Is the universe God?

[Lek]

Look up. I edited my reply.

Still fucked up.

You can't define your pet into existence Lek. You still haven't substantiated your claim (repeating yourself doesn't make it any more real) and are essentially arguing from ignorance. Let's see if you recognize your problem if I restate your argument this way: "We don't yet know the state of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang; therefore not only does god exist, but he's God as depicted in the Bible."

You are in dire need of Sagan's Balogna Detection Kit.

What I'm trying to do is open closed-minded people to the possibility that something may well exist that is beyond the scope of our ability to find it through scientific discovery. Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

What I'm trying to do is open closed-minded people to the possibility that something may well exist that is beyond the scope of our ability to find it through scientific discovery. Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

Because physics.

[Esquilax]

I was trying to make the point that either everything was either created or it always existed. So if everything that is material hasn't always existed, then it came into existence at some point from nothing (or maybe something non-material). So either it created itself or something non-material created it. When I spoke of God I was speaking of the characteristics of the christian God. You could assume it was something beyond what the universe is made from. The point is that it points to something other than the material world.

Okay, so first of all, "created or always existed" is a false dichotomy, since it fails to take into account all other possibilities, like "arose naturally over time." Just off the top of my head.

Second of all, adding "something non material" as a possibility, when you haven't justified that at all, nor even eliminated the other prong (eternal) of your original false dichotomy, means you're now attempting to force new components of your argument in with no rationale at all. You're trying to cash checks that your argument hasn't even attempted to write, yet.

Third, you can't get from "something immaterial," to "christian god," no matter how had you try. As has been rightly pointed out to you, you can't just define your god into existence by stripping everything meaningful away from the concept in order to get us to accept it, and then slipping all the religious stuff under the door once you've gotten people to say yes.

You're trying to turn your religion into the fine print on the deistic god you want everyone to accept. It's not going to work.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Still fucked up.

You can't define your pet into existence Lek. You still haven't substantiated your claim (repeating yourself doesn't make it any more real) and are essentially arguing from ignorance. Let's see if you recognize your problem if I restate your argument this way: "We don't yet know the state of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang; therefore not only does god exist, but he's God as depicted in the Bible."

You are in dire need of Sagan's Balogna Detection Kit.

What I'm trying to do is open closed-minded people to the possibility that something may well exist that is beyond the scope of our ability to find it through scientific discovery. Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

No no no no, you were trying to say that god has to exist because the universe was once immaterial and that means god. Your back pedalling isn't as subtle as you think it is.

Why is it not possible ... Yep. That's the type of questions you get to ask when you have absolutely no evidence. No one else has to evoke that type of question. Let's see, why is it not possible that unicorns exist? Why is it not possible that Santa exists? Why is it not possible that I'm really the President of the United States?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Nonsense. Who makes the claim that the universe came from nothing?

Also, your claims regarding the characteristics of God are unsubstantiated.

I was trying to make the point that either everything was either created or it always existed. So if everything that is material hasn't always existed, then it came into existence at some point from nothing (or maybe something non-material). So either it created itself or something non-material created it. When I spoke of God I was speaking of the characteristics of the christian God. You could assume it was something beyond what the universe is made from. The point is that it points to something other than the material world.

Calm down my fuzzy little man peach and take a deep breath. Focus on one claim at a time, and it's easier to sort it out. First of all, don't confuse yourself by thinking of the universe as something that must necessarily follow every rule that governs things within it. Nobody can know that, so you shouldn't pretend that you do either. Second, when you make the observation that everything is material, ask yourself why you feel the need to posit an additional substance. On what grounds were you able to rule out material explanations for existence? If you have none, and material is all that is, why would anyone feel compelled to invoke an additional substance? Aside from an unfalsifiable complication, what else is added?

These are important checks and balances that you need to employ upon being offered these erroneous propositions. Why "must" anything? Is there good reason, or is someone just pushing bullshit to sell you a story? It's more than likely the latter, and you should proceed very cautiously.

[Cyberman]

What I'm trying to do is open closed-minded people to the possibility that something may well exist that is beyond the scope of our ability to find it through scientific discovery.

Ok, you've done that. The next step is to test that possibility against reality. However, if you're defining this "something" as being beyond our ability even to detect it, you can have no reasonable grounds for saying anything about it and its qualities whatsoever.

Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

It's perfectly possible, especially when you're defining said non-corporeal being into existence. Question is, is it likely?

[houseofcantor]

Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

How is it possible to distinguish a non-corporeal being revealing himself to humanity and schizophrenia?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

How is it possible to distinguish a non-corporeal being revealing himself to humanity and schizophrenia?

This!

[Whateverist]

Why is it not possible that a non-corporeal being could reveal himself to humanity?

How is it possible to distinguish a non-corporeal being revealing himself to humanity and schizophrenia?

Lolling out loud! PMP funny!











(Peeing my pants)

[max-greece]

Nonsense. Who makes the claim that the universe came from nothing?

Also, your claims regarding the characteristics of God are unsubstantiated.

I was trying to make the point that either everything was either created or it always existed. So if everything that is material hasn't always existed, then it came into existence at some point from nothing (or maybe something non-material). So either it created itself or something non-material created it. When I spoke of God I was speaking of the characteristics of the christian God. You could assume it was something beyond what the universe is made from. The point is that it points to something other than the material world.

All you've got so far is a restatement (including you OP not quoted here) of the cosmological argument.

It doesn't really hold up as it contains too many assumptions. These include, but are not limited to:

1. That our experience here on earth reflects how things work outside the universe (note - not before the universe - that concept may not have any meaning in a timeless void).
2. In order to support the above (causality) - which is dependent on time, which has to be assumed as stated you have to further assume an uncaused, first-cause - in other words - magic. You further have to assume that said first cause is intelligent and performed this act of creation as a conscious decision. Even if you got there linking that to the Christian God hasn't even started.
3. You are not really even using worldly experience of causality - you are only pretending to. Everything physical is caused, yes, but, everything physical has a material cause. God is an efficient cause. God doesn't solve the problem.

What the above means in a nutshell is that if the argument is sound - that everything physical has a material cause then BOTH the scientific "something from nothing" explanation AND the Christian "God did it" argument are wrong.

Not helpful.