Arguments against existence of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, cherub, I'm sure that a fictional character that men created 1400 years ago had nothing to do with however the cosmos came into being. It's not hard to see how such certainty is warranted.

[Jehanne]

Some as undefined natural phenomena.

Things that could not have caused it.

Any intelligent agency. 


There is one way we know for something to gain intelligence and that is by being part of an active evolutionary system. Before the universe came into existence the pre-requisites for intelligence were not present.

So it was not any form of god.

What is the difference between a natural phenomenon and an intelligent one and how are you sure that the cause for the expansion of the universe is a natural phenomenon and not an intelligent one, or a conscious one (these are 2 questions)

A third question, you state that intelligence can only exist after an active evolutionary system and that the pre requisite for intelligence were not present before the existence of the universe. What do you mean by this and what is the evidence for this assertion?

And, so, planets go around the Sun because there must be angels pushing them?  After all, what else could explain their motion?

[Cherub786]

What is the difference between a natural phenomenon and an intelligent one and how are you sure that the cause for the expansion of the universe is a natural phenomenon and not an intelligent one, or a conscious one (these are 2 questions)

A third question, you state that intelligence can only exist after an active evolutionary system and that the pre requisite for intelligence were not present before the existence of the universe. What do you mean by this and what is the evidence for this assertion?

And, so, planets go around the Sun because there must be angels pushing them?  After all, what else could explain their motion?

What caused the universe to come into being and to start expanding? I await the response to this question

[Jehanne]

And, so, planets go around the Sun because there must be angels pushing them?  After all, what else could explain their motion?

What caused the universe to come into being and to start expanding? I await the response to this question

I just posted this within the last several weeks, and Polymath provided an updated link:

Creation of Universes from Nothing

Please note the plural in the paper.

[Cherub786]

What caused the universe to come into being and to start expanding? I await the response to this question

I just posted this within the last several weeks, and Polymath provided an updated link:

Creation of Universes from Nothing

Please note the plural in the paper.

Whew only 4 pages. I'll certainly read it and get back to you

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What caused the universe to come into being and to start expanding? I await the response to this question

I just posted this within the last several weeks, and Polymath provided an updated link:

Creation of Universes from Nothing

Please note the plural in the paper.

Interesting paper, but it doesn't account for planetary rotation. When objects are equally projected, you should see similar rotations.  You fire a bullet out of a rifle followed by another, and they should have the same rotation.  If something is rotating during an expanse, there should be similar rotation, yet we have two planets whose rotations conflict with the others, and there are four planets in between those two planets.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1861920' dateline='1543667947']

Some as undefined natural phenomena.

Things that could not have caused it.

Any intelligent agency. 


There is one way we know for something to gain intelligence and that is by being part of an active evolutionary system. Before the universe came into existence the pre-requisites for intelligence were not present.

So it was not any form of god.

What is the difference between a natural phenomenon and an intelligent one and how are you sure that the cause for the expansion of the universe is a natural phenomenon and not an intelligent one, or a conscious one (these are 2 questions)

A natural phenomenon is one that is not caused by the purposeful action of an intelligent agency.
i.e. a rockfall caused by erosion over time natural, someone pushing the rocks over intelligent agency.


the presence of intelligence in no space and no time is an impossibility then the cause would have to be non-intelligent and natural

A third question, you state that intelligence can only exist after an active evolutionary system and that the pre requisite for intelligence were not present before the existence of the universe. What do you mean by this and what is the evidence for this assertion?

What do you need to become intelligent?
What is needed is a reason to be intelligent, you need a predator prey relationship or some such thing. For AI and robots we have an outside agency setting the relationship.
So without evolution to get to evolution your god would require a greater being to give it intelligence gods god if you like and then you get the where did that god get its intelligence and so on.

It is much easier to posit a naturally occurring universe that did not need anything hyper impossible such as the Abrahamic god to initiate it.

Using Ockhams razer we can discount the idea of god as an initiator.

You have asked for evidence for what other than a god could have started the universe, first I would like to see what evidence you have for the process god used and the evidence you have for that so I can comment.

So how did god make the universe?
Where did it get the stuff?
What is your evidence for the above?

i'll wait.

[Jehanne]

I just posted this within the last several weeks, and Polymath provided an updated link:

Creation of Universes from Nothing

Please note the plural in the paper.

Interesting paper, but it doesn't account for planetary rotation. When objects are equally projected, you should see similar rotations.  You fire a bullet out of a rifle followed by another, and they should have the same rotation.  If something is rotating during an expanse, there should be similar rotation, yet we have two planets whose rotations conflict with the others, and there are four planets in between those two planets.

The scientific term is "randomness".

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Interesting paper, but it doesn't account for planetary rotation. When objects are equally projected, you should see similar rotations.  You fire a bullet out of a rifle followed by another, and they should have the same rotation.  If something is rotating during an expanse, there should be similar rotation, yet we have two planets whose rotations conflict with the others, and there are four planets in between those two planets.

The scientific term is "randomness".

Randomness? I don't want to seem insulting, but that's funny.

If you have two massive objects and there was a "trajectory" as mentioned in the paper, then how is that their rotation changed?  Or how would it be different?  That involves energy, and in enormous amounts.  "Randomness" isn't a plausible answer.  At least not if we're really wanting to understand the whole story, because they didn't just decide to spin the other way.  Unless you believe they are conscious and could do it on their own without some external form of energy, that would've been, at the very least, released during some natural process.  I'm not saying it's super natural, but it deserves an explanation or we might as well throw that paper in the waste basket.  Plus we need to compensate for two separate events ,or anomalies, that would account for it happening with two planets divided with four other planets in between with opposing behavior.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ayup, that settles it, some god drunkenly stumbled into them.