D
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
What if a god does exist?
- Thread starter Frenger
- Start date
Josephhasfun01
New Member
Frenger said:
The God of the old testament is the same god of the new testament.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
The Felonius Pope said:
God has always existed. If you believe that everything needs to have a cause then you are using circular logic!
australopithecus
Active Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
Setting aside that it's been shown your understanding of cause and effect, as well as a working understanding of cosmology, is lacking at best, the fact your asserting God and still claiming not to be employing circular logic is laughable.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
australopithecus said:
Nothing has been shown! Only asserted baselessly.
australopithecus
Active Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
Nope, it's been demonstrated by you not knowing what you're talking about. If you wish to show us we're wrong, Frenger kindly set up a thread for you to evidence why Lawrence Krauss is wrong. The ball is in your court.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
australopithecus said:
If posting a video is considered objective enough then I guess I should address the video then. I just don't think you guys even understand what Krauss is saying in the video. I gave the chance for someone to tell me what his hypothesis is and got no response just a video. It's suspicious to me. Why waste time refuting something that the person posing the argument does not understand his own argument? Ya Know?
what is krauss's hypothesis in his video? Does anyone know? I have seen the video a while back and it's nothing but a huge conflation of theories.
australopithecus
Active Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
Fine. You can show your mathematical workings out though. In fact I insist.
As already stated, your on a forum frequented by people who are both knowledgeable on the topic of physics, and also people who are physicists.
I know what you're doing. You claim we don't know what we're talking about, then when when we refute your nonsense you can claim we don't know what we're talking about. It's childish.
You've already claimed you know what the hypothesis is, you're grasping at straws looking for an escape route. You don't have one, so put up or shut up.
As stated, you're on a forum with a fair few working physicists. I'm sure they'll be able to effectively address your claims.
Yes. Now, quit stalling and post your refutation.
Well then it wont take much for you to refute. Though the above sentence alone shows me your don't know what you're talking about, but we already knew that.
The Felonius Pope
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
If you are going to invoke God as an explanation for how things were created then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how God was created. If God required no cause, then why does the existence of the Universe require a cause? Invoking an intelligent creator doesn't help us explain anything, because if we assert that a god created the Universe we must then explain how he/she/it did it and why he/she/it is necessary in the first place.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
The Felonius Pope said:
The universe requires a cause because it began 13.7 billion years ago right? Things that have beginnings require a cause. Science is the search for causes. I don't think our finite minds coulde comprehend how God created the universe. That really is something we just have to accept. If you want all the answers you will not get them.
The question is not about neccesity. God does what He does and according to the bible God created us for the sole pupose to add to His glory.
australopithecus
Active Member
All we know is that the 13.7 billion years ago the universe expanded from a massively hot and dense state to it's present form, and we know comes after planck time after the start of the event. We do not know what existed prior to that time, and what happened to instigate the expansion, so for you to assert an absolute beginning is dishonest, because simply, you don't know. There are a myriad of possible scenarios, including that of Krauss that you have still yet to refute.
Maybe save the cosmology for that thread. But I wont hold my breath, undoubtedly you have some lame excuse for not offering your refutation.
Maybe save the cosmology for that thread. But I wont hold my breath, undoubtedly you have some lame excuse for not offering your refutation.
Josephhasfun01 said:
Your misunderstanding of big bang cosmology is why you are unable to comprehend what we are saying.
Big bang cosmology is the description of how our universe began AS WE KNOW IT. this does not mean that before the big bang (a term which may or may not make any sense) there was nothing (nothing being a concept completely nonexistent of in our universe). So when you say that because our universe has a beginning (an argument nobody is disagreeing with) so it has to have a cause, that cause is the big bang, this means that the energy which expanded in the big bang could be constant and as such not have a beginning.
This is why Carl Sagan's words of "Why not save a step and say the universe always existed" because the energy which comprises our universe may have always existed.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
]The universe requires a cause because it began 13.7 billion years ago right? Things that have beginnings require a cause. Science is the search for causes. I don't think our finite minds coulde comprehend how God created the universe. That really is something we just have to accept. If you want all the answers you will not get them.
The question is not about neccesity. God does what He does and according to the bible God created us for the sole pupose to add to His glory.
You can't say "before" the big bang because that would imply that time existed before time existed. So no it doesn't make sense. Just like the rest of your argument from ignorance. However our language has a temporal basis so I will forgive you because because I have to say "before" too, in order to explain something below.
The energy in the universe did not always exist. It began simultaneously with the big bang. It seems you are extrapolating the law of consevation of energy (which gets it roots from the first law of thermodynamics) and stretching it to apply to a realm before the universe existed. This law is only meant to be applicable within the universe. applying a law into something it was never based on is fallacious.
The question is not about neccesity. God does what He does and according to the bible God created us for the sole pupose to add to His glory.
You can't say "before" the big bang because that would imply that time existed before time existed. So no it doesn't make sense. Just like the rest of your argument from ignorance. However our language has a temporal basis so I will forgive you because because I have to say "before" too, in order to explain something below.
The energy in the universe did not always exist. It began simultaneously with the big bang. It seems you are extrapolating the law of consevation of energy (which gets it roots from the first law of thermodynamics) and stretching it to apply to a realm before the universe existed. This law is only meant to be applicable within the universe. applying a law into something it was never based on is fallacious.
australopithecus
Active Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
You're assuming time didn't exist before the Big Bang, something you cannot possibly know.
Your really need to look up the definition of that fallacy because you keep misusing it.
Conservation of energy applies to closed thermodynamic systems, of which the universe probably is, but the first law also states that energy cannot be created. It cannot begin to exist, ergo it is reasonable to assume it always has existed in some capacity. You cannot have a system that comprises of nothing, which implies there is always something, and in turn implies (given what we know about quantum physics) that you will always have something from which a universe can emerge.
Your mangling of thermodynamics and cosmology is evident. You have no clue about that you're talking.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
Not to mention the assumption that there is such a thing as "time", bearing in mind non-temporal cosmologies.australopithecus said:
Kindest regards,
James
australopithecus
Active Member
...and Hawking has a track record with being wrong about stuff. Regardless, my point stands. No one knows.
Many physicists and cosmologists seem to think the Universe, our Universe, and Time, our time, has a beginning. That doesn't mean that there wasn't anything (energy or time) before this beginning. As Austra (or "the man who used to have a cool avatar") said; we don't know, and furthermore we might never know. Thusfar speculation about time before Time is just that, speculation.
I find it funny that Joseph uses the "You can't say "before" the big bang because that would imply that time existed before time existed. So no it doesn't make sense" argument which usually is used by atheist / naturalist /scientist /evolutionist /darwinist /einsteinist persons. That does quite neatly counter the causality type arguments for God though.
I find it funny that Joseph uses the "You can't say "before" the big bang because that would imply that time existed before time existed. So no it doesn't make sense" argument which usually is used by atheist / naturalist /scientist /evolutionist /darwinist /einsteinist persons. That does quite neatly counter the causality type arguments for God though.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
tuxbox said:
No he doesn't. Specifically, he thinks that what was formerly a spatial dimension underwent some sort of phase shift and became what we see as time. What he most definitely does not think is that the universe had a beginning, which is the entire motivation for the 'no-boundary' scenario. The clue is in the name. It means that the boundary condition of the universe is that it had no boundary.