Laurens said:A better explanation than God... I did it. At least you can prove I exist.
No you can't ;-P
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Laurens said:A better explanation than God... I did it. At least you can prove I exist.
Japhia888 said:The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
Squawk said:Laurens said:A better explanation than God... I did it. At least you can prove I exist.
No you can't ;-P
godisabullet said:The problem is that you don't have any proof that god even exists so really it's game over without a shot being fired.
Yes, I've noticed this theme in his posts as well "god HAD to do it that way"... Such a god seems awfully constrained and limited.Anachronous Rex said:Japhia888 said:The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
Seems a funny thing to say in defense of an omnipotent god...
theism is a metaphysical, not pseudoscientific, position that can complement rather than violate scientific principles and knowledge. It's an interpretation of all available experience and empirical observations, not a hypothesis concerning any specific observation. That's why demanding empirical proof of God's existence, as if God were an object within the empirical universe, is a category error, and why its lack doesn't make theism irrational.
borrofburi said:1a. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient asshole who felt like creating some beings to torture as its cause
1b. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient non-personal being made the universe and then went on to do something else
1c. The universe had a beginning, and some being of some sort as its cause, but labeling or understanding such a being is extremely difficult, or even impossible (especially at the level of our species progression)
1d. The universe had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause
1e. The universe had a beginning, and thor as its cause
1f. The universe had a beginning, and god as its cause; god had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause; the flying spaghetti monster had a beginning, and Zeus as its cause; Zeus had a beginning, and uranus as its cause; Uranus had a beginning, and vishnu as its cause...
1g. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, and started some random stocahstic process on some other planets in order to not waste all this vast and incredible space he made
1g sub a. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, but because god made a bunch of pretty stars in nice formations for them, the laws of physics he made specifically so that hte palak-ulong could live happened to kick-off abiogenesis on earth and resulted in the evolution of a lower level of sentient life forms that are also extremely egocentric and think the whole universe was made just for them
1h. The universe had a beginning, and a divine being was bored so he decided that it'd be entertaining to run a gigantic war simulation, so he made this gigantic space we call the universe and then put the thing on fast-forward for billions of years to see what the gigantic inter-species inter-planet wars would arise; unfortunately the divine being made a mistake and put a speed limit on the universe, and so went and made a different simulation which the divine being enjoys much more.
1j.... Ok you get the point, there are infinite possibilities of ways the universe could have begun. You claim yours is superior to all others, but I as someone who prefers "I don't know" to an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim need evidence to believe you.
If the universe had a beginning, what caused that beginning? If a divine being caused that beginning, what caused the divine being?
If we posit that the divine being always existed, why not simply posit that the universe always existed?
Now, you posit god as a solution: why? Adding god is no solution so far as I can see. Either god came from nothing, or god has always existed: the problem still exists.
Moreover you're adding a level of abstraction that is entirely unnecessary and unjustified (justification mostly coming from being necessary or having supporting evidence (evidence being fairly broad here, but mostly being based on predictive power, not post-hoc rationalizations)). When I apply occam's razor to the situation, the lack-of-solution of god must be dropped in favor of the universe (or laws of physics, or energy, or one of the many things that we can easily demonstrate do "exist") having always existed (though with energy: not necessarily in this form) or having come from nothing; as such god simply becomes superfluous.
Or hell, even "I don't know" is a better option (and in my opinion the best option) than an unfounded unjustified unhelpful non-predictive idea.
Yes, I've noticed this theme in his posts as well "god HAD to do it that way"... Such a god seems awfully constrained and limited.[/quote]borrofburi said:Still no response to my post Oh well, he'd probably just dodge the question anyway, as he has before.
The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
Seems a funny thing to say in defense of an omnipotent god...
Japhia888 said:God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
[EDIT: highlights by mirandansa]
Err, technically earth was a super computer built to find the *question* to life, the universe, and everything; they already had the answer.godisabullet said:In Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the explanation, at least for human existence, is that there is a bunch of super mice that control the universe and that they had aliens design the Earth as a super computer to answer that question - life, the universe and everything.
But not one of them support your position, and there's nothing (but your own incredulity) to distinguish one from the other.Japhia888 said:But all fall in category one.borrofburi said:1a. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient asshole who felt like creating some beings to torture as its cause
1b. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient non-personal being made the universe and then went on to do something else
1c. The universe had a beginning, and some being of some sort as its cause, but labeling or understanding such a being is extremely difficult, or even impossible (especially at the level of our species progression)
1d. The universe had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause
1e. The universe had a beginning, and thor as its cause
1f. The universe had a beginning, and god as its cause; god had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause; the flying spaghetti monster had a beginning, and Zeus as its cause; Zeus had a beginning, and uranus as its cause; Uranus had a beginning, and vishnu as its cause...
1g. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, and started some random stocahstic process on some other planets in order to not waste all this vast and incredible space he made
1g sub a. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, but because god made a bunch of pretty stars in nice formations for them, the laws of physics he made specifically so that hte palak-ulong could live happened to kick-off abiogenesis on earth and resulted in the evolution of a lower level of sentient life forms that are also extremely egocentric and think the whole universe was made just for them
1h. The universe had a beginning, and a divine being was bored so he decided that it'd be entertaining to run a gigantic war simulation, so he made this gigantic space we call the universe and then put the thing on fast-forward for billions of years to see what the gigantic inter-species inter-planet wars would arise; unfortunately the divine being made a mistake and put a speed limit on the universe, and so went and made a different simulation which the divine being enjoys much more.
1j.... Ok you get the point, there are infinite possibilities of ways the universe could have begun. You claim yours is superior to all others, but I as someone who prefers "I don't know" to an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim need evidence to believe you.
Japhia888 said:If the universe had a beginning, what caused that beginning? If a divine being caused that beginning, what caused the divine being?
many times answered this already.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm
God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.
Japhia888 said:The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated,He simply exists.
...
So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
Really? How do we know this? I'm not willing to grant you this premise (nor would I be willing to grant you the premise that "we know that from nothing, nothing comes", I see both as horribly unjustified presumptions).Japhia888 said:We know that from nothing, nothing comes.
Bullshit. I'm actually quite competent at thermodynamics (at least compared to any creationist, I'm sure there are chemists (or even the odd mechanical engineer who loves fluid mechanics) that are better at it), and your "trillions times trillions to one" is simply a fudged number. Mayhaps you should be wary of philosophers who purport to having completed difficult technical work without actually showing any of it (at least, not that I could find on your "source").Japhia888 said:That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!If we posit that the divine being always existed, why not simply posit that the universe always existed?
Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!
"Infinite density" is synonymous for "the models we have are not accurate at this scale"; nothing more, nothing less. The whole rest of your paragraph builds on this flawed premise. Your own "source" and even you admit this, yet you STILL try to scrape some way by which this proves your god exists... That our models are flawed have no bearing on the existence of your variety of imaginary friend.Japhia888 said:The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.
This is a fancy dodging-the-question way to say that god has always existed, and fails to answer the problem: either something came from nothing or something has always existed, there's no justification to posit god as a solution, as god only adds another layer of necessary unpredicted and untestable complexity. No amount of woo language and playing with definitions (and, as I predicted, goal posts) will change these simple facts.Japhia888 said:Or God existed beyond the universe in a timeless eternity.Now, you posit god as a solution: why? Adding god is no solution so far as I can see. Either god came from nothing, or god has always existed: the problem still exists.
No, and if you think so then you have failed to understand: I dislike both options, but unfortunately it's a true dichotomy and one of them, regardless of how unpleasant, is true. Regardless, my favorite answer is very simple and realistic: I don't know. Until I see strong evidence of one or the other (none of this philosophical 'define god into existence' metaphysical bullshit, but actual physical evidence) I will continue to say "I don't know". Incidentally, it works the same way for god: until I see real world physical evidence, god will remain as "real" as unicorns; it is only with real world physical evidence that I will EVER think of god as "real" like my desk, or the keyboard I am typing on.Japhia888 said:Moreover you're adding a level of abstraction that is entirely unnecessary and unjustified (justification mostly coming from being necessary or having supporting evidence (evidence being fairly broad here, but mostly being based on predictive power, not post-hoc rationalizations)). When I apply occam's razor to the situation, the lack-of-solution of god must be dropped in favor of the universe (or laws of physics, or energy, or one of the many things that we can easily demonstrate do "exist") having always existed (though with energy: not necessarily in this form) or having come from nothing; as such god simply becomes superfluous.
Aren't exactly these two options the ones you discarded just a little above ?
And I've explained why those reasons are hardly compelling.Japhia888 said:Or hell, even "I don't know" is a better option (and in my opinion the best option) than an unfounded unjustified unhelpful non-predictive idea.
I think God is well justified based on all reasons presented in the introduction post of this topic.
borrofburi said:Err, technically earth was a super computer built to find the *question* to life, the universe, and everything; they already had the answer.godisabullet said:In Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the explanation, at least for human existence, is that there is a bunch of super mice that control the universe and that they had aliens design the Earth as a super computer to answer that question - life, the universe and everything.
borrofburi said:but unfortunately it's a true dichotomy and one of them, regardless of how unpleasant, is true. .
Japhia888 said:borrofburi said:but unfortunately it's a true dichotomy and one of them, regardless of how unpleasant, is true. .
then you have already made up your mind, and no further inquiry is required.....
Logic-Nanaki said:then you have already made up your mind, and no further inquiry is required.....
Japhia888 said:Well, sure. I don't think there is a better explanation for our existence than God, and the answers of the participants of this thread just prove me right. they just cement further my position