Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[bshoc]

oh but technically that would be what we call "burden of proof"

Except that no arguement here can even begin to carry that burden.

The length of the thread mainly indicates the importance of the subject matter.

Or the futility of it ..

If you want to allow such supernatural arguments then you cannot prove ANYTHING bshoc.

You can prove things to what one may call acceptable, such as a rock, I pick up a rock, I touch it, I see it, therefore its reasonable to assume it exists. Same thing with cosmic bodies, history etc. Can any theory here possibly match such a level of reasonable proof?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, God not existing is just as likely true as that the rock you picked up, saw, touched etc exists. For both theories to be wrong requires a supernatural explanation.

 

[sam04u]

Yes, God not existing is just as likely true as that the rock you picked up, saw, touched etc exists. For both theories to be wrong requires a supernatural explanation.

How do you see something which isn't of this universe? How can you measure the unmeasurable? Beyond our boundaries is the creator of this universe which is very natural to its own universe.

 

[lengy]

Yeah, and I could just as easily make up my own universe and rationalise how I'm in fact the only person who exists and when I pass away the universe that is created in my mind disappears with me.

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, and I could just as easily make up my own universe and rationalise how I'm in fact the only person who exists and when I pass away the universe that is created in my mind disappears with me.

No dude, I'm serious. I'm not saying "omg, I feel it the magic power oooohhh" this is serious theoretical physics. This universe must have been created.

And your Universe fails because where did your universe come from? Your theoretical universe has bilateral laws, and ends. Thus, there are no laws governing your universe. (as laws of a universe can not be defied that would be omniscience which is against your own beliefs.)

It's like me saying "anything is possible in the universe except where it alters the total ammount of energy which exists in the universe."

eg; A spirit bomb like in DragonBallZ is possible. (In our universe with the right machinery)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How do you see something which isn't of this universe? How can you measure the unmeasurable? Beyond our boundaries is the creator of this universe which is very natural to its own universe.

How do we know that the rock really exists and isn't a figment of a computer program that we've been hooked into - matrix style? I agree that we have no way of knowing whether things by their very definition unknowable exist, but allowing such things the possibility of existing brings into question the validity of everything which we claim to know.

 

[bshoc]

1. You cant feel a cosmic body.
2. You cant see a cosmic body.
3. You just dictated the terms of an agnostic approach to religion.

You can land rovers on them and bring things back You can also see them, which cannot be said for the big bang or anything else.

 

[sam04u]

How do we know that the rock really exists and isn't a figment of a computer program that we've been hooked into - matrix style? I agree that we have no way of knowing whether things by their very definition unknowable exist, but allowing such things the possibility of existing brings into question the validity of everything which we claim to know.

I don't know which one of us is taking a simple approach to this maybe neither of us are.

If we don't allow for such things to exist then how can we justify our existance? How can we explain how we exist in this universe of ours bilateral in nature and self sufficient?

I had this same argument with a friend of mine from a promininent U.S university over AIM. Sometimes, the most logical answer is the most wrong.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If we don't allow for such things to exist then how can we justify our existance?

We can justify our existance however we want, there's no 'ultimate' justification, but such ultimate justification is not needed.

How can we explain how we exist in this universe of ours bilateral in nature and self sufficient?

I don't understand this sentence - I would argue it doesn't make sense i.e. the 'Bileteral in nature and self sufficient' part.

Sometimes, the most logical answer is the most wrong.

Example please? Sounds like more sam04u rhetoric to me.

 

[sam04u]

Example please?

In the 'first cause' argument. "Nothing can be created from nothing." It seems to be the most logical statement but it's infact incorrect.

I don't understand this sentence

No, I mean our universe is obscure in that it has such well defined laws and principles. eg(The existance of energy can not be caused by 'what if' theoretical laws in universes. It's a direct result of a what if law. Because it has a 'value'.

It may not make sense; but anything with a value can not be created spontaneously. Look at the causal chain for that.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In the 'first cause' argument. "Nothing can be created from nothing." It seems to be the most logical statement but it's infact incorrect.

Can you prove that incorrect?

 

[sam04u]

Can you prove that incorrect?

Yes. Because our universe exists, we have to assume it was an effect of something and since there is a cause of each effect. We have to assume something was the first cause or the first of anything. If I assume god is the first effect then I would be left with the question of "where did god come from" in either argument, something must have been created spontaneously. Therefore something would have been created from nothing.

 

[Soiscit]

Yes. Because our universe exists, we have to assume it was an effect of something and since there is a cause of each effect. We have to assume something was the first cause or the first of anything. If I assume god is the first effect then I would be left with the question of "where did god come from" in either argument, something must have been created spontaneously. Therefore something would have been created from nothing.

but nothing only has meaning if there is 'something' to compare it to
that makes nothing itself something

 

[sam04u]

but nothing only has meaning if there is 'something' to compare it to
that makes nothing itself something

Why does nothing need to have a meaning?
Nothing is basically the infinite ammount of parrallels which have yet to be defined. Nothing; ie( No Laws, Not a Universe, Nothing ) Does not actually have an existance of any sort as it is just what hasn't been effected. I agree that nothing is in itself 'something' in that it is a potential universe of what if laws. That's why in my argument I say that something can be created by nothing. eg(A Universe comprised of 'what if' laws which are created because there are no laws preventing them existing and thus spontaneously occur and eventually one law will cause another universe to exist.) This process occurs till eventually a universe can create infinate universes. It will also be able to define universes by real laws. Bilateral and Self Sufficient. eg( Laws with values.)

Our universe is one of those universes; and the law of our universe is "energy exists" energy is a value. Therefore, in our universe the total ammount of energy which exists can not be altered. eg(It's possible without being omniscient to turn the moon into gold. Although it would be smaller, more compact but remain with the same ammount of energy.)

In our universe matter is the most efficient way to protect energy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes. Because our universe exists, we have to assume it was an effect of something and since there is a cause of each effect. We have to assume something was the first cause or the first of anything. If I assume god is the first effect then I would be left with the question of "where did god come from" in either argument, something must have been created spontaneously. Therefore something would have been created from nothing.

No... the simple counter is that it's possible that something has always existed.

 

[sam04u]

If something always existed then there are questions which still link it back to being created spontaneously.

Where does it exist?
What is it made of?
What laws is it governed by?

This type of thing is universal. Regardless of the universe, all universes are bound by laws otherwise they would not exist. Basically a universe is nothingness bound by a law. When that universe can create another universe because of the law which it is governed by. Then, that universe becomes 'god' essentially.

Now, if you said that the entity which existed before all else exists then It would have to be made of something. Everything is bound by laws though, and if it was bound by laws then the laws would have to have existed before it. Therefore, nothing can have existed for all time.

 

[Soiscit]

i mean that nothing can only be when there is something to compare it to.
one has to be there for the other to take form
one can't exist without the other already existing

i haven't read anything prior
but from what i gather are you saying our friend 'nothing' walks around with a creative impulse to ask itself 'what if?" and goes and creates universes and 'poof' here we are?

if nothing has a mind of its own to ask itself questions then nothing is more complicated than we thought and can't really be labeled as 'nothing' anymore

 

[sam04u]

i mean that nothing can only be when there is something to compare it to.
one has to be there for the other to take form
one can't exist without the other already existing

i haven't read anything prior
but from what i gather are you saying our friend 'nothing' walks around with a creative impulse to ask itself 'what if?" and goes and creates universes and 'poof' here we are?

if nothing has a mind of its own to ask itself questions then nothing is more complicated than we thought and can't really be labeled as 'nothing' anymore

ps is sam04u meant to be read as sam0 4u?

Alright. I see what you're saying.

Yeah, that's right. You can't measure nothingness but it's quite irrelevant. Let's say our universe before the first law which governed it was just nothing. If I wanted to wonder how old our universe was All I would have to do is go back to when the first law was defined.

Nothing doesn't need a mind. It has no principles, no laws and most importantly 'no boundaries' that's something different to any universe. It's not asking itself anything really, But I'm not so sure about this stage as of yet. Basically, what I think is that because it has no boundaries this universe will be able to create theoretical laws which have no values. eg if something has no value it really isn't anything. It can exist without a value in a universe not bound by laws. Except where this would potentionally create a universe which neutral in all senses yet existant.

(It's complicated...)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Now, if you said that the entity which existed before all else exists then It would have to be made of something. Everything is bound by laws though, and if it was bound by laws then the laws would have to have existed before it. Therefore, nothing can have existed for all time.

Now, if you said that the entity which existed before all else exists then It would have to be made of something.

No... it can be as simple as 'electrons' or something of that ilk. It doesn't need to be made up of something.

Basically a universe is nothingness bound by a law.

No, you really use this word 'Law' way too much, inappropriately. A universe is made up of many things and we have come up with laws to explain how it operates.

Everything is bound by laws though, and if it was bound by laws then the laws would have to have existed before it.

See above^

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, we define laws but laws also define matter.
If everything is bound by a law and we say "this is how it works" that doesn't mean it works that way because of the matter it means that matter works that way because of the law. All we've really done essentially is discover the law and that's what science is about. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together.

eg( Isaac saw that everything fell down. It doesn't fall down because he noted that it did. It always did he just noticed it. Thus, he came to the conclusion about gravity. All matter is bound by gravity, gravity exists because of matter. Therefore, the law isn't that gravity exists, but that matter exists. But why would gravity exist? It must be to create a balance. Therefore gravity exists because matter exists and matter which is made up of energy exists because energy exists.)

These laws whether or not we discover them exist. Identifying them is as you say our way of explaining how it works. But, we do not make them work in such a way. This isn't chemistry law with exceptions. There are no exceptions.