Religion - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

silverwing

Gender: Male
Location: Perth, WA

So far - I'm just commenting on God or No God - not Existence. That's a whole other bag of cookies. Smile

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

I still find your argument faulty Silverwing. I think I hear what you are saying, but I believe that is exactly were the God-mongers go wrong. In essence what they are saying is "Here is something neither I nor you can explain, so it must be God", or "I felt something I can not explain", i.e. "I felt something divine". The correct response to this is not that it proves, makes likely, or even hints at the existence of any God, it only shows that there are things we do not know. It has happened throughout history, and as time valiantly marches on a lot of things have been shown not to be all that mysterious after all, there was a logical explanation for them. We just could not see it with the knowledge we had at the time.

As for your arguments for the case of believing I can only say this:

If I tell you I felt a great force from another solar system spoke to me and show me how to life my life, you will tell me I am either drunk or crazy. But if some says they felt something divine, I must respect that as I haven't felt it and therefore cannot speak against it?

Since we can not fully explain how this world can even exist when it works so perfectly together, and we know from modern science that just a tiny little variation in any variable would have made it all impossible, there must be a divine force behind it. But, asks the curious, wouldn't whoever created this perfect place have to be even more perfect? If you say that the world can not come from nothing, how can the creator of the world come from nothing. The problem is only pushed back one level and made even more difficult to explain.

Things that seem unlikely to the individual are really not that unlikely when you look at them in the big picture. Winning the $100 million lottery is, to the individual, so unlikely that it would be less of a miracle to be hit by lightning six times in six days and survive them all. Yet, not taking the possibility of it being rigged into account, the chance of SOMEONE winning it is 1:1.

At the end of the day, I don't give a cow's ass if people believe in God, or Buddha, or pink elephants. It only becomes a problem when those beliefs are taken outside of the personal sphere, and I happen to live in a country where you can not become the president unless you either waste your time praying about things instead of doing something about them, or lie about what you believe. That is disturbing.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Bork wrote:

If you say that the world can not come from nothing, how can the creator of the world come from nothing. The problem is only pushed back one level and made even more difficult to explain.

This is the probably most common complaint I hear against God as an explanation of the universe. I have a few comments to make about it, starting with these premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

So what can be inferred about the cause of the universe? According to big bang theory, time and space came into existence at the singularity. To create time and space, the cause must have been timeless and immaterial, otherwise time and space would have to already exist.

At this point, there are three options:
1. There was no cause, the universe just popped into existence with literally no explanation.
2. The singularity wasn't the beginning of time and space, there was more time and space before it.
3. A timeless, immaterial cause.

Perhaps you might find the 2nd option more appealing than the 3rd. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not on your side. All inflationary models must eventually lead back to a beginning.

I'm not even going to bother with the 1st option. If you believe that, I don't think there's any argument I could give to sway you.

My final statement about the nature of this timeless, immaterial cause is that it is plausibly personal. Why? What is immaterial, but can also cause something? There are abstract objects like numbers, but they can't cause anything. The only thing I can think of that fits the description is an "agent" or mind.

In a nutshell, there must be something that is uncaused and self-existent, but it's not the universe. I think it is God.

Wombi

Bork wrote:

I happen to live in a country where you can not become the president unless you either waste your time praying about things instead of doing something about them, or lie about what you believe. That is disturbing.

It was the same for us up until our newest (prime minister not president) not bragging just saying. to be honest the country doesn't feel any less holy.

thomas697

Gender: Male
Location: Melbourne

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Bork wrote:

If you say that the world can not come from nothing, how can the creator of the world come from nothing. The problem is only pushed back one level and made even more difficult to explain.

This is the probably most common complaint I hear against God as an explanation of the universe. I have a few comments to make about it, starting with these premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

So what can be inferred about the cause of the universe? According to big bang theory, time and space came into existence at the singularity. To create time and space, the cause must have been timeless and immaterial, otherwise time and space would have to already exist.

At this point, there are three options:
1. There was no cause, the universe just popped into existence with literally no explanation.
2. The singularity wasn't the beginning of time and space, there was more time and space before it.
3. A timeless, immaterial cause.

Perhaps you might find the 2nd option more appealing than the 3rd. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not on your side. All inflationary models must eventually lead back to a beginning.

I'm not even going to bother with the 1st option. If you believe that, I don't think there's any argument I could give to sway you.

My final statement about the nature of this timeless, immaterial cause is that it is plausibly personal. Why? What is immaterial, but can also cause something? There are abstract objects like numbers, but they can't cause anything. The only thing I can think of that fits the description is an "agent" or mind.

In a nutshell, there must be something that is uncaused and self-existent, but it's not the universe. I think it is God.

You still need to prove god exists for you to end your thesis with "I think it was God" or you could equally say it was Jabba the Hut. What you've done (and you've done it quite well I might add, and I don't mean to undermind you, I'm simply trying to understand) is basically said that "Something must have created the universe" the options for that something are endless and have no reason to be pointed to or narrowed down to God just yet. All the proof needed to state it was God is still ahead of you. If you're using God as an ambiguous term in that "God is something I cant explain" or "It's the God from the Bible" and in doing this I dont think anything has been achieved and we stand back at square one. If you're using it in the reference that "It's something you can't explain" then yes I agree with you, there could be a cause and I cant explain it either. But if you're saying its the god from the Bible or any of the other countless religions, I must say im completely detached from that train of thought. And if you believe without a doubt that the universe has a cause, again I don't see how thats obvious.
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

Wombi

thomas697 wrote:

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Bork wrote:

If you say that the world can not come from nothing, how can the creator of the world come from nothing. The problem is only pushed back one level and made even more difficult to explain.

This is the probably most common complaint I hear against God as an explanation of the universe. I have a few comments to make about it, starting with these premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

So what can be inferred about the cause of the universe? According to big bang theory, time and space came into existence at the singularity. To create time and space, the cause must have been timeless and immaterial, otherwise time and space would have to already exist.

At this point, there are three options:
1. There was no cause, the universe just popped into existence with literally no explanation.
2. The singularity wasn't the beginning of time and space, there was more time and space before it.
3. A timeless, immaterial cause.

Perhaps you might find the 2nd option more appealing than the 3rd. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not on your side. All inflationary models must eventually lead back to a beginning.

I'm not even going to bother with the 1st option. If you believe that, I don't think there's any argument I could give to sway you.

My final statement about the nature of this timeless, immaterial cause is that it is plausibly personal. Why? What is immaterial, but can also cause something? There are abstract objects like numbers, but they can't cause anything. The only thing I can think of that fits the description is an "agent" or mind.

In a nutshell, there must be something that is uncaused and self-existent, but it's not the universe. I think it is God.

You still need to prove god exists for you to end your thesis with "I think it was God" or you could equally say it was Jabba the Hut. What you've done (and you've done it quite well I might add, and I don't mean to undermind you, I'm simply trying to understand) is basically said that "Something must have created the universe" the options for that something are endless and have no reason to be pointed to or narrowed down to God just yet. All the proof needed to state it was God is still ahead of you. If you're using God as an ambiguous term in that "God is something I cant explain" or "It's the God from the Bible" and in doing this I dont think anything has been achieved and we stand back at square one. If you're using it in the reference that "It's something you can't explain" then yes I agree with you, there could be a cause and I cant explain it either. But if you're saying its the god from the Bible or any of the other countless religions, I must say im completely detached from that train of thought. And if you believe without a doubt that the universe has a cause, again I don't see how thats obvious.

I could be wrong but I don't think he's trying to say any specific god i think he is just saying logically there has to be some kind of intelligent deity.

Last edited by Wombi on 11/17/2010 10:20; edited 1 time in total

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Yes, I wasn't saying that my argument entails it was the God of the Bible (I do think there are other good reasons for believing that). Thanks Jhereko.

thomas697

Gender: Male
Location: Melbourne

Oh ok
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

SquishypuffDave wrote:

In a nutshell, there must be something that is uncaused and self-existent, but it's not the universe. I think it is God.

This illustrates the difference between the religious and the non-religious quite well.

The non-religious say: Here is something I can't explain. I wish someone figures it out.

The religious say: Here is something I can't explain. There must be a God.

(Note: I know you said "I think it is God" SpD. Thanks. That does makes it more palatable).

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

@ Bork

Do you accept my deductions about the cause being timeless and immaterial? If so, can you posit a non-personal cause that fits this description? There is a readily available explanation - an "agent" - that fits the evidence. I think it's perfectly rational to accept this as an explanation, especially considering a distinct lack of alternative explanations with causal power. The only reason I can think of to reject it is a bias against the conclusion, as it entails several key components of the traditional concept of God.

When I said I think the explanation is God, I didn't mean to imply that it followed from my argument. I have other arguments Smile

I just felt I should state my position.