Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[zstar]

Who knows who or what the real God is.

It may even be us or whatever being comes after us who is enlightened and so advanced that these beings can manipulate time and space itself.

Just because we humans can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

We can't see, touch or smell microwaves yet we know it's there and just because we can't detect God or a higher being doesn't mean it's not there either. Our perception is really limited.

 

[Lentern]

Science is fairly rock solid for our universe today (which comprises a pinprick in the actual universe). But there's no way to tell whether the invariance of space and time assumptions are correct.

Even if science is universal over space and time, your reasoning seems broken. What, exactly, in science prevents something existing before the big bang?

Our science says cause and effect. The big bang theory lacks a cause, it is therefore not science, but religion.

 

[KFunk]

Our science says cause and effect.

Where, and in what sense?

 

[Enteebee]

Our science says cause and effect. The big bang theory lacks a cause, it is therefore not science, but religion.

Cause requires time. Also "cause and effect" only comes up anywhere to do with momentum afaik.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html

What causes the ball to roll in a certain direction, if indeed it does?

Also, your requirement for everything to have a cause in order to be 'science' seems to mean that all our theories aren't really science but religion because take anything and eventually we'll get back to the start of the universe for which you believe there is no cause.

 

[Lentern]

Sure, science has faults, but most theistic theories have far more. I think that empiricism is far more intellectually defensible than any position which admits knowledge based on faith.

These faults in science create the need for religion. I can't accept that it all is explained through a complex formula, for me it all comes back to why did the first thing happen if there was nothing to infuence it? There I am can not accept that a force not constrained by the laws of science that apply to you and I, the mountains and the valleys, the sun and the stars, does not exist.

I don't ask you to believe in the christian faith like I do because I acknowlege the absence of intellectual justification for it but I cannot understand how you can believe the universe has come to be as it is today without the influence of a force that operates above the laws of science.

 

[KFunk]

Well one premise of my argument would be that it's illogical to posit cause without time, i.e. Cause requires time. The only reason logically why things are required to be caused by other things (there are many events which do not seem to be caused tbh) is because they exist within time. It makes perfect sense at least to me once you abandon the logical premise that time is in existence that you no longer need cause.

Again, I think conceptual issues enter here. For example, you are using a more restricted form of causation than is used in some religion/philosophy. In particular, many people work with a notions of dependence and contingency and some argue that anything contingent must depend on some kind of necessary object/structure/framework for its existence (and so some necessary object X is then the cause of a dependent/contingent object Y). Vagueness abounds, but it gives you a rough idea how causation might be broader than just a temporal concept.

 

[Lentern]

Cause requires time. Also "cause and effect" only comes up anywhere to do with momentum afaik.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html

What causes the ball to roll in a certain direction, if indeed it does?

Also, your requirement for everything to have a cause in order to be 'science' seems to mean that all our theories aren't really science but religion because take anything and eventually we'll get back to the start of the universe for which you believe there is no cause.

Yes, your last paragraph is right.

 

[Slidey]

Our science says cause and effect.

No it doesn't.

The big bang theory lacks a cause

No it doesn't. Who told you that? It's metaphysics, because it's beyond the realms of observability, but there are numerous mathematical models which explain it, but they are unfortunately not testable, so it's unlikely we'll know which one is correct.

Don't be fooled into thinking this means the big bang had no cause or came from nothing. That's tantamount to saying "I don't understand the universe, therefore god made it."

 

[Lentern]

Where, and in what sense?

Its epitomises science, what is a scientific law other than an evidenced explanation of an occurence?

 

[Enteebee]

Again, I think conceptual issues enter here. For example, you are using a more restricted form of causation than is used in some religion/philosophy. In particular, many people work with a notions of dependence and contingency and some argue that anything contingent must depend on some kind of necessary object/structure/framework for its existence (and so some necessary object X is then the cause of a dependent/contingent object Y). Vagueness abounds, but it gives you a rough idea how causation might be broader than just a temporal concept.

I don't see how something can be dependent on something else if there is no existence in which that other thing can exist, I also note the use of "anything contingent" and would question that the existence of existence would be called something contingent... there's nothing for it to rely upon.

 

[Lentern]

No it doesn't.



No it doesn't. Who told you that? It's metaphysics, because it's beyond the realms of observability, but there are numerous mathematical models which explain it, but they are unfortunately not testable, so it's unlikely we'll know which one is correct.

Don't be fooled into thinking this means the big bang had no cause or came from nothing.

That is different to what i have been told before. But that is irrelevant, there is an unending relation between cause and effect. At the top of the chain must be something that escapes logic. This arguement is cyclical.

 

[Slidey]

That is different to what i have been told before.

Oh, well I guess what you were told must be the infallible truth. You can safely ignore the rest of science from now on.

But that is irrelevant, there is an unending relation between cause and effect.

Sure, and Euclidean geometry is flat. But Euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the world, and neither may your "unending relation between cause and effect"; they are both mathematical models of idealistic systems.

At the top of the chain must be something that escapes logic.

A causes B
B causes C
C causes A.

Is that simple enough for you? Do you have a problem with this logic, hmm?

This arguement is cyclical.

Only because you choose to make it so.

 

[Slidey]

Its epitomises science, what is a scientific law other than an evidenced explanation of an occurence?

Science these days is a matter of probabilistic non-determinism, not classical determinism. I just gave you an example of that above (radioactive decay).

You should read about things like quantum mechanics, (non)determinism and causality. Plenty of in depth scientific, mathematical and philosophical analyses of these issues lying around the web.

 

[KFunk]

I don't see how something can be dependent on something else if there is no existence in which that other thing can exist, I also note the use of "anything contingent" and would question that the existence of existence would be called something contingent... there's nothing for it to rely upon.

Aye, it is a vexed issue. There is a lot of debate over the nature of possibility and necessity. For a notable but much debated on these issues see David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds.

I don't have a barrow to push here in terms of the 'correct' account of the metaphysics of possibility , but I do feel the issues are so contentious that flat out assumptions come across as quite weak.

 

[Lentern]

Oh, well I guess what you were told must be the infallible truth. You can safely ignore the rest of science from now on.

Don't be silly, the sentiment of this discussion from the aethiests here has been the science is sense, religion is guessing, if that were so then the science folk would all reach more or less the same conclusion, Instead I am suposed to cater to one scientist who says that the big bang had no cause and another who is saying ofcourse it has a cause.

Sure, and Euclidean geometry is flat. But Euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the world, and neither may your "unending relation between cause and effect"; they are both mathematical models of idealistic systems.

Ok are you categorically saying that it falls withnin the laws of science for something to happen with absolutely no catalyst? If so how is Christianity not within the laws of science?

A causes B
B causes C
C causes A.

Is that simple enough for you? Do you have a problem with this logic, hmm?

It is simple enough but not accurate , it's just playing chicken and the egg riddle. Eventually one had to come before the other so how did the first one come to be? I guess it's possible that a higher power caused it...nah that's folly.

Only because you choose to make it so.

Oh yes, very cute.

Um, have you been hiding under a rock? Science these days is a matter of probabilistic non-determinism, not classic determinism.

I just gave you an example of that above (radioactive decay).

Which would allow for the possibility of a deity which the cronies at the scientific lobby continue to scoff at. Someone is trying to have his cake and eat it too methinks.

 

[Slidey]

Aye, it is a vexed issue. There is a lot of debate over the nature of possibility and necessity. For a notable but much debated on these issues see David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds.

I don't have a barrow to push here in terms of the 'correct' account of the metaphysics of possibility , but I do feel the issues are so contentious that flat out assumptions come across as quite weak.

I'm happy to have faith in a cyclical model of the universe because there's a high degree of scientific weight behind its possibility, while God still evokes the uncaused first cause problem.

 

[Riet]

Just because something isn't deterministic doesn't mean it's not observable or predictable.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't have a barrow to push here in terms of the 'correct' account of the metaphysics of possibility , but I do feel the issues are so contentious that flat out assumptions come across as quite weak.

Idk for the most part I'd look to use the other persons notions... and I truly don't see how someone could claim something could not be necessary if it happened and there was nothing before it.

 

[KFunk]

I'm happy to have faith in a cyclical model of the universe because there's a high degree of scientific weight behind its possibility, while God still evokes the uncaused first cause problem.

Yeah, there is a certain elegance about cyclical models. I've had a couple mindfuck moments where I embraced the idea and meditated on the thought of having had the same thought an infinite number of times past and over again in the future (and then thinking that perhaps past/future start to break down somewhat on this scale - perhaps an eternal, 4D+ wave function is more appropriate?).

 

[Slidey]

Don't be silly, the sentiment of this discussion from the aethiests here has been the science is sense, religion is guessing, if that were so then the science folk would all reach more or less the same conclusion, Instead I am suposed to cater to one scientist who says that the big bang had no cause and another who is saying ofcourse it has a cause.

Who said I'm an atheist at this scale? I'm providing you with logical discourse and you're trying to shrug it off with "Well somebody else believes otherwise and you're an atheist, so you must be wrong."

If you can't find logical fault with what I say then you can hardly go around claiming a need for a supernatural being, no?

Ok are you categorically saying that it falls withnin the laws of science for something to happen with absolutely no catalyst? If so how is Christianity not within the laws of science?

You should probably research what I say instead of trying to push your agenda. Probabilistic non-determinism, not non-determinism without a pattern.

It is simple enough but not accurate , it's just playing chicken and the egg riddle. Eventually one had to come before the other so how did the first one come to be? I guess it's possible that a higher power caused it...nah that's folly.

Why is it not accurate? Do you agree that if
A causes B
B causes C
C causes A
then you'll get an infinite cycle which preserves causality and has no first cause? This is exactly what you are looking for, so I fail to see the 'folly'. I certainly see the folly with this, though:

The basis of your entire argument is "I need a first cause to comprehend the world, therefore it was some supernatural being that started everything, even though I don't know what caused the supernatural being to exist, and even though I comprehend him even less than science."

Well done, sir.

Which would allow for the possibility of a deity which the cronies at the scientific lobby continue to scoff at. Someone is trying to have his cake and eat it too methinks.

It allows for the possibility of a deity no more than before. I was simply pointing out that your preconceived notions of intuition about the world are wrong, and was thus hoping you'd realise that trying to apply a 'logical' requirement to the multiverse which isn't even true for the universe is somewhat irrational.