Does God exist? (9 Viewers)

[Lentern]

We don't have to prove the big bang to show that there is no reason to believe religion.

The big bang stuff is a red herring. I'm willing to grant that we can't be sure how the universe began.

This uncertainty does not prove the existance of god.

Basically what you're saying is if science can't conclusively explain something we should just make up some outlandish stories to fill gaps.

At the end of the day you still don't have any evidence there is a god. So in the absence of such evidence why should we believe?

I have absolutely no problem with people not believing in a deity or in the case in Buddhism the divine universe. I personally do but that does not matter, I'm not part of the Fred Nile group, I make plenty of room for the possibility.

My objection is to this oh so smug scientific lobby whom demonstrate this sickening egotism over those of us whom choose to believe in a deity, whom claim we just dismiss the logic and the facts and say "look us we have the answers, you're just being ignorant." You may not be personally guilty but let me assure you this condescending smugness runs through the scientific world like a river of egotism. Yet when challenged, when we ask for their answer they don't have an answer, they bring this big bang idea to the forefront without cogent explanation, without logic, without any scientific weight whatsover and yet claim to be these allmighty critical thinkers, possessing intellect that escapes the religious world.

The dominant theory of the scientific world as to explain the fundamental existance of the universe is nomore logical, no more sensible, no more practical than any of the religious theories put forward and yet we are the close minded ones. We are the intellectually challenged. At the end of the day it all needed to start somewhere and for all you still can't provide an explanation any better than religion can and yet you somehow convince yourselves you are closer to the truth.

 

[Lentern]

Do you accept that our universe/time has a finite past?
Do you accept that at one point time equaled 0?
Do you accept that without time you cannot have cause?

How can you then not accept that time cannot have a cause? Time at one point was 0, nothing had happened before it, in this state nothing can have a cause and to speak of cause is illogical.

I accept all three of your inferences are possible. I do not accept though that the laws of science as they today stand can have consequences without catalyst. A higher power needs to come in at some point or else nothing would have remained nothing.

 

[Enteebee]

I accept all three of your inferences are possible. I do not accept though that the laws of science as they today stand can have consequences without catalyst. A higher power needs to come in at some point or else nothing would have remained nothing.

All three of my prepositions lead to the conclusion that you do not need a cause for things which existed at time=0. To say 'but I do not accept that they need a catalyst/cause' is to blatantly ignore what you just said you accept.

P1: Time/Our Universe has a finite past, at one point T=0.
P2: At time=0 you cannot have cause.

C1: Our universe existed in some form without needing a cause.


The only arguments I see around this generally suppose that there was a form of time before our time or some such thing, which I'm not going to argue against... Sure that might be right but in the end all you're arguing for is some form of 'eternal' universe or some other such thing which does not require a God. Theists believe that our universe is finite and all things require a cause, so according to them our universe must have a cause and that cause must be god, but this is simply not the case.

 

[KFunk]

Enteebee and Lentern, I hope you don't mind my commenting on you debate:

Nothing caused, it just happened, there was no catalyst only consequences and yet it is claimed to be the arguement of the scientific. It's not science, it's not sensible it is completely speculative and devoid of logic.

I actually have to argee here from the standpoint of empirical method. Such claims come down to armchair philosophy because nothingness is not empirically verifiable. 'Nothingness' leaves us with as much empirical data as an 'unverifiable something', i.e. none. It's easy to wield Ockham's razor when choosing between prime matter and an anthropomorphic god, but the choice is not so clear cut when it is nothing versus the undetectable something.

Thus, Lentern, I think that your criticism is valid, but also that the methodological assumptions (with regards to logic and scientific method) which make your criticism valid then bring into question your further claims regarding god and the necessity of a 'higher power'.

Do you accept that without time you cannot have cause?

Something worth considering is whether our concepts of time and causation are faulty and perhaps break down at this kind of scale (where you talk of beginnings and infinities). Our intuitions and logic presupositions regarding time and causation were possibly acquired through evolutionary processes, which would make them adaptations aimed at helping us to reason on a macroscale. What guarantee do we have that they hold up as necessary truths (if such things even exist)? Random question: have you done much reading on the philosophically problematic nature of causation itself?

 

[Lentern]

So you are conceeding there is no conclusive explaination for the existance of the universe. Agreed.

So the scorn for religion is based on your instance that there is a god without supporting evidence.

So I acknowledge the possibility of a god. But I'm curious as to how you can be sure there is a god, let alone a particular god, and that you should live your life according to the rules layed down by this god.

I can't assure anyone of the god of abraham, which is what I believe in, I don't for a moment pretend to have evidence of it. I do think it stands to reason that there is some higher power in play somewhere along the way, if nothing else, to get the ball rolling but as for believing in christianity I can't prove it, I won't try to and I've got no problem with others not believing in it. My problem is with others devoid of better explanation demonstrating a smugness towards those of us whom do believe.

You do ask me how I believe and I will answer that. There's no method to the madness, it just feels right. It is devoid of logic. I must emphasise though that I don't expect others to recognise it as a truth on those grounds or any grounds for that matter. I simply have a problem with the scientists looking down upon us than when they are no closer to the truth.

 

[Lentern]

All three of my prepositions lead to the conclusion that you do not need a cause for things which existed at time=0. To say 'but I do not accept that they need a catalyst/cause' is to blatantly ignore what you just said you accept.

P1: Time/Our Universe has a finite past, at one point T=0.
P2: At time=0 you cannot have cause.

C1: Our universe existed in some form without needing a cause.


The only arguments I see around this generally suppose that there was a form of time before our time or some such thing, which I'm not going to argue against... Sure that might be right but in the end all you're arguing for is some form of 'eternal' universe or some other such thing which does not require a God. Theists believe that our universe is finite and all things require a cause, so according to them our universe must have a cause and that cause must be god, but this is simply not the case.

With respect it is not. Merely the higher power that comes into play comes into play with the big bang, that science can not be applied to the big bang.

 

[Enteebee]

I actually have to argee here from the standpoint of empirical method. Such claims come down to armchair philosophy because nothingness is not empirically verifiable. 'Nothingness' leaves us with as much empirical data as an 'unverifiable something', i.e. none. It's easy to wield Ockham's razor when choosing between prime matter and an anthropomorphic god, but the choice is not so clear cut when it is nothing versus the undetectable something.

Thus, Lentern, I think that your criticism is valid, but also that the methodological assumptions (with regards to logic and scientific method) which make your criticism valid then bring into question your further claims regarding god and the necessity of a 'higher power'.

I'm not claiming there was ever "nothing".

Something worth considering is whether our concepts of time and causation are faulty and perhaps break down at this kind of scale (where you talk of beginnings and infinities). Our intuitions and logic presupositions regarding time and causation were possibly acquired through evolutionary processes, which would make them adaptations aimed at helping us to reason on a macroscale. What guarantee do we have that they hold up as necessary truths (if such things even exist)? Random question: have you done much reading on the philosophically problematic nature of causation itself?

As I said in my last post... I am more than willing to accept such things (in fact there's been work done for a while now that suggests there was 'time' before our time), the point of my argument is more just to show that the theists assumption (that a finite universe must have a cause) is incorrect.

With respect it is not. Merely the higher power that comes into play comes into play with the big bang, that science can not be applied to the big bang.

So are you saying that even though it could happen without a creator that you just want to assert that there's a creator there? Okay, I can't disprove that, well at least no better than you can disprove that Satan is controlling your mind right now.

 

[KFunk]

the point of my argument is more just to show that the theists assumption (that a finite universe must have a cause) is incorrect.

That's fair enough if you're using the theist's concepts of time and causation to construct a reductio ad absurdum. (you just have to be careful not to fall into a stronger, positive, blanket argument against the need for a cause).

 

[KFunk]

I'm not claiming there was ever "nothing".

Scope ambiguity. There's a difference between positing absolute nothingness (whatever that is) and treating 'nothing' as an object/noun (and yes, there are potential issues with this), e.g. 'there is nothing in the box'. The latter 'nothing as an object' issue applies to your arguments because you are suggesting that out of nothing can come something. The objection is then that, in empirical terms, 'nothing', as a theoretical construct, is as empirically justifiable as an undetectable something.

 

[Enteebee]

That's fair enough if you're using the theist's concepts of time and causation to construct a reductio ad absurdum. (you just have to be careful not to fall into a stronger, positive, blanket argument against the need for a cause).

I just want to make sure, in my explanation... do you see that there's no need for there to have been 'nothing' ? The universe at t=0 is in a sense "eternal".

out of nothing can come something

But I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the universe and all its parts existed at some form at t=0, there is no "before" this in any sense, it's not that there's "nothing" really but that it is the limit of time/existence.... i.e. As long as there has been existence there has been 'something' and there has never (never being a time-centric statement imo) been a time of non-existence.

 

[Lentern]

Enteebee and Lentern, I hope you don't mind my commenting on you debate:



I actually have to argee here from the standpoint of empirical method. Such claims come down to armchair philosophy because nothingness is not empirically verifiable. 'Nothingness' leaves us with as much empirical data as an 'unverifiable something', i.e. none. It's easy to wield Ockham's razor when choosing between prime matter and an anthropomorphic god, but the choice is not so clear cut when it is nothing versus the undetectable something.

Thus, Lentern, I think that your criticism is valid, but also that the methodological assumptions (with regards to logic and scientific method) which make your criticism valid then bring into question your further claims regarding god and the necessity of a 'higher power'.

Something worth considering is whether our concepts of time and causation are faulty and perhaps break down at this kind of scale (where you talk of beginnings and infinities). Our intuitions and logic presupositions regarding time and causation were possibly acquired through evolutionary processes, which would make them adaptations aimed at helping us to reason on a macroscale. What guarantee do we have that they hold up as necessary truths (if such things even exist)? Random question: have you done much reading on the philosophically problematic nature of causation itself?

I see what you are getting at but in your notions you make room for some key shortcomings, faults dare I say, in Science as it stands today. Now I have stated on numerous occasions my comments are shaped by what the sicence is as it stands today and if you start leaving the door open for changing scientific laws than I make room for science being able to provide the answer.

 

[Slidey]

There's no such thing as 'nothing', anyway (space is at all points occupied by vacuum energy), so to postulate that there was nothing before the big bang is essentially claiming that something impossible existed before the big bang.

Even the space we occupy today existed at the big bang. It was infinitely compressed, or however you want to view it, but it was there; metric expansion of space doesn't create 'nothingness'.

 

[Lentern]

So are you saying that even though it could happen without a creator that you just want to assert that there's a creator there? Okay, I can't disprove that, well at least no better than you can disprove that Satan is controlling your mind right now.

That is not what I said if you would like to make up the arguements of your adversary be my guest but you need not come to a public forum to conduct your arguement then. I never suggested you were ignorant for denying the presence of a creator nor did I even call the big bang impossible. All I have said is that the universe's existance can not be explained by science if you stand by the laws of today, a higher power, as in a power not bound by the laws of science must have played a role. As you have not bound the big bang to the laws of science as they stand today then this higher power could be the big bang.

 

[Slidey]

I see what you are getting at but in your notions you make room for some key shortcomings, faults dare I say, in Science as it stands today. Now I have stated on numerous occasions my comments are shaped by what the sicence is as it stands today and if you start leaving the door open for changing scientific laws than I make room for science being able to provide the answer.

Science is fairly rock solid for our universe today (which comprises a pinprick in the actual universe). But there's no way to tell whether the invariance of space and time assumptions are correct.

Even if science is universal over space and time, your reasoning seems broken. What, exactly, in science prevents something existing before the big bang?

 

[Enteebee]

That is not what I said if you would like to make up the arguements of your adversary be my guest but you need not come to a public forum to conduct your arguement then

Note that I asked whether you were saying X, your statement was quite ambiguous to me so I didn't understand it and merely made my best attempt.

All I have said is that the universe's existance can not be explained by science if you stand by the laws of today

And I entirely disagreed by applying the sort of laws I believe you were aluding to (basically I think your argument rested on the premise that everything must have a cause).

. As you have not bound the big bang to the laws of science as they stand today then this higher power could be the big bang.

I haven't created any new laws... I have time and I have the theory of a finite universe and I have simple logic.

 

[KFunk]

I see what you are getting at but in your notions you make room for some key shortcomings, faults dare I say, in Science as it stands today.

Sure, science has faults, but most theistic theories have far more. I think that empiricism is far more intellectually defensible than any position which admits knowledge based on faith.

I just want to make sure, in my explanation... do you see that there's no need for there to have been 'nothing' ? The universe at t=0 is in a sense "eternal".

This is where concepts become very problematic. Note that you have said "t=0 is in a sense eternal". You're trying to explain non-time through temporal metaphors. To me this seems to hint at the inadequacy of concepts (not to say that better or more refined ones aren't to be had).

 

[Slidey]

Once the metric expansion of space exceeds the speed of light, is the universe not infinite?

 

[KFunk]

But I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the universe and all its parts existed at some form at t=0, there is no "before" this in any sense, it's not that there's "nothing" really but that it is the limit of time/existence.... i.e. As long as there has been existence there has been 'something' and there has never (never being a time-centric statement imo) been a time of non-existence.

Sorry, I should have specified. I meant nothing in so far you are saying that there needn't be a cause. If you posit that some event occurs without a cause then, theoretically, you are opting for a framework in which something 'comes from nothing'. I am not saying that this is impossible (I don't think I can judge), simply that claims either way aren't going to come from empirical observation or classical logic.

 

[Enteebee]

This is where concepts become very problematic. Note that you have said "t=0 is in a sense eternal". You're trying to explain non-time through temporal metaphors. To me this seems to hint at the inadequacy of concepts (not to say that better or more refined ones aren't to be had).

I don't think this problem really effects my argument. I said that time=0 is in a sense "eternal" merely to hint at both states commonality of being outside of the notion of something "before".

If you posit that some event occurs without a cause then, theoretically, you are opting for a framework in which something 'comes from nothing'

Well one premise of my argument would be that it's illogical to posit cause without time, i.e. Cause requires time. The only reason logically why things are required to be caused by other things (there are many events which do not seem to be caused tbh) is because they exist within time. It makes perfect sense at least to me once you abandon the logical premise that time is in existence that you no longer need cause.

 

[Lentern]

The reason for my contempt is obvious. You choose to believe in something yet admit there is "no method to this madness" and it is "devoid of logic."

I suspect you apply conventional logic to other aspects of your life. You seem to enjoy modern technology and probably study science, mathematics, language ect. all of which rely on logic, and believe they are worthwhile.

So why does the exception to the need for logic and evidence apply only to religion?

There is no method to the big bang madness yet you hold no contempt for that.

As for trying to prove the original cause of existance with evidence is folly. As for as the laws of science as they stand today apply every event is both a cause and consequence simultaneously, somewhere along the road surely you acknowlege there was something that didn't apply to this notion, pop, whatever that is, is the higher power. It is here where you have to yield to instinct.