God most likely does not exist

Page 3 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Mar 2012, 3:22 pm

scubasteve wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

scubasteve wrote:

And then there is the fact that something - *anything* - ever existed at all. Logically, it shouldn't.

Huh?

Evolution, Big Bang, all these theories start with something. But how did anything exist in the first place?

Cause the story about a creator does not have that exact problem.

Some say the big bang started when two universes from the multiverse crashed together. Have fun.

_________________
.

Pandora_Box
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,299

19 Mar 2012, 3:22 pm

goodwitchy wrote:

Or, could it be argued that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. ", so perhaps the universe always existed and has only changed in form? Maybe it's impossible for the human mind to accept that something has existed for infinity, ...but in different forms?

From what I have read in articles and watched in documentary this seems like a rather logical fundation. I can accept that too. That we live in a world where we won't be able to explain everything, but explain enough to understand.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

19 Mar 2012, 3:26 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Cause the story about a creator does not have that exact problem.

Actually, it doesn't have that problem.

The whole point of using God as the first cause is that you then have a first cause that necessarily exists. If God is a necessary being, then the causal chain stops.

"Why does the universe exist?"
"Because God created it."
"Why does God exist?"
"God necessarily exists, because of this philosophical argument."

So actually, God is a better explanation than "the universe just exists". Unless you can come up with some reason why the universe necessarily exists? The universe seems pretty contingent to me. It's full of stuff that could have been different.

Pandora_Box
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,299

19 Mar 2012, 3:31 pm

Declension wrote:

Version 1

1. We can explain the biodiversity we see by either apppealing to a totally random process or intelligent design [ID]

2. The odds against a totally random process are so bad that it is alll but impossible (we should ignore it unless there is no possible explanation)

3. ID is at least possible

4. Therefore ID is the better explanation

Evoltion by Natural Selection

Requires 3 things

1. Variation of traits in a population

2. Heritability of these traits

3. Differential survival (reproductive success) becuase of these traits

This makes evolution a cumaltive process, not a random process

-----------------------------

The same logic can apply to the universe. The outcomes of a multiverse is so impossible and so improbable that God can be the only explanation.

khh
Butterfly

Joined: 11 Mar 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10
Location: Norway

19 Mar 2012, 3:53 pm

Declension wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Cause the story about a creator does not have that exact problem.

It is then simpler to just say that the universe necessarily exists*. This is your exact argument, and I trust that when utilized by me you'll see that it simply does not hold water. It's not an argument, it's an assertion.

* You'll notice the causal chain stops here as well.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

19 Mar 2012, 4:10 pm

scubasteve wrote:

You're assuming God is a "being"...

If god is not a being of some sort then what is the purpose of calling it god, or worshipping it, or doing anything other than saying "this force/reaction/long forgotten element/whatever the heck caused a really damn big explosion, and that explosion is why we are here."?

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

19 Mar 2012, 6:11 pm

Declension wrote:

But for a certain type of philosopher, "God" means exactly "Big Bang creator"! This is just playing with words. If you have a First Cause in your ontology, it's fair to call it God. If you don't like to call it God, then you just have an unhealthy emotional investment in words. Words are just words.

Words are not just words. They are also ideas. The right word, used often enough and in the right places, can influence the thoughts of millions. One such example of this is the soundbite - a catchy, simple word or phrase that can quickly become linked to an object or idea.

There is good reason to avoid using "God" as your word for the first cause. It's called confabulation. You can say that your use of God here is not the same as the Christian God, but that means nothing. The human brain isn't very good at logical thought and WILL connect them. Not to mention the need to explain the difference to everyone who comes across the idea. And that idea gets spread, and it gets cut down and simplified. Those that believe God really is God, or whose agenda is to make this the common conception, will happily skip your explanation. Anyone too lazy or disinterested or not understanding your explanation will skip it too.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

19 Mar 2012, 6:22 pm

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Mar 2012, 6:45 pm

khh wrote:

Declension wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Cause the story about a creator does not have that exact problem.

Exactly (Thomas Fuleri also made good points).
If the point of having a god is the need for an uncaused cause, why not just define the universe itself as your uncaused cause? Cut out the middle-man.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

19 Mar 2012, 6:46 pm

Pandora_Box wrote:

1. We can explain the biodiversity we see by either apppealing to a totally random process or intelligent design [ID]

Yes, with mountains of empirical data in one corner, and not a scrap in the other.

Pandora_Box wrote:

2. The odds against a totally random process are so bad that it is alll but impossible (we should ignore it unless there is no possible explanation)

The odds FOR a totally "random" (if by that you mean sky daddy-less) process resulting in biodiversity when multiplied by cosmic scales so great no human mind can conceive of them result almost NECESSARILY in life, actually.

Pandora_Box wrote:

3. ID is at least possible

So is a ketchup filled teapot orbiting the Earth.

Pandora_Box wrote:

4. Therefore ID is the better explanation

LOL at this proof

There is no reason to assume the universe cannot NECESSARILY exist,
whilst making up a fictitious being for which existence is an inherent property.

_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

19 Mar 2012, 6:49 pm

I'm not right keen on this God business. It's too much work.

We're doomed and we're stuck with it.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

19 Mar 2012, 6:54 pm

Tequila wrote:

We're doomed and we're stuck with it.

Quezacotl still loves you, Tequila.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Mar 2012, 7:01 pm

Declension wrote:

No, philosophers don't think God = "Big Bang Creator". It's not playing with words either. "God", the word, tends to entail a set of intellectual and moral traits, alongside a set of powers. A First Cause without knowledge, high potence, moral traits, worthiness of worship, etc, thus fails to intuitively register as a god. It plays no role in a religious understand. Frankly, these RELIGIOUS TRAITS are actually MORE IMPORTANT to the concept of deity than the trait of being a First Cause, and this can be seen by the VERY VERY VERY large number of deities and religious systems that lack First Causes, but have Gods.

I am not engaging in any unhealthy emotional investment, Declension, you're simply failing to evaluate the word "God" in terms of what it actually means in real human understanding and how this word is really tied to religion. It's only tied to the First Cause due to monotheism and the use of the cosmological argument as proof for monotheism.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Mar 2012, 7:05 pm

scubasteve wrote:

You're assuming God is a "being"...

If something is not a "being" then it can't DO anything, meaning that God, who is not a "being" cannot be used as a cosmological explanation at all. If you dispute that, just think this real quick: Nouns verb. So, what kind of noun is God, if God is not a being, but can still verb something?

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

19 Mar 2012, 7:06 pm

That sounds so very dirty somehow...

kg4fxg
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 168

19 Mar 2012, 7:10 pm

Try it from another angle......

Can you prove to me God exists? Can you give examples? Black & White and clear as mud?

Page 3 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

God most likely does not exist Post Reply New Topic

God most likely does not exist