Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: I believe that science (particularly physics) has basically proven that there is a God of some sort. Here's how:
Through the Big Bang theory, we see that the universe has now been widely accepted to have a beginning. We know that this beginning didn't spontaneously appear out of nothing, because nothing is a scientific impossibility*. Nothing can't create something, because it is nothing. It doesn't work. The only other possibility is that something created the universe.
Incorrect. Even I don't use the argument, although I agree that claiming that the universe is able to self-create itself is untestable and strictly speaking not science, that doesn't mean that science has "proved otherwise". The thing that they exploit in their argument is time. Time from our perspective pushes forward indefinably. From our perspective it is a property of our universe, but it may not be, and if it isn't then it means that it functions apart from the universe, thus the universe doesn't have to begin at zero. But the more serious cosmologists like Hawkings imagine that time does exist as a property of our universe, and instead imagine quantizing general relativity. The passage of time is an illusion brought about by the properties of our universe, it isn't a real thing at all. In this scenario it is not important that time "reduces to zero" at the beginning of the universe. Basically the argument is that because we all agree that an expanding universe inevitably creates a whole bunch of stuff even if you start with just a small amount of matter, even a singularity, and because the universe itself has laws, those laws will see the emergence of matter regardless of whether you start with something or nothing at all. Hawkings claims the law of gravity alone is enough to create the universe (where and how we get the law is supposedly from string theory), basically gravity represents negative energy and matter represents positive energy. That's the theory, it doesn't violate physics as you claim it does.
Quote:So, something must have created the universe. If I go out and say, "God was the creator." you will most likely say, "Then who created God?" which is an amazing question. So lets explore it. If something created God, then something needed to create whatever created God, and something needed to create that, and something needed to create that, etc. You get an Infinite amount of creators (called an infinite regress), but you acknowledge that there is a creator of some sort.
--For reference, an infinite regress is something very hard to wrap your mind around.[hide]Its infinity. What is infinity? Infinity is a constant "something". Is infinity impossible? No. Actually, through reason, we know that it is only possible, because since there is no such thing as nothing, there always most be a constant something which is again: Infinity.--
So, if Infinity is possible, is infinite regress possible? Yes, but again, if you believe in an infinite regress (at least in this context) you are also acknowledging that there is some sort of a godly creator. Therefore, God is real in one form or another, and your atheism is refuted.
No it isn't, and your logic is totally flawed. You can not have an infinite regression.[/hide]
You know what gives me a big dick? Christians fighting amongst themselves.
You know what gives me an even BIGGER dick? Christians siding with atheists. 8D
(November 25, 2012 at 3:13 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: Haha. Well, since the God of the Christians is part of the meta-physical world, he is outside of the laws of physics. This makes the law of cause and effect non-applicable to him. SO, God doesn't need a creator. He says, "I am who I am." God just IS. He doesnt have a creator. He doesnt need one. He is eternal.
That's just a guess, let's face it. We need more than guesswork to believe. How do we know that the Universe itself is not eternal and non caused? Again, another guess, but as such is equally as credible as an eternal god.
Quote:You may call this a non-scientific approach, but since science is the study of the physical world, it cannot reach the level of God who is in the meta-physical world.
So if god is beyond the realms of what we can test, how can YOU test he's real? You can't.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
TLDR...
The instance before the bigBang is referred to by physicists as a singularity. In this singularity, the laws of physics as we know them break apart and some others take their place. Which ones? We don't know.
But we also don't assume that the imaginary friend of iron/bronze-age desert people did it.
If some entity did do it, it's still a huge step to assume that this entity "is omnipresent (present in all places and times), omnipotent (having unlimited power) , and omniscient (having all knowledge)". And it's an even greater step to assume that it favored a small group of people who just believed that that entity existed and it helped them conquer some land. And an even greater step to assume that this entity generated a human child which would teach other humans about peace and love and the "kingdom of that entity" (whatever that is).
Who knows if we aren't creating new Universes every time CERN's beams are turned on and creating what they call "micro-blackholes"? Are we omni-'all that stuff' in those universes we aren't even aware of creating?
(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: --For reference, an infinite regress is something very hard to wrap your mind around. Its infinity. What is infinity? Infinity is a constant "something". Is infinity impossible? No. Actually, through reason, we know that it is only possible, because since there is no such thing as nothing, there always most be a constant something which is again: Infinity.--
You are also totally wrong on this. "Infinity is a constant" and "Infinity is Something" (ie Real). In a number system, any number even a transcendental number, can be added to or subtracted from to form a new number. We say there are an infinite set of numbers, but all that means is that there's no limit on the number of numbers. If infinity is a number, as you claim, then you can add to or subtract from it to form a new number. Thus as you plainly see infinity as "something" does not exist. Infinity is nothing - it can't be measured, it's immeasurable.
November 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm (This post was last modified: November 25, 2012 at 7:38 pm by Chas.)
(November 25, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Daniel Wrote:
(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: --For reference, an infinite regress is something very hard to wrap your mind around. Its infinity. What is infinity? Infinity is a constant "something". Is infinity impossible? No. Actually, through reason, we know that it is only possible, because since there is no such thing as nothing, there always most be a constant something which is again: Infinity.--
You are also totally wrong on this. "Infinity is a constant" and "Infinity is Something" (ie Real). In a number system, any number even a transcendental number, can be added to or subtracted from to form a new number. We say there are an infinite set of numbers, but all that means is that there's no limit on the number of numbers. If infinity is a number, as you claim, then you can add to or subtract from it to form a new number. Thus as you plainly see infinity as "something" does not exist. Infinity is nothing - it can't be measured, it's immeasurable.
There are infinitely many infinities; they are numbers and can be operated on. Your understanding of infinity is not accurate.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: --For reference, an infinite regress is something very hard to wrap your mind around. Its infinity. What is infinity? Infinity is a constant "something". Is infinity impossible? No. Actually, through reason, we know that it is only possible, because since there is no such thing as nothing, there always most be a constant something which is again: Infinity.--
You are also totally wrong on this. "Infinity is a constant" and "Infinity is Something" (ie Real). In a number system, any number even a transcendental number, can be added to or subtracted from to form a new number. We say there are an infinite set of numbers, but all that means is that there's no limit on the number of numbers. If infinity is a number, as you claim, then you can add to or subtract from it to form a new number. Thus as you plainly see infinity as "something" does not exist. Infinity is nothing - it can't be measured, it's immeasurable.
Just to add a little something!
In math, there is an operator which is the 'lim', or limit. The limit of f(x) when x goes to some value. Typically, at school you get some exercises where these things go awry (x-> inf; x->0), e.g.:
lim (x->0) 1/x = infinity
lim (x->inf) 1/x = 0
lim (x->0) sin(x) = 0
lim (x-> inf) sin(x) = UNDEFINED!, because the sine function is always going up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, for ever and ever, "to infinity and beyond"... at most, you can say the result is anything between -1 and 1.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(November 25, 2012 at 3:13 am)journeyinghowie Wrote:
(November 25, 2012 at 2:48 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: What's your hypothesis about how god came into existence?
Haha. Well, since the God of the Christians is part of the meta-physical world, he is outside of the laws of physics. This makes the law of cause and effect non-applicable to him. SO, God doesn't need a creator. He says, "I am who I am." God just IS. He doesnt have a creator. He doesnt need one. He is eternal.
You may call this a non-scientific approach, but since science is the study of the physical world, it cannot reach the level of God who is in the meta-physical world. You have to realize that this is actually a reasonable approach, unlike saying that the universe came into being out of nothing.
I'm going to indulge you once and only once. Why Yahweh, why not Myweh? Like someone else already stated, your exact argument has been posted here, almost word for word, a thousand times before. I'm sure I have a cut and paste response somewhere, which is ironic given that yours was clearly a cut and paste post, but I can't seem to find it right now. However, I'll give you the short answer. Why not Myweh? You seem to have made a leap, like so many do, from not understanding the origins of the universe to one specific Goddidit. I, having long held deistic beliefs which I've not completely shaken off, am guilty of the same crime sometimes. However, the simple truth of the matter is that not a one of us has demonstrated knowledge or proof of the origins of everything. If anyone had, one of two things would happen 1) We'd all believe in the correct God(s)/creator(s), or, 2) No one would believe in God(s)/creator(s), and would accept the correct natural explanation for the origins of everything.
