You often here theists use the cosmological argument to support the existence of a god. Here I will display a chain of logic and apply occam's razor, to state the opposite: there is no god. I will propose that reality exists. I am sure that most everyone here can agree on this assumption.

-Reality exists.
-Everything that is brought into being, has a first cause
-Something must not have a first cause
-God is described as having no beginning and the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
-Therefore, either God or matter has no beginning and is the first cause
-Matter exists, God might exist
-Applying Occam's Razor we can conclude that matter itself is the first cause as it is the most simplistic viable answer

If I have made a flaw in my reasoning please point out the flaw. If there are not any flaws then we can safely conclude that God does not exist.

Im not sure i followed your line of logic but i see a few problems with it.



Please define reality as you see it, and what form of reality you are using in this argument, objective or subjective. Given that respondents to this forum have not yet been able to agree on the form, or definition of reality, i think this is crucial.

-

Who says this is so? I think again you may get some argument. However, even if we accept this statement it contains an escape clause "Brought into being" implies conscious intent and thus the statement becomes a tautology??. What if you said, Everything which exists has a first cause". This is a much more open statement and thus again more open to debate.

Why do you deduce that this must be so? Let us suppose that in the formation of the universe during and after the big bang; along with all the other reorganisation of matter and energy which occured, the universe integrated itself in such a way that it included a self aware consciousness occupying all the time and space encompassed within the universe Thus god , the matter comprising him, and the eneryy he employs, as well as the nature of his consciousness is as real and natural a part of the universe as all the other parts.
Thats how god appears and operates to me. Thus he did not have a cause, other than the natural causation of the universe and he has indeed existed as long as the universe has and does indeed encopass the universe. In some ways he is the universe. I think this also answers some of your other suggestions.

I look at it the question of god differently. With absolute proof that such an entiyt exists and acknowledging his proven/ observedphysical abilities, then i try to apply occams razor to determine his nature , physical form and function. I might be wrong, but so far this is the closet approximation i can manage.

Implying and seeking cause for everthing seems to be a peculiarly human characteristic and probably an evolved/created part of our humanintellect and self awareness. It may be a correct appproach but then again it may not, and actually there may not be any conscious causality between events.

If by cause you simply mean a type of application of the chaos theory, that every event is the sum total of many other events, then quite possibly you are correct, but given the random nature , the total number of possible outcomes from each temporal node and the fact that nothing in a linear timeline is predestined or fixed until it actually occurs along that linear time line i cant quite see your application of this idea to the legitimacy of gods existence.

If god is the universe and exists outside linear time as well, then he sees a multiverse of possibilities.

He may or may not, through an act of choice, decide to intervene along our perceived linear time line to influence the probability, or the actuality of certain events occuring or not occuring. This does not mean that god is bound to either conscious causality or chaos type causality, because he exists outside of such things and can in fact alter and manipulate both.

How did you come to the conclusion that matter must be the first cause?

Existence. Nothing more. In whatever shape or form it is, we can agree that something exists.


Not intent. Storms bring rain without the intent of doing so. Everything which exists does not have a first cause because there must be an absolute first cause. There has to be something without beginning.


If this is true, god is not the creator and is simply a product of the universe and nature. He would be the highest form of sentience yes, but not worthy of the title god as he would have a beginning.


That's the point. There is no evidence he exists. It is a fact that matter exists. When these are the only two possibilities, occam's razor dictates that matter is the logical choice.

-Matter exists, God might exist
-Occam's razor says that the most simplistic viable answer is the most logical one
-Since we know matter exists, and we don't know God exists, and these are the only two viable options, matter is the most simplistic and thus the most logical

ah but that does not work for me. I have just as much proof that god exists as i do that matter exists.

It is quite possible that neither exist in any substantive form outside my consciousness, but if one exists with an independent reality, then applying the same observations and logical observations to those observations, god has precisely the same physical existence as i do, my wife does, or my motor car does.

I dont quite understand how you can argue otherwise.

Yes i do . just joshin you. Because YOU cant see feel or experience god then you feel able to apply your logical deductions to everyone.

This is not rational of course.

If you were colour blind and could not see the colour green would you feel free to argue that it did not exist?

If 99.8 % of the worlds population could not see, deetct or comprehend what the colour green was , would that justify you arguing that it did not exist?

No and both the historical and contemporary record of god, his nature and purpose indicates that most peole will never experience his physical reality.

Does that mean he does not have an independent physical reality?

No. Even if only a few humans down through history interact physically with god, his angels or other avatars, that is enough to indicate the phuysical existence of god.

Of course i can well appreciate the disbelief and frusration of those who cannot experience him, when confronted by those who can.

I experienced much the same feelings on a lesser scale first when i found that others could see a colour called green and i could not.

The physical tests for this showed me very clearly how one persons physical reality can be seen very differently by another, even though that reality is actually the same for both.

Later i was suprised to find that some humans can actually consciously visualise images while awake. I cannot do this even with the simplest object. So i have blindnesses in my perception of two realities enjoyed by most humans.

Thus i do not find it as strange as most that so many humans simply appear to be unable to see things like angels or experience the physical intervention of god into their lives through physical manipulation of the real world.

Your hypothesis and conclusion is probably quite acceptable to you. It simply doesnt work for me.

I'm a Deist/Atheist, leaning towards Atheism, but my arguement (Though admittedly not solid) for a God is this:

- Anything that exists is natural.
- Therefore, if a God exists, it is natural.
- We know that a natural phenomena caused the "big bang".
- So all we can assume is that a natural phenomena is "the" cause, whether it be a God or not, no one knows.

It all comes down to "we don't know" though. Either way you're assuming things.

How about this? God exists and is the first cause. Everything we see and all matter came forth from Him. That would satisfy both arguements. Since God is the cause all came forth from him.

Not really, because god has never been seen to exist, so how can we assume he is the first cause? Isn't it simpler to suggest that matter is eternal and doesn't require a first cause?

Or, how about this? Matter exists and is the first cause. Everything we see and all gods came forth from matter. That would satisfy both arguements. Since matter is the cause all came forth from it.

Excellent post Mr Walker. It makes perfect sense that someone who has not experienced God would not believe he exists.

if most can perceive matter then it is absolute matter is the first step in existance. thats implying nothing can exist outside standard perception capabilities. which is inaccurate.

reality is based entirley on perception and because perception varies from person to person there is no concrete criteria for reality. stating reality exists is like saying opinion exists. there can be huge variations from one person to the next in explaining reality.

everything requiring a cause to be bought into existance is based only on the research that has taken place in the physical world. these conclusions are found by general agreement on the topic. this conclusion suggests one concrete reality. this is a huge variable.

everything requires a cause except matter??

Bullshine.

Reserving my usual objection against attributing to William of Occam something which he never wrote, the principle is heuristic rather than dispositive (true premises necessarily and invariably lead to true conclusions, what most people mean by "logic" in casual conversation).

Simple hypotheses are attractive candidates for investigation before more elaborate ones. How that investigation turns out will be revealed when you perform it. There is no "magic formula" to pick out true hypotheses (indeed, there is a theorem of logic which implies just that).

Formal objections to the principle include that people will differ about what "simple" means. In the Jefferson quote that appears at left, Tom may well have said that lying Yankees was a "simpler" hypothesis than celestial stones. A fellow faculty member might have found life anything but simple if he called two colleagues liars. In neither case would the "reasoning" have anything much to do with meteorites, the ostensible subject of the inquiry.

Another objection is that the simplest hypothesis, whether or not true, may be useless. God wills it, for example, is breathtaking in its simplicity, but utterly unable to distinguish true propositions from falsehoods. George Polya gives the secular version: chance, he wrote, is the ever-present rival conjecture. It doesn't get simpler than There is nothing to explain.

But matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by ANY known force, so that doesn't work either. It's a law of physics; there's no exceptions.

Occam's Razor doesn't work as a proof to all scenarios. It's just a logical way of viewing circumstance.

For example: Tom could've taken the quickest route home. This would support Occam's Razor. However, Tom may have felt like taking the scenic route home one day. If you were to apply Occam's Razor that day you would've guessed the wrong scenario. It just doesn't work as a proof.

Some know the force

But if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by ANY known force and it's a law of psychics with no exceptions then who created all the matter that exists? There goes physics out the door...at least when it comes to explaining God.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html
The Big Bang can explain this. All matter was condensed into a point that was infinitely small and that contained all the matter in the universe, called the singularity. All the particles that make up everything were crushed together so tightly, the mass of this single point was, in essence, infinite. The particles in this point weren't arranged to form any specific structures yet (such as the elements, stars, DNA, etc.) so they were just atoms smashed together. Particles in this point eventually became unstable, for whatever reason, and this caused the point to rapidly expand (NOT explode), thusly creating the Universe as we know it today over 14 billion years. The Universe is STILL expanding from this initial expansion, and this can be measured by scientists. Singularities MAY exist inside black holes, where density and gravity are so strong it distorts space and time.

There's also another theory, that's a little less provable, that suggests our Universe is the result of two other Universes smashing into each other. Mass from both of those Universes was smashed together and created our Universe, which is, in itself, a new Universe altogether. There are some scientists who believe in the concept of alternate universes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

Physics doesn't go out the door.

I know about the big bang. Your first sentence regarding it states 'all the matter was condensed into a small point'. Who made all that matter that was condensed into a small point if any known force cannot create or destroy matter and it is the law of physics so no exception. I think this is where this one small facet of science breaks down. It has many uses but lets not get carried away.

The same amount of matter has always existed. The singularity doesn't have the same laws as physics does now, because it was a point of infinite matter, infinite gravity, and infinite density. It held everything that is in our Universe. No one can give a satisfactory definition of how the Universe was created. There are always holes. Some Christians say God has always existed, so is it that much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest our Universe has always existed?

The same amount of matter has always existed? Someone had to create it. Physics cannot even give an accurate definition of matter. I doubt they can ever define God. Our equations, scientific facts, and scientific theories do have their limits. I agree no man can give a satisfactory answer of how the Universe was created and I doubt if given an accurate answer would man even be able to fathom it. Perhaps a women might hehehe. But I guess when you imply I should stretch my imagination I will have to say, oh do I try, but I also like to stretch my faith but even looking at the beauty of it all I see the Creator in it all. I doubt anyone would be convinced in another direction but ah that was never my intention. I usually am the person who asks the most questions in any class or course to the annoyance of everyone else. I ask to learn, not only facts, but the thoughts of others. Thank you.

Well what if matter has always existed? What if it wasn't ever created and has always been changing and molding into something different? What if our Universe has always been contracting (Big Crush Theory) and expanding (Big Bang Theory) over trillions of years? What if our Universe is just a tiny part of an even greater cosmic force that's so vast we cannot even begin to comprehend how immense it is? What if we're so small and insignificant we need to make up Gods in order to make us feel important in this huge, harsh Universe? The point is, there's a lot that neither religion nor science can explain, but science is able to obtain evidence for it's theories, whereas religion is based entirely on speculation. Science may have it's limits, but that doesn't give religion more credibility. I too am not trying to convince anyone that science is right or wrong, but it holds the most water, so in my opinion it's more reliable than religion will ever be unless we have undeniable proof of a divine creator. I ask questions as well, except the instructors can never answer them (it kind of pisses off my history teacher....). And the Webster's dictionary seems to have a satisfactory definition of matter:

"2 a: the substance of which a physical object is composed b: material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy c: a material substance of a particular kind or for a particular purpose <vegetable matter> d (1): material (as feces or urine) discharged from the living body (2): material discharged by suppuration : pus"

Some faith is not based on speculation but experience.

Science and faith do not have to be at odds. Science and faith serve different purposes. Science does not offer faith any more proof than it needs nor can it disprove faith. Faith does not offer science any more proof that it needs nor can it disprove science. Science does have severe limits but I agree it does not give or remove any credibility towards religion as they are separate entities belonging to two different realms that when combined a mockery is made of both.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter#Definition

I don't think they have to be at odds, considering I incorporate both into my personal beliefs. I think a relatively even mix of both is necessary for a healthy view of the world.

Big Bang is an impossible scenario. You can't condense matter that tightly together. No one has ever proven such a thing.

I say instead of a relatively even mix take in both in their fullness as much as possible. If one school does not meet your needs find another and the same goes with faith.

WWF, if you READ the articles, you would have seen that these points of singularity possibly exist in massive black holes, so YES they CAN exist according to the LAWS of physics. Do your research next time.

Your own research cited says they "don't know".

Quoted:

"Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."

You can use your imagination and say a lot of things exist, but that doesn't mean they do. You can't take all of the matter in the universe in smoosh it together into a single point. This is impossible.

The laws of physics break down at the point of singularity thus it is not possible within the law of physics.

Yeah, nice way to take stuff out of context. Are you saying RELIGION is any more reliable than science? Because you are so fatally wrong if you assume that it's not even funny.

Like you do with God?

I didn't take your material out of context. The author simply stated they "don't know".

Cramming all of the matter in the universe into a point of singularity is impossible


Could you imagine cramming all the matter of a boulder into the point of a needle? Now try cramming all the matter in the universe into that same point. Yet I would have to believe that could happen to believe in the big bang theory.

You completely missed the entire point of my argument. You say someone had to create it. Who? God? Who created God? Not everything has a birth. Something has no beginning simply due to the fact that anything exists at all. Therefore since we know something has no beginning, we can safely assume one of two options, matter or God. Matter exists, God might. That makes matter the more reasonable choice.

It's not impossible WWF. Black holes devour VAST amounts of light and matter into a single point, a singularity. You think smashing a boulder into a pinpoint is hard? Try the mass of a star 50 times as big as our sun. Black holes can do this, so YES it is possible, even though it seems like a vast feat of strength. It's all based on gravity. There's nothing "impossible" or "special" about it. Our Universe could simply be a result of a black hole that's spitting out matter from another dimension for all we know. The fact is, we DO HAVE evidence to suggest that the Big Bang is true, Creationism does not. Therefore, the Big Bang theory is what people are going to be more likely to believe.

Some people believe and actually argue that matter is only an illusion. That would leave us with God only once again.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=114956

Again, you're using your imagination. "Black holes spitting points of singularity out". This isn't real science. Nowhere is this being observed.

It's an absolute fact that matter exists in some form. You have absolute factual information that God exists? Can you tell us what your information is? Even if it is personal revelation, I want to know how you can make such an arrogant claim as to know for a fact.


Your consciousness is perception of existence. You don't have your own individual reality. You have your own perception of reality.


Perception doesn't alter logic. Perception alters science, logic is a means of pertaining knowledge outside of the senses.


It's quite possible that this is rational in my reality...


I would not argue this as we can physically see what causes people to see color. The color green doesn't actually exist. It is how the brains interprets light waves. If someone is blind, they can't perceive light waves but the light waves still exist. The perception is defective.


Color doesn't exist. It is merely a perception of light waves.


Both the historical and contempory record of god indicate he does not even exist. The only evidence for God is those who claim they have felt God on an emotional level. There is no evidence of him affecting the physical world. This leads to the belief that he is simply an idea created by the human mind. Nothing more than an electrical impulse.


That is simply false. It is merely enough to indicate that men have believed he existed. Nothing more.


You claim you can, yet you don't explain how. I believe I am god. I perform miracles everyday. I raised two people from the dead yesterday. I was met with frustration by those who I told because they cannot experience my divinity. However I have revealed myself to my dog and she knows I am god. The personal knowledge of my dog is enough evidence to indicate I am in fact God. You can ask her yourself. She can talk. However there is a slight chance your perception of reality won't be able to hear her.


So we can agree that perception doesn't alter reality.


The image is nothing more than an electrical impulse.


Likewise, do to the fact that I am omnipotent, I wasn't surprised to hear my dog talk, as I knew I had created her with the ability to do so.


What works for you or me doesn't alter reality. It is the same reality. Whether it works for you does not effect whether or not God exists.

Some people believe and actually argue that matter isn't only an illusion. That would leave us with matter only once again.

When mass is concentrated into a small area it creates a great gravitational pull. If all the matter on earth were condensed to the size of a marble the gravity would consume the sun. This explains black holes as well as singularity.

LOL - that was a good one!

You seem to have argued that God is as real as green is. Keep that up, and you will soon make a believer of me.

Saturated green is a spectral color, our name for a specific range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't get more real than saturated green.

I didn't say green isn't real. I said our perception of it isn't real. Like you said, it is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation... that isn't what we see. We see a perception of it. I did not argue that God is as real as green. Green can be observed physically. It is our perception of color that is not real and simply an electrical impulse. God exists in thought alone, and is not based on anything in reality. He exists as much as Darth Vader. I can think about Darth Vader and he exists as a thought, but not as part of reality in the context the thought places him in.

My point is someone arguing something proves nothing. There was a member on this forum, Ephraim I believe, who said I am involved in a global conspiracy to convince Christians that Revelation was about Nero so they won't be prepared to stop the anti-Christ from taking power. He argued this point. It proves nothing. Now it just so happens I am involved in this global conspiracy and I do in fact know the anti-Christ... but you get the drift.

Okay, now demonstrate this and then we'll think about calling this science.

You deny gravity? The greater the mass of something the stronger the gravitational pull. What's to prove? Even your creationists friends believe this.

Scientists can see black holes consuming stars 50 times bigger than our sun. Just because you don't want to accept science as truth, WWF, doesn't mean it's not real. And I never said "black holes spit out singularities" I said they create singularities INSIDE the black hole. The point where all of the matter gets sucked into is the singularity. Stop twisting my words, please.

How do you propose to observe green physically except with the aid of some instrument's electrical impulse, or some other comparable physical manifestation of the light's energy? Why is my instrument inferior to yours? My instrument, or something very much like it, built your instrument.


That is an assumpton on your part. I am an agnostic, so I don't make that assumption; maybe it's so, maybe it isn't. I don't know, and I think that you don't know, either.

Oh, wait, that's lame, or so I have been told. Pithy argument that, very astute. I don't take it all personally to have my religion called physically disabled.


So, Darth Vader is like science. Like science, he has no reality apart from the thoughts in the minds of people. And like science, Darth Vader is an imaginative creation which helps us to understand our experience, and to compare our understandings with others'.

We do seem to have wandered from the role of the so-called "Occam's" Razor, and whether that heuristic is reliable as a guide to inference. But you're the OP, so are we done with that?

Hi blind messiah. I think 8 bits responded to a lot of the technical implications of your rebuttal of my point of view. In non technical terms perceived reality is often as real as objective reality, because it creates its own independent results. .

However that was not my point. My point was that when two people see different realities they cannot objectively "compare notes"

For example a non colour blind person can see a figure 8 in a bunch of dots. A colour blind person can not. It does not matter what the wavelength' s of the colours etc are (i know all that)

My point was that the person who cannot see the 8, can only ever have second hand evidence that it exist at all, and similarly, you can only ever have second hand evidence that god exists, and naturally this is not enough for you

. Sadly , exactly as i pointed out, many people do, you go on to make a lot of claims based on your god blindness which simply are not true.

I absolutely know they are not true for me, and thus I accept the word of the other people in the world with the same perception, just as some one who can see the 8 in the bunch of dots will accept that others can see it too.

Thus god is just as real and visible to me, as my motor car, or my wife. He also plays a physical role in my life like my car does. . I dont see him or speak to him all the time, but just as i know my car is still sitting outside my house when i cant see it (il ive in a very safe little counttry town), I know that god is present in physical and energy form inside me and all around me. His consciousness is linked with mine, so that we can speak together, and he manipulates all sorts of things around me . . I absolutely know this sounds crazy to you. I can only offer, as i have before that i have had full medical and psychological examinations, and at the highest level available to me no one can find anything physically or mentally wrong with me.

The supernatural/paranormal and religious experiences are not daily events, but they happen regularly and significantly enough to make a considerable; physical, emotional, and spiritual difference in my life.

However, i consider my self to be an ordinary person living an ordinary life. Personally i dont really believe that my experiences are all that extra ordinary. Over the years many people have recounted similar experiences. Those who cannot see the figure 8 simply think they are delusional, lying or have some physical/ medical problem. Increasingly i feel like trying to turn that round.

It is those people who can not experience elements of the supernatural/ paranormal and spiritual worlds which exist all around us, who are lacking an essential ingredient of true humanity.

Others have suggested that what i experience is a purely psychological hallucination perhaps related to a god receptor found in a part of our brain. That sounds like a nice logical answer and i would comfortably accept it except that this function cannot perform actual physical miracles or give detailed and accurate visions and aural warnings of future events. It cannot take your mind out of your body and allow it to accurately see things thousands of miles away or accurately hear conversations dozens of miles away It cannot tell you where lost objects are, it cannot predict half a pack of cards in exact order, it cannot provide electricity when all the infrastructure for 20 miles around your house has been destroyed by fire It cannot leave a bible in a room via a "man" who walked out a fifth story balcony door and disappeared.

These are just a few of the experiences I have had. Many of them are verifiable by independent witnesses. There are hundreds more that i do not use as examples, precisely because they cannot be independently verified, and yet they are just as real, and have informed my decision making and value judgements about things since as early in my life as i can remember.

I never put my childhood/adolescent experiences in any religious context because i had no real religious experience to hang them on. i learned to keep qiuet about them after they brought me serious grief.

However when ,aged about 22, i was visited by my first classsical angel, who spoke to me and took away 5 years addiction to nicotine instantaneously, i began to realise that my experiences had a wider contextual framework and that an entity commonly known as god explained a lot of the paranormal and supernatural abilities people have.

After all if we are designed to communicate with god, then there are a lot of potential/untapped physical abilities which exist within us all. He communicates with visions and internal dialogue at times although sometimes the communications are external as well. While i could not explain an ability to see the future, read peoples minds or find where lost things are, through my own abilities; if we are all interconnected at one level through the nature of god , then many of those abilities are much more understandable. The chat room designed for communication with god, also allows communication in the same form, with other people across distance and also across time.

Mr Walker, I refuse to address your last post until you address mine, point by point, quoting each of my statements. You can't expect me to carry on a debate with you in which you type long posts, I counter each point, then you ignore those points and make another long post. That isn't how reasonable debate takes place. If you wish to address each point of my rebuttal then I'll be happy to continue.

On your other thread, you call my religious beliefs "lame" because I answer "I don't know" to a question, Does God exist?, whose answer I don't know.

Mr Walker writes that his answer to your question is unambiguously yes. To which your "rebuttal" was


So, let's review. The possible answers are yes, no, and don't-know. "Yes" is arrogant, "don't-know" is lame.

Is the only answer which does not elicit your abuse your own answer?

No I didn't. I said saying I don't know is the correct answer. I said not formulating an oppinion because you don't know is lame.


Different situation. I said it's lame to say I don't know when asked if you believe god exists. I said it's arrogant to say you know he does or doesn't exist.


I haven't abused anyone. I have simply been misrepresented time and again.