Proof that god created the universe - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xiangsu · 11-30-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Proof of God?
The first-cause proof: God must be the first cause of the world:

How did the universe get here? Did it always exist? Was it out here by someone or something else? The first-cause proof seeks to show that the universe is not eternal, nor could it have arrived here under it's own power. Someone or something must have arrived here under it's own power.
Where is the reasoning for stating that someone or something must have arrived here under its own power, why? If someone or something can arrive under its own power, why can’t the universe? Because the universe had a beginning according to the expanding universe theory. If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause. Couldn’t that cause be its own power?
Someone or something must have cased it to exist. (Genesis 1:1) The logic behind this proof can be stated in three statements:

1.Whatever has a beginning had a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause

Whatever had a beginning had a cause-things don't come into existence by themselfs. They must be caused by something.
In science the law for this concept is called the "Principle of Causality." It says that every effect must have a cause. Can you think of anything that poped from absolutly nothing? "Nothing comes from nothing."
God is eternal and uncreated and doesn't need a cause. If this were not so we would have to search for God's cause- and so on and so on into infinity. Never reaching the beginning. If this is true, there must be a cause in the past that doesn't need a cause. This cause we call "God". The first cause of all that exists must be eternal and uncreated in order to have the power to start everything else, including the universe.

The universe had a beginning. Several years ago, many scientists believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. In the 20th century Scientists discovered new information that indicates the universe must have a beginning. First, by 1927, astronomer Edwin Hubble shocked the scientific community by discovering the expaning movements of our galaxy and beyond. Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from us at high speeds. This explansion is similar to a bomb exploding. This discovery was called the "Expanding Universe," it caused some scientists to change their view from an eternal universe ro one that must have a beginning. If you were to reverse the expansion, you would arrive back to a point of beginning beyond which there was nothing.

Second, mordern scientists are favoring a model of origins called "The Big Bang." It suggest a beginning in our universe. (Genesis 1:1) If the universe had a beginning it must have a cause.

Third, A proof that points to a beginning is the wearing down and running out of usable energy. Our universe is growing old. The law of "Thermodynamics." If the universe is unwinding, it must have been wound up at one point in time in the past. The world wouldn't be running out of energy unless it was first filled up in the past. The universe was either:

1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality
2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing.
3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3)

This was posted by a friend of mine, I want to know what you guys thought about it. She makes some interesting points, what do you think? Do you see any major flaws with her logic?

roadkill · 11-30-2005, 09:04 PM

"1.Whatever has a beginning had a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause "

Okay, A is equal to B and so B is equal to A... Thus god must also have a beginning.

"God is eternal and uncreated and doesn't need a cause." Self defeating of previous quote. Because it shows that there are exceptions to that rule.

"If this were not so we would have to search for God's cause- and so on and so on into infinity. " I though that humans were not suppose to understand gods meaing or cause..... so he doesn't have a cause? I'm sorry so he 'creates' a universe just for shits and giggles? That seems to have some form of cause.

"This cause we call "God". The first cause of all that exists must be eternal and uncreated in order to have the power to start everything else, including the universe."
In algabra we learn that we can use A or B to represent something now god can represent the big bang, I'll give that it is easyer to type but still is seems to misconstru the subject.

"The universe had a beginning. Several years ago, many scientists believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. In the 20th century Scientists discovered new information that indicates the universe must have a beginning. First, by 1927, astronomer Edwin Hubble shocked the scientific community by discovering the expaning movements of our galaxy and beyond. Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from us at high speeds. This explansion is similar to a bomb exploding. This discovery was called the "Expanding Universe," it caused some scientists to change their view from an eternal universe ro one that must have a beginning. If you were to reverse the expansion, you would arrive back to a point of beginning beyond which there was nothing."

Now if the universe is expanding, like it's a huge fireball that got ignited and then must collapse.... Then this seems to be a bit similar to the big bang... no god there just a packed space exploding.

"If the universe had a beginning it must have a cause. "
Yes, the cause doesn't have to be a supreme being.

"The law of "Thermodynamics."" What law of thermodynamics? One of them says that the entropy of the universe is alwasy increaseing. Even if Earth is running out of fossil fules, it doesn't mean the universe is looseing entropy.

"2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing. "

I think the underline sums it all up. God can't be to blame because he can't cause him self so he is thus as plossiable as anything else, or it just is a hoax.

"Do you see any major flaws with her logic?"

Quite a few.

Forgive the spelling, I'm a bit out of it right now, I'll try to clean it up later.

Mantus · 11-30-2005, 09:12 PM

God, is the choice to stop asking questions.

The universe had to start somewhere. That was God.
But?
...shhh, GOD.
But, what about...
GOD! THE END.

rlbond86 · 11-30-2005, 09:40 PM

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe increases over time.

That's still usable energy. Entropy is disorder. Sort of like if you don't clean your room for a while, it gets messier.

Note that the second law may not ALWAYS have been true, but it is now.

Toaster126 · 11-30-2005, 10:20 PM

Who said God had to follow logic or rules?

rlbond86 · 11-30-2005, 11:05 PM

To an extent, He must.

God can never make 2+2=5.

However, the point is that the second law of thermodynamics does not necessarily require nor does it prove the existance of a God.

Can you really have REAL proof for or against the existance of God?
Methinks no.

shakran · 11-30-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Proof of God?
The first-cause proof: God must be the first cause of the world:

Because the universe had a beginning according to the expanding universe theory. If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause.

Actually the expanding universe theory doesn't know if the universe had a beginning. There's a theory that the universe expands, then contracts, collapses on itself, and another big bang happens and it starts all over again in an infinitely cyclical loop.

Quote:

1.Whatever has a beginning had a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause

Deceitful sylligism. That's kind of like saying Any apple is a fruit, that cow is an apple, therefore the cow is a fruit. The second postulation in my example is not true. The second postulation in your proof is not proveable. We do not know that the universe had a true beginning because we were not there. Since we cannot prove that the universe had a beginning, we cannot prove that it had a cause.

Quote:

Whatever had a beginning had a cause-things don't come into existence by themselfs. They must be caused by something.

Your theory writer needs to brush up on her quantum physics. Particles appear and disappear all the time, and there's no known cause. I highly doubt that a god is witching them all into existance.

Plus, even if we grant that every thing which has a beginning must be caused by something, that does not necessarilly mean it must be caused by a god

Quote:

In science the law for this concept is called the "Principle of Causality." It says that every effect must have a cause. Can you think of anything that poped from absolutly nothing? "Nothing comes from nothing."

But who's to say that cause must be a god?

Quote:

God is eternal and uncreated and doesn't need a cause.

Says who? I hope you're not using the bible as proof - it's generally considered poor form to use a document to prove that document. So you'll need to find some other proof that 1) God exists and 2) God is eternal and 3) God is uncreated.

And if God is eternal and uncreated then logically that means it is possible for something to be eternal and uncreated. Therefore it is possible that the universe itself is eternal and uncreated. I'm afraid that blows a rather large hole in the divine causation argument.

Quote:

If this were not so we would have to search for God's cause- and so on and so on into infinity.

Ahhh, so we say God is eternal and uncreated because it would be decidedly inconvenient to declare otherwise. Unfortunately principals declared out of convenience rather than research are valueless.

Quote:

Never reaching the beginning. If this is true, there must be a cause in the past that doesn't need a cause. This cause we call "God". The first cause of all that exists must be eternal and uncreated in order to have the power to start everything else, including the universe.

Conjecture conjecture conjecture. Write with a scholarly enough tone and you can get almost anyone to believe anything.

Quote:

The universe had a beginning.

Prove it.

Quote:

Several years ago, many scientists believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. In the 20th century Scientists discovered new information that indicates the universe must have a beginning.

indicates teh universe MAY have a beginning. We have hypotheses, but when you get right down to it, we simply don't know.

Quote:

First, by 1927, astronomer Edwin Hubble shocked the scientific community by discovering the expaning movements of our galaxy and beyond. Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from us at high speeds. This explansion is similar to a bomb exploding. This discovery was called the "Expanding Universe," it caused some scientists to change their view from an eternal universe ro one that must have a beginning. If you were to reverse the expansion, you would arrive back to a point of beginning beyond which there was nothing.

That theory has been challenged. And the concept of an exploding universe is not correct anyway. It's more accurate to think of the universe as being drawn on the surface of a balloon which is being blown up.

Quote:

Second, mordern scientists are favoring a model of origins called "The Big Bang." It suggest a beginning in our universe. (Genesis 1:1) If the universe had a beginning it must have a cause.

No, it does not. It suggests that at one point in history the universe was very very small and dense, but it does not suggest that this means the universe began at this point.

Quote:

Third, A proof that points to a beginning is the wearing down and running out of usable energy. Our universe is growing old. The law of "Thermodynamics."

Actually the word you are searching for is entropy, which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not all of them.

Quote:

1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality

No it does not because we do not have any proof that the universe has not always existed.

Quote:

2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing.

The universe and the laws that govern it are much more bizzarre than our little human minds can grasp. We simply do not know enough to be able to say that for certain. It's likely, but it is not a certainty. Unless you have a certainty you cannot prove anything with it.

Quote:

3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3)

So far your only reference is the document that you are trying to prove, namely the bible. That just doesn't work. And just because it is more reasonable to believe something does not make it true. It is more reasonable to believe that as an electron transfers from a lower to a higher orbit around its atom, it will travel between the two orbits in a linear fashion, much as you would do if you drove your car down the block. That's a very reasonable belief. It's also flat out wrong. The electron simultaneously disappears from the first orbit and appears in the second orbit, without crossing any points in between.

It is reasonable to believe that one particle cannot effect its mate if the one particle is in San Francisco and its mate is on the moon. But it's been shown that if you manipulate the first particle, its mate immediately reacts. How is THAT possible? We don't know, but it does happen, and these two examples do not follow reasonable conclusions. In short, just because it's reasonable to believe that a god started all of this does not in any way make it true.

1010011010 · 12-01-2005, 12:20 AM

It gets rather difficult to talk about things violating causality or to think in terms of "beginning" when one of the quirky facotrs of the situation you're describing is that time fails to behave in an explicable manner under the conditions in question.

The Big Bang, if nothing else, serves as the dividing line at which point physics as we understand it seems to come into effect. People havethis idea that "before the big bang" there was nothing. "Before the big bang" is a fundamentally meaningless concept as we only know that time behaved linearly after the big bang. All that cool stuff in the core of your argument about thermodynamics and causality is tightly dependent on a unidirectional linear function of time... and there is no basis for assuming that was the case "before".

In short, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. If it did have a beginning, we don't know if it required a cause or not. Normal Rules Did Not Apply.

Gods are, of course, superfluous.

nezmot · 12-01-2005, 08:19 AM

1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality
Wrong - there is no such thing as the Principle of Causality. Read some quantum physics, causality was replaced with Undeterminism a long time ago (1920s?)

2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing.
Wrong Things create themselves all the time. Life is a great example of a self-creative process, so are the particle/anti-particle pairs that appear and disappear from and back into nowhere all over the place.

3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3)
Wrong No, it's not, because by definition, it is not an explanation. Why? Because it starts off by carefully stating that everything requires a cause, and then invents a causeless entity called God that breaks all the rules. Where's the logic in that? It's nonsense.

You're replacing an unknown with another unknown - that doesn't answer the question, it just deferrs it for later.

AVoiceOfReason · 12-01-2005, 08:30 AM

It takes more faith to believe there was no designer than to accept there was one, be it the God revealed in the Bible, space aliens, or whatever.

I heard an analogy the other day that I liked: Believing the world, with its ecosystem, and people, with their biological systems, just evolved from nothing is a bit like believing the dictionary on your shelf came from an explosion at a printing factory. It takes a WHOLE lot of faith to accept something like that.

AVOR

Yakk · 12-01-2005, 08:40 AM

"1> Anything that has a beginning has a cause"

In everyday speak, this is reasonable. However, when you start probing the fabric of reality, things get wierd.

What do you mean by "beginning"? Quite often you cannot divide something from what came before.

At scales that you are not used to thinking on, time behaves wierdly. There is reason to believe that at distances near and under a "plank length" and times near and under a "plank time", position and time look very little like what you are used to on large scales.

On larger scales this may also be true.

"2> The universe had a beginning"

This may or may not be true. Using many models, the universe contains the dimension of time. Saying it has a beginning is like someone at the equater saying "every bit of Earth has another bit of Earth north of us." "The Earth is bounded." "The Earth north of the last bit of Earth is god."

"3> Therefore, the universe had a cause"

The universe denotes "all that is". Causes "are". The cause of something preceeds it. Anything that preceeds something is not part of it. If the universe has a cause, then that cause is not part of it. Everything that is is part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has no cause.

A and not A

Voila, a contradiction.

guthmund · 12-01-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

I heard an analogy the other day that I liked: Believing the world, with its ecosystem, and people, with their biological systems, just evolved from nothing is a bit like believing the dictionary on your shelf came from an explosion at a printing factory. It takes a WHOLE lot of faith to accept something like that.

I like that. Consider it 'borrowed.'

Either the rules apply to all involved or they apply to none. You can't use physics to constrain the universe and then not use them on 'God.'

Either He lives by the rules of the universe he created and we let the world of science sort Him out or He lives outside those rules in the supernatural and we let the world of theology sort Him out.

shakran · 12-01-2005, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

It takes more faith to believe there was no designer than to accept there was one, be it the God revealed in the Bible, space aliens, or whatever.

I heard an analogy the other day that I liked: Believing the world, with its ecosystem, and people, with their biological systems, just evolved from nothing is a bit like believing the dictionary on your shelf came from an explosion at a printing factory. It takes a WHOLE lot of faith to accept something like that.

AVOR

I've seen this argument before. It's fundamentally flawed. Saying that there must be a god because it would be very improbable for the world to be this way randomly is a circular argument, and shows a lack of understanding of math. ALL outcomes of the universe were equally improbable before the universe started. By that I mean, if the laws of the universe were totally different from what they are today, we would still be sitting here saying "wow, isn't that improbable!"

Richard Feynman put it best - Today I was driving and I saw a license plate, AGN-934. That's amazing! Of all the possible license plates I could have seen, I saw that one. That's too improbable to be random - it must have been divine intervention!

As you can see, that concept is silly.

Yakk · 12-02-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

It takes more faith to believe there was no designer than to accept there was one, be it the God revealed in the Bible, space aliens, or whatever.

I heard an analogy the other day that I liked: Believing the world, with its ecosystem, and people, with their biological systems, just evolved from nothing is a bit like believing the dictionary on your shelf came from an explosion at a printing factory. It takes a WHOLE lot of faith to accept something like that.

AVOR

Strangely, did you realize that almost all the the free energy that feeds the world comes from a large exploding ball of gas millions of miles away?

This seems utterly unlikely. What does a large, exploding ball of gas have to do with baby gurgling? Anyone who claims that a large, exploding ball of gas has anything to do with carrots has far to much faith in the wrong things.

The large exploding ball of gas I'm referring to is the sun. It shines down on the earth. The plants use the sunlight to do photosynthesis. Various things eat the plants, which eventually give the baby the energy to gurgle.

Now, the chains involved have been researched and explained -- there are still tricky things involved (we don't understand biology perfectly yet), but mankind is pretty damn certain that the main energy source for life on earth is the sun.

But if you say "babys gurgle because of exploding gas", it looks ridiculous.

Methods that explain how life comes to be, with no need for a designer, exist. Experiments to see if "spontanious complexity" can occur have been done, and spontantious complexity has been found.

A designer hasn't been ruled out -- but there isn't any predictive value to the designer hypothesis. Things without predictive value are discarded in science, because experience has shown that predictive-value-less arguements tend to be hogwash.

Jinn · 12-02-2005, 11:35 AM

Since the majority of the posters here echo my sentiments exactly, I'm going to go on a selfish tangent;

Quote:

It is more reasonable to believe that as an electron transfers from a lower to a higher orbit around its atom, it will travel between the two orbits in a linear fashion, much as you would do if you drove your car down the block. That's a very reasonable belief. It's also flat out wrong. The electron simultaneously disappears from the first orbit and appears in the second orbit, without crossing any points in between.

Do you have any resources/references on this? This and the following paragraph allude to quantum mechanics, but I've not heard it applied to electron configuration. Is it not just that the particle changes orbits at the speed of light (or a speed we cannot measure)? Or is it truly simultaneous?

rofgilead · 12-02-2005, 08:24 PM

Well.. I think that is based off of two assumptions:

1) That the existence (the universe) has a beginning - what if it doesn't? What if time is infinite?
2) That if it has a definite start time, that something had to have started it.. ie - that things cannot spring into being (something has to start things)..

These are bad assumptions with no real basis - therefore the proof is built on quicksand.

I believe that order spontaneously arises and life is simply a by-product of the spontaneous development of order. This suits me. God can suit you. But you cannot prove either of our philosophies.

shakran · 12-03-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Since the majority of the posters here echo my sentiments exactly, I'm going to go on a selfish tangent;

Do you have any resources/references on this? This and the following paragraph allude to quantum mechanics, but I've not heard it applied to electron configuration. Is it not just that the particle changes orbits at the speed of light (or a speed we cannot measure)? Or is it truly simultaneous?

Nope, it does not travel at the speed of light. It disappears from the one orbit, and reappears in the other without travelling between orbits.

Probably the most readable source for this (read: The only one I was smart enough to understand) is Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything" which btw is an EXCELLENT book about all sorts of science stuff.

macmanmike6100 · 12-03-2005, 04:25 AM

Was so close to posting some real commentary but read everybody else's and realize that the original argument had already been torn to shreds.

Lilly · 12-03-2005, 09:19 AM

One of my favorite quotations is:::

"If you take a copy of the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. My bible IS the wind and the rain..... " Unknown author

flstf · 12-03-2005, 11:41 AM

Speculations about the nature of our existance (universe) and whether there is a god (whatever that is) or not are very interesting. Our brains and knowlegde seem to have advanced little since our ancient ancestors' beliefs.

Maybe in a few million years or so if we survive... I know it must be part of our nature but I really don't understand why we seem so inclined to develop a faith in anything (like a religion or a designer) when we are so ignorant.

shakran, I like your Feynman quote.

Xiangsu · 12-05-2005, 01:08 PM

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Now if only I had the patience and understanding to read his book...

Yakk · 12-05-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

And just because it is more reasonable to believe something does not make it true. It is more reasonable to believe that as an electron transfers from a lower to a higher orbit around its atom, it will travel between the two orbits in a linear fashion, much as you would do if you drove your car down the block. That's a very reasonable belief. It's also flat out wrong. The electron simultaneously disappears from the first orbit and appears in the second orbit, without crossing any points in between.

Bah. The electron was never not in both the second orbit and the first orbit. Electrons are not a localized phenomina.

And "Orbit" seems to be the wrong word to destribe how electrons bind to protons. "Cloud" seems better.

Quote:

It is reasonable to believe that one particle cannot effect its mate if the one particle is in San Francisco and its mate is on the moon. But it's been shown that if you manipulate the first particle, its mate immediately reacts. How is THAT possible? We don't know, but it does happen, and these two examples do not follow reasonable conclusions.

That is one interpritation of the experiement. I prefer locality -- observing the results of manipulating one particle changes which manipulations of the second particle you can see.

This means that every particle interaction slices reality along yet another axis.

Quote:

In short, just because it's reasonable to believe that a god started all of this does not in any way make it true.

The law of excluded middle does not hold with "reasonableness".

"It is reasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is reasonable to believe that god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.

"It is unreasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is unreasonable to believe god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.

shakran · 12-05-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Bah. The electron was never not in both the second orbit and the first orbit. Electrons are not a localized phenomina.

And "Orbit" seems to be the wrong word to destribe how electrons bind to protons. "Cloud" seems better.

Well, yeah, but I'm trying to keep it simple. We are not all quantum physicists on this forum

Quote:

That is one interpritation of the experiement. I prefer locality -- observing the results of manipulating one particle changes which manipulations of the second particle you can see.

This means that every particle interaction slices reality along yet another axis.

Your science knowledge is very impressive, but this does not change my original point.

Quote:

The law of excluded middle does not hold with "reasonableness".

"It is reasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is reasonable to believe that god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.

"It is unreasonable to believe god started it all."
"It is unreasonable to believe god did not start it all."
Both of the above can be true without there being any conflict.

This doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. I said just because something is reasonable does not mean it is true. Even if it's reasonable to believe 2 different things, that does not mean one, or both, of those beliefs are true.

Yakk · 12-06-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well, yeah, but I'm trying to keep it simple. We are not all quantum physicists on this forum

Bah, humbug. Accuracy is important. An arguement that results in a true conclusion, but includes inaccurate premises or logic, is not a good arguement for the conclusion.

Quote:

This doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. I said just because something is reasonable does not mean it is true. Even if it's reasonable to believe 2 different things, that does not mean one, or both, of those beliefs are true.

The two different things in question where of the form "A" and "not A". It is often an axiom of logic that one and only one of "A" and "not A" is True -- this is sometimes described as the law of excluded middle. I was noting that reasonableness does not act like "truth" in that it does not obey this law of excluded middle.

A demonstration that "it is reasonable to believe in god" does not imply that "it is unreasonable to not believe in god". So even if the arguement given originally did not have holes, it doesn't show that there is no god in any way shape or form. It simply shows that it is reasonable to believe in god.

It seemed, at least to me, that a "proof" for "X" is an attempt to say "not X is false". The original "proof" for "got exists" is, at best, a demonstration that "it is reasonable to believe in god" -- it does not demonstrate that it is unreasonable to not believe in god, even if it was a flawless arguement.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am commenting on your content.

shakran · 12-06-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Bah, humbug. Accuracy is important. An arguement that results in a true conclusion, but includes inaccurate premises or logic, is not a good arguement for the conclusion.

When the accuracy doesn't change the outcome of the conclusion, but creates confusion in 99% of the people who read it, and who therefore will not understand the conclusion, then too much accuracy is not a good thing. Put another way, I'm sure you've used the phrase "in the future" which refers to a linear description of time, even though I'm sure you know that we only perceive time as being linear, because you realize that saying "in what you laypeople perceive as the future but which is really just another point in spacetime" would pointlessly confuse your audience

TheObserver · 12-16-2005, 12:28 PM

Thus god must also have a beginning.
----------------

That's illogicall.. . If everything had a beginning we would not exist....

There must be an uncaused cause.... and furthermore this uncaused cause must be outside of time... to avoid the fact that infinitiy in the past doens't logically work out. Therefore whatever began us all must have at least one quality we associate with God, and that is it must be outside the constraints of limitation, as in outside time.

simonrex22 · 12-16-2005, 04:19 PM

I didnt read all the posts, but here are my two scents. First of all, ignorance does not prove the existance of god. And there are theories on how the universe came to be. It is pretty much a fact that we are in an expanding universe. The Big Bang theory is widely accepted. So, to explain where the big bang came from, you have an expanding universe. All the matter, stars and planets and everything else, has mass. Once the mass is big enough to slow and eventually stop the expanding of the universe, it begins to collapse. It pulls itself in on itself until it is immeasurably small and enormously massive. BANG!! It explodes. Big Bang and the universe starts over.

asaris · 12-16-2005, 04:22 PM

No, actually, a universe that constantly expands, contracts, expands, contracts, etc. is contrary to the laws of physics. I can't remember where I read this, but I think it was "A Brief History of Time". I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that the cosmological argument isn't sound, but bad physics isn't a good way to discuss it.

Yakk · 12-19-2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

When the accuracy doesn't change the outcome of the conclusion, but creates confusion in 99% of the people who read it, and who therefore will not understand the conclusion, then too much accuracy is not a good thing. Put another way, I'm sure you've used the phrase "in the future" which refers to a linear description of time, even though I'm sure you know that we only perceive time as being linear, because you realize that saying "in what you laypeople perceive as the future but which is really just another point in spacetime" would pointlessly confuse your audience

/shrug, "in my future" means "in my future light-cone". It is accurate and works in conversational logic and doesn't require naive time.

The times this breaks down is when you are talking about astronomical distances, or things far apart from each other (satalites in orbit), or events that are happening very rapidly (microprocessor levels). In these cases it is usually worthwhile to be extra careful about how you speak about "future" "past" and "present". And be willing to say "I don't know".

fuzzybottom · 12-19-2005, 10:05 PM

even if the known universe was proven to have required a cause to exist, what reason is there to believe that such a cause could not be scientifically explained given enough information?

how is it any more reasonable to believe that there is a god that is infinite or eternal than to believe that nature itself could be?

Justsomeguy · 12-20-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzybottom

even if the known universe was proven to have required a cause to exist, what reason is there to believe that such a cause could not be scientifically explained given enough information?

how is it any more reasonable to believe that there is a god that is infinite or eternal than to believe that nature itself could be?

Because nature tends to not exist. Therefore anything that has the ability to not exist at one time didn't Therefore, at one time nature did not exist.

Ultimately, everything is a matter of faith. Therefore, there must be a prime mover outside of faith (God). Of course, a personal God is probably superfluous. Afterall, by definition, if God was personal, then it would not be God.

By the way, what is the point to question omnipotence and other characteristics of God. For example the unmovable rock or 2+2 cannot be 5 argument. The argument is that the world is limited and at one time did not exist, so there must be a God that is outside of this constrained world. This is the prime mover. So, why do people try to disprove him from elements that is not of God's existence such as a space and time?

fuzzybottom · 12-21-2005, 12:54 AM

since when did nature tend to not exist? =.=

also, people try to disprove things using space and time because those are the most prevalent frames of reference in basic sciences. and people with any interest in objectionally debating god are probably interested in some way of a scientific view.

but i dont we're thinking of the same thing when i say "eternal", maybe we are for "infinite" though. im talking eternal not in the sense of a limitless amount of time, more like timelessness; a lack of relation to time. and im thinking infinite in the sense of lack of physical boundry, not lots and lots of something. it doesn't make sense to me to consider either "infinite" or "eternal" in the context of the things that they are opposites of (space and time). theyre not quantitative in my mind.

asaris · 12-23-2005, 07:35 AM

There's also a problem with the entire series being finite. If everything in the series is finite, we still need (?want) a reason for the existence of the series. But God, if he exists, exists necessarily. So we don't need a reason for his existence -- he exists because he has to (cf. Peter Van Inwagen's article "Why is there something rather than nothing?")

Justsomeguy · 12-23-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzybottom

since when did nature tend to not exist? =.=

also, people try to disprove things using space and time because those are the most prevalent frames of reference in basic sciences. and people with any interest in objectionally debating god are probably interested in some way of a scientific view.

but i dont we're thinking of the same thing when i say "eternal", maybe we are for "infinite" though. im talking eternal not in the sense of a limitless amount of time, more like timelessness; a lack of relation to time. and im thinking infinite in the sense of lack of physical boundry, not lots and lots of something. it doesn't make sense to me to consider either "infinite" or "eternal" in the context of the things that they are opposites of (space and time). theyre not quantitative in my mind.

Nature continually tends to not exist as demonstrated through the concept of change. For example, if it is necessary to preserve existence through change, it is possible that the object does not exist. It is not reasonable or rational to accept that it has always existed if it tends towards nonexistence. The flu is an example of this as is geological change of landforms.

My problem with your concept of space is fairly basic. Are we not really saying the same thing but just phrasing it differently then? For example, if I believe in a prime mover of all that exists is outside of the realm of constriction and you are referring to time and space being outside the realm of quantitative constriction, then how is our belief really any different?

Alot of people argue space and time on the practical level of science that most people understand. Besides certain very specific arguments, I feel many basic concepts such as the Heisenberg Principle can be shown to counter almost all arguments I've seen.

maxero · 12-25-2005, 07:17 PM

der. ignore this.

fuzzybottom · 12-25-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justsomeguy

For example, if I believe in a prime mover of all that exists is outside of the realm of constriction and you are referring to time and space being outside the realm of quantitative constriction, then how is our belief really any different?

Really, they're not different. What I'm really arguing is, why personify that as God? but then again..

Quote:

Of course, a personal God is probably superfluous.

so..

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

But God, if he exists, exists necessarily. So we don't need a reason for his existence -- he exists because he has to

Just as easily, similar qualities can be assumed about Nature.

analog · 12-26-2005, 12:37 AM

We can't prove that the universe exists because of a "big bang". Scientists theorize this because of the expansion of the universe. We also have only been able to track celestial movement on this scale for less than 100 years... for all we know, the universe expands and contracts on a regular interval. It could be 200, 200 thousand, or a number we can't even calculate to.

So in that, we've already shot the "universe has a beginning" assertion.

Also, using the old "cause and effect" adage: you can't look at a tidal wave and disregard the role of the butterfly. Just because you can't measure or observe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was a time with no electron microscopes, but those particles sure existed. If you took something as simple as a battery back in time as recent as maybe 200 years, you'd have been heralded as God, or burned as a witch, depending on your geographic location. The point is, the absense of calculable data to explain causation or existense of a certain thing does not indicate divine influence. I don't know myself, exactly, how a car is created. Sure, i'm aware of all the parts, but i'll be damned If I personally have any clue how it all comes together to make a car. Taking that the universe did "bang" or somehow come about rather than having "aways existed", there may well have been a host of factors that drove its creation... and we simply don't have the ability to know for sure.

Tachion · 01-11-2006, 12:57 PM

I don't know if you guys are into string theory and such but there is a idea that thinks the 'big bang' was cause by 'membranes' - think other universe or dimension - coming together.

Of course this just moves the arguement to where did the 'membranes' come from. Doh!

The best test for an absolute 'proof' is if everyone is happy with it.
eg. E=mc2 took a while and for now it has been proven.

So it is obvious she does not have a proof as it equally obvious not everyone is happy with it. It may be a proof of God to her - but it is not an absolute proof.

duckznutz · 01-11-2006, 03:34 PM

When you say God do you mean Allah? Which God are we talking about . . . . exactly. Or does the logic prove the existence of all the worlds gods?

Cynthetiq · 01-11-2006, 03:59 PM

could be any god, even the pasta god the Flying Spaghetti Monster as worshipped by the Pastafarians.

Quote:

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease

11-30-2005, 10:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Who said God had to follow logic or rules? __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

12-01-2005, 12:20 AM	#8 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	It gets rather difficult to talk about things violating causality or to think in terms of "beginning" when one of the quirky facotrs of the situation you're describing is that time fails to behave in an explicable manner under the conditions in question. The Big Bang, if nothing else, serves as the dividing line at which point physics as we understand it seems to come into effect. People havethis idea that "before the big bang" there was nothing. "Before the big bang" is a fundamentally meaningless concept as we only know that time behaved linearly after the big bang. All that cool stuff in the core of your argument about thermodynamics and causality is tightly dependent on a unidirectional linear function of time... and there is no basis for assuming that was the case "before". In short, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. If it did have a beginning, we don't know if it required a cause or not. Normal Rules Did Not Apply. Gods are, of course, superfluous. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

12-01-2005, 08:30 AM	#10 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	It takes more faith to believe there was no designer than to accept there was one, be it the God revealed in the Bible, space aliens, or whatever. I heard an analogy the other day that I liked: Believing the world, with its ecosystem, and people, with their biological systems, just evolved from nothing is a bit like believing the dictionary on your shelf came from an explosion at a printing factory. It takes a WHOLE lot of faith to accept something like that. AVOR __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

12-01-2005, 08:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	"1> Anything that has a beginning has a cause" In everyday speak, this is reasonable. However, when you start probing the fabric of reality, things get wierd. What do you mean by "beginning"? Quite often you cannot divide something from what came before. At scales that you are not used to thinking on, time behaves wierdly. There is reason to believe that at distances near and under a "plank length" and times near and under a "plank time", position and time look very little like what you are used to on large scales. On larger scales this may also be true. "2> The universe had a beginning" This may or may not be true. Using many models, the universe contains the dimension of time. Saying it has a beginning is like someone at the equater saying "every bit of Earth has another bit of Earth north of us." "The Earth is bounded." "The Earth north of the last bit of Earth is god." "3> Therefore, the universe had a cause" The universe denotes "all that is". Causes "are". The cause of something preceeds it. Anything that preceeds something is not part of it. If the universe has a cause, then that cause is not part of it. Everything that is is part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has no cause. A and not A Voila, a contradiction. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

12-03-2005, 09:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
Lilly Upright	One of my favorite quotations is::: "If you take a copy of the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. My bible IS the wind and the rain..... " Unknown author __________________ Grant me the vision to see beyond the illusions of this world

11-30-2005, 09:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
roadkill Insane	"1.Whatever has a beginning had a cause 2.The universe had a beginning 3.Therefore, the universe had a cause " Okay, A is equal to B and so B is equal to A... Thus god must also have a beginning. "God is eternal and uncreated and doesn't need a cause." Self defeating of previous quote. Because it shows that there are exceptions to that rule. "If this were not so we would have to search for God's cause- and so on and so on into infinity. " I though that humans were not suppose to understand gods meaing or cause..... so he doesn't have a cause? I'm sorry so he 'creates' a universe just for shits and giggles? That seems to have some form of cause. "This cause we call "God". The first cause of all that exists must be eternal and uncreated in order to have the power to start everything else, including the universe." In algabra we learn that we can use A or B to represent something now god can represent the big bang, I'll give that it is easyer to type but still is seems to misconstru the subject. "The universe had a beginning. Several years ago, many scientists believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. In the 20th century Scientists discovered new information that indicates the universe must have a beginning. First, by 1927, astronomer Edwin Hubble shocked the scientific community by discovering the expaning movements of our galaxy and beyond. Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from us at high speeds. This explansion is similar to a bomb exploding. This discovery was called the "Expanding Universe," it caused some scientists to change their view from an eternal universe ro one that must have a beginning. If you were to reverse the expansion, you would arrive back to a point of beginning beyond which there was nothing." Now if the universe is expanding, like it's a huge fireball that got ignited and then must collapse.... Then this seems to be a bit similar to the big bang... no god there just a packed space exploding. "If the universe had a beginning it must have a cause. " Yes, the cause doesn't have to be a supreme being. "The law of "Thermodynamics."" What law of thermodynamics? One of them says that the entropy of the universe is alwasy increaseing. Even if Earth is running out of fossil fules, it doesn't mean the universe is looseing entropy. "2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing. " I think the underline sums it all up. God can't be to blame because he can't cause him self so he is thus as plossiable as anything else, or it just is a hoax. "Do you see any major flaws with her logic?" Quite a few. Forgive the spelling, I'm a bit out of it right now, I'll try to clean it up later.

11-30-2005, 09:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	God, is the choice to stop asking questions. The universe had to start somewhere. That was God. But? ...shhh, GOD. But, what about... GOD! THE END.

11-30-2005, 09:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe increases over time. That's still usable energy. Entropy is disorder. Sort of like if you don't clean your room for a while, it gets messier. Note that the second law may not ALWAYS have been true, but it is now.

11-30-2005, 11:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	To an extent, He must. God can never make 2+2=5. However, the point is that the second law of thermodynamics does not necessarily require nor does it prove the existance of a God. Can you really have REAL proof for or against the existance of God? Methinks no.

12-01-2005, 08:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality Wrong - there is no such thing as the Principle of Causality. Read some quantum physics, causality was replaced with Undeterminism a long time ago (1920s?) 2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing. Wrong Things create themselves all the time. Life is a great example of a self-creative process, so are the particle/anti-particle pairs that appear and disappear from and back into nowhere all over the place. 3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3) Wrong No, it's not, because by definition, it is not an explanation. Why? Because it starts off by carefully stating that everything requires a cause, and then invents a causeless entity called God that breaks all the rules. Where's the logic in that? It's nonsense. You're replacing an unknown with another unknown - that doesn't answer the question, it just deferrs it for later.

12-02-2005, 08:24 PM	#16 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	Well.. I think that is based off of two assumptions: 1) That the existence (the universe) has a beginning - what if it doesn't? What if time is infinite? 2) That if it has a definite start time, that something had to have started it.. ie - that things cannot spring into being (something has to start things).. These are bad assumptions with no real basis - therefore the proof is built on quicksand. I believe that order spontaneously arises and life is simply a by-product of the spontaneous development of order. This suits me. God can suit you. But you cannot prove either of our philosophies.

12-03-2005, 04:25 AM	#18 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	Was so close to posting some real commentary but read everybody else's and realize that the original argument had already been torn to shreds.

12-03-2005, 11:41 AM	#20 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Speculations about the nature of our existance (universe) and whether there is a god (whatever that is) or not are very interesting. Our brains and knowlegde seem to have advanced little since our ancient ancestors' beliefs. Maybe in a few million years or so if we survive... I know it must be part of our nature but I really don't understand why we seem so inclined to develop a faith in anything (like a religion or a designer) when we are so ignorant. shakran, I like your Feynman quote.

12-05-2005, 01:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
Xiangsu Addict Location: Illinois	Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.] What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989] Now if only I had the patience and understanding to read his book... Last edited by Xiangsu; 12-05-2005 at 01:15 PM..

12-16-2005, 12:28 PM	#26 (permalink)
TheObserver Upright	Thus god must also have a beginning. ---------------- That's illogicall.. . If everything had a beginning we would not exist.... There must be an uncaused cause.... and furthermore this uncaused cause must be outside of time... to avoid the fact that infinitiy in the past doens't logically work out. Therefore whatever began us all must have at least one quality we associate with God, and that is it must be outside the constraints of limitation, as in outside time.

12-16-2005, 04:19 PM	#27 (permalink)
simonrex22 Insane	I didnt read all the posts, but here are my two scents. First of all, ignorance does not prove the existance of god. And there are theories on how the universe came to be. It is pretty much a fact that we are in an expanding universe. The Big Bang theory is widely accepted. So, to explain where the big bang came from, you have an expanding universe. All the matter, stars and planets and everything else, has mass. Once the mass is big enough to slow and eventually stop the expanding of the universe, it begins to collapse. It pulls itself in on itself until it is immeasurably small and enormously massive. BANG!! It explodes. Big Bang and the universe starts over.

12-16-2005, 04:22 PM	#28 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	No, actually, a universe that constantly expands, contracts, expands, contracts, etc. is contrary to the laws of physics. I can't remember where I read this, but I think it was "A Brief History of Time". I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that the cosmological argument isn't sound, but bad physics isn't a good way to discuss it. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

12-19-2005, 10:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
fuzzybottom Upright	even if the known universe was proven to have required a cause to exist, what reason is there to believe that such a cause could not be scientifically explained given enough information? how is it any more reasonable to believe that there is a god that is infinite or eternal than to believe that nature itself could be?

12-21-2005, 12:54 AM	#32 (permalink)
fuzzybottom Upright	since when did nature tend to not exist? =.= also, people try to disprove things using space and time because those are the most prevalent frames of reference in basic sciences. and people with any interest in objectionally debating god are probably interested in some way of a scientific view. but i dont we're thinking of the same thing when i say "eternal", maybe we are for "infinite" though. im talking eternal not in the sense of a limitless amount of time, more like timelessness; a lack of relation to time. and im thinking infinite in the sense of lack of physical boundry, not lots and lots of something. it doesn't make sense to me to consider either "infinite" or "eternal" in the context of the things that they are opposites of (space and time). theyre not quantitative in my mind.

12-23-2005, 07:35 AM	#33 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	There's also a problem with the entire series being finite. If everything in the series is finite, we still need (?want) a reason for the existence of the series. But God, if he exists, exists necessarily. So we don't need a reason for his existence -- he exists because he has to (cf. Peter Van Inwagen's article "Why is there something rather than nothing?") __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

12-25-2005, 07:17 PM	#35 (permalink)
maxero Crazy	der. ignore this. __________________ cough

12-26-2005, 12:37 AM	#37 (permalink)
analog Banned	We can't prove that the universe exists because of a "big bang". Scientists theorize this because of the expansion of the universe. We also have only been able to track celestial movement on this scale for less than 100 years... for all we know, the universe expands and contracts on a regular interval. It could be 200, 200 thousand, or a number we can't even calculate to. So in that, we've already shot the "universe has a beginning" assertion. Also, using the old "cause and effect" adage: you can't look at a tidal wave and disregard the role of the butterfly. Just because you can't measure or observe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was a time with no electron microscopes, but those particles sure existed. If you took something as simple as a battery back in time as recent as maybe 200 years, you'd have been heralded as God, or burned as a witch, depending on your geographic location. The point is, the absense of calculable data to explain causation or existense of a certain thing does not indicate divine influence. I don't know myself, exactly, how a car is created. Sure, i'm aware of all the parts, but i'll be damned If I personally have any clue how it all comes together to make a car. Taking that the universe did "bang" or somehow come about rather than having "aways existed", there may well have been a host of factors that drove its creation... and we simply don't have the ability to know for sure.

01-11-2006, 12:57 PM	#38 (permalink)
Tachion Crazy	I don't know if you guys are into string theory and such but there is a idea that thinks the 'big bang' was cause by 'membranes' - think other universe or dimension - coming together. Of course this just moves the arguement to where did the 'membranes' come from. Doh! The best test for an absolute 'proof' is if everyone is happy with it. eg. E=mc2 took a while and for now it has been proven. So it is obvious she does not have a proof as it equally obvious not everyone is happy with it. It may be a proof of God to her - but it is not an absolute proof.

01-11-2006, 03:34 PM	#39 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	When you say God do you mean Allah? Which God are we talking about . . . . exactly. Or does the logic prove the existence of all the worlds gods? __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.