does not mean that I’m being unreasonable; it merely means that there is no answer that you can accept. 🤷‍♂️
Sophia said:
the skeptic is under NO obligation to present some method how could these assumed abilities be substantiated.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You just cannot find a method, within your worldview, that allows anyone – in good faith – to address your demands. We get it. It’s ok. It’s just an unanswerable question, in terms of the kinds of answers you’re willing to accept. 😉
 
Curious11 said:
No, how is that Platonism
Click to expand...
You said the laws of physics, or more specifically, the law of gravity caused the Big Bang. As something needs to be real in order to cause, your statement suggests you take the law of gravity to be a real existent thing in itself. That doesn’t mean it has to occupy any space or be floating around anywhere. It’s just real (or true), and ontologically prior to the Big Bang, and caused the Big Bang. The idea that the laws of nature are real (in the sense that they just are true even apart from any other reality) is a form of Platonic realism.
 
Last edited:
You’re overthinking this way too much. Gravity is a force that exists, it’s undeniable. Plato lived thousands of years before it was even discovered, he’s not relevant to this
 
Curious11 said:
You’re overthinking this way too much. Gravity is a force that exists, it’s undeniable. Plato lived thousands of years before it was even discovered, he’s not relevant to this
Click to expand...
Rather, I’m just using words your unfamiliar with and topics which you perhaps haven’t yet had a chance to think critically on. The belief that abstractions such as “the law of gravity” are true apart from any other reality is commonly known as Platonic realism. Likewise, the idea that if you have one of something, and then have two, you’ve doubled it. Is that simply true, apart from any other reality? 2+2=4? Snow is white (when by white we mean that it reflects a certain band of EM radiation which, when detected by the human eye, is what we call white)? If you hold that these are true and are true apart from any other reality, you are a realist, and more specifically a Platonic Realist of some sort. Platonic Realism is simply the term used to describe what you’re saying. The fact that you say the law of gravity is itself the cause of something is a further hint.

I could give you an out, of course. While it’s true that many mathematicians hold to some type of Platonism, certainly not all scientists do. And many scientists no longer take the Platonic view of “laws of nature” being abstract but real and true entities in themselves, but simply man made descriptions for the way things interact with each other based on their intrinsic nature. That is, the laws of nature do not do any acting or causing. They’re just man made conveniences.

Of course, however you answer I still have to point out that you previously stated “everything has a cause,” and when pushed on that you firmly committed to it. So if you’re a Platonist, I need to then ask “What caused the law of gravity?” and any other abstract truth, for indeed if these are true and therefore real in themselves, and if everything has a cause, so must these. But if you deny Platonism and simply take the laws of nature as man-made descriptions of the way things behave by their own intrinsic principles, the statement “the law of gravity caused the big bang” can no longer be true, in which case I must ask "what caused the big bang? since the law of gravity will have been ruled out. Or you could also retract the statement “everything has a cause.”
 
Last edited:
You’re presenting a false dichotomy and, once again, overthinking this.

You can’t reason your way to explain the universe, you need evidence. Up until now, evidence suggests the universe may have raised naturally out of physical laws
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top