Quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
From whence came the first force?
In the universe, scientists have made it patently clear that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. The difference here is subtle, a deity, by definition, is not bound to such things as they are not limited to physicality.
|
Why can’t something come out of nothing? Science says that it is imposible, perhaps it is, or perhaps we are missing a peice of knowledge. You for example say that a “deity, by definition, is not bound to such things as they are not limited to physicality”. Therefore you say that a deity created something out of nothing. I follow this same logic and say that something came out of nothing. I exclude the deity as it simply complicates things. The necessity of a deity is not proven.
Then there is the assumption that the universe had a beginning. Why does it need a beginning? There would be no need for a creator if the universe has no beginning. Though I can argue against the necessary existence of god in both cases.
Quote:
|
Sticking to your circle example, mathematically speaking, there is a more perfect circle than a circle, its a sphere. There is a more perfect sphere than a sphere, its a hypersphere, and so forth. In a logical frame of reference, qualities are infinite.
|
I am not a big math or geometry buff so correct me if I am wrong. But isn’t a circle a part of a sphere? A circle within a sphere seems no more perfect then it was before. Therefore a circle is perfect and a sphere is perfect and neither make’s the other any less perfect. All I am trying to illustrate is that perfection can be a subjective concept in itself. Though my main point is that the perfection does not have to come from a god; it can be inherit in the universe.
Quote:
|
Again, refer to the unmoved mover, you are requiring that the deity be limited to our plane of existence.
|
I apologize, I misled by using the word “universe”. I was not referring to the universe of our plane of existence. I was using the word universe in referrence to existence as a whole.
Quote:
|
Also, were the universe infinitely old, since there IS a slim chance of a deity existing, he would HAVE to exist.
|
If god came into existence after the universe, would this deity qualify for the concept of a supreme being? Also even in infinity it is possible for odds never to happen.
Quote:
|
And if the universe isn't infinitely old it has to come from somewhere.
|
I went over this above.
Also, tell me what you people think of this:
It kind of bothers me that we use subjective concepts to describe another subjective concept. For example we don’t know if the universe is finite or infinite, yet both are used in arguments for god. We can’t agree on what love really is yet we attribute it to god. We are not sure if there is an afterlife or what it could be like, yet we call god the gatekeeper. Omniscience, omnipotence, perfection, afterlife, soul, all these concepts and more are often used to prove god. I think that two subjective concepts can’t be used to create an objective item. We need a link to objectivity.
Cheers.