Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

A Proof That God Exists

365 posts in this topic

Ah the great Stephen Hawking who also said:

So scientists are the new priesthood and and Philosophy is dead hey?

I quoted this earlier in the thread and it shows how presumptious the man is. In this very quote while stating that philosphy is dead is uses philosphy as the vasis of his argument.

Jor-el then said:

So even he admits that design is apparent, with his only way out of the design issue being an untestable supposition that explains it away, the multiverse.

I think you really need to decide whether Hawking's thoughts are relevant or not, because right now your argument here seems to be indulging in a little confirmation bias. Some of his statements are bull because you find him 'presumptious' (can I just wave away your quotes from physicists if I can find something presumptious they said?), but you're more than happy to accept some of other statements despite this. And not-so-remarkably, the statements that are bull are the ones that just happen to disagree with your opinion and the ones that are not bull are the ones that agree with you ('even he admits design is apparent').

So who created the multiverse? He seems to forget that either way, God is still the creator. So basically he is asking you to believe him...

No, he's not, that's what priests do. He's explaining his theory and opinion. Again, you seem to not see the following words when you then try to restate what his position is: 'if', 'appear to have', 'could'. Those are not the words of most clergy. But in a way, you are also just demonstrating that as far as God is concerned, this whole discussion is moot. You can play the, 'but what created that?' game endlessly. If we show that the multiverse does exist, is that going to be evidence against god's existence? I sincerely doubt it, it just means he created some other way. The reason you could respond with that is that the god hypothesis is unburdened by having any evidence for it's existence with which we could compare to find something inconsistent. I'm personally not too impressed with largely unfalsifiable positions, which is unlike atheism which can be refuted in myriad ways.

So to reiterate, Hawking is smart, but not real smart. What he does have is an opinion that some of you take to be gospel... the existence of a multiverse.

Ha ha, yes yes, they dole out awards and employ people as professors at Cambridge just if they are smart, not real smart. If I can find a quote from Paul Davies indicating that he believes Hawking is 'real smart', can I just ignore all your quotes from him because Davies is then presumptious? And please quote anyone here who takes the existence of the multiverse as 'gospel' while using that word consistently with how priests take things as 'gospel'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you haven't got it at all. Think about it a little without your dogma.

What does it mean? Are you afraid of the theistic dogma that God does exist? Can you think about anything without your dogma that God does not exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theological infinite God is a logical impossibility. The various creator gods that people have invented are myths that don't stand up to any sort or rational or ethical scrutiny.

The virtual environments we create are heading in that direction, and, what makes me suspect it, is its obviousness (if it is possible the odds that we are in one are overwhelming, and it sure seems possible) combined of course with the improbability of the universe as we see it.

The other possibility, and the one worth pursuing (since if we are in a virtual environment we can presume it is such that we cannot prove it), is that there is either some natural selection of cosmoses going in that tends to select in favor of universes that can have life in them (a number of theories of this sort are out there) or there are beings in another cosmos popping off big bangs, perhaps for no reason than to allow others the chance to exist. (Doing this would not be all that unimaginable -- just manipulate some virtual particles in the right way and it is self-sustaining -- the only thing is once you have popped one off it goes on its own without any way for you to influence it -- a sort-of deist universe.

Of course we could also be just a chance bit of good luck. Given enough tries at it (and one presumes the universe has an infinite number of these), we are bound to happen now and then.

Is it logical to say that the universe caused itself into existence? I don't think so. Why? Because for something to cause itself into existence is entirely impossible because it must exist to do so. Since it does not exist it can't do so. Therefore, the Creator is implied. Now, if the probability of God is a myth in your opinion, how can the BB have happened if the cosmologist Carl Sagan referred to it as "Our modern myth of the BB?" ("Cosmos" p. 285)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see us living in some boring utopia somewhere hooking into various virtual universes in order to get some excitement into our lives, or perhaps as a punishment for some offense, or perhaps to get a degree in Twenty-fist Century history. Then when we die we disconnect and go back to the utopia.

Don't worry Frank, when we die there is no utopia where we are all gone to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't say they are on record that in other universes they can have different values; we don't know that these other universe even exist. We just strongly suspect it. It is imaginable that deep connections may exist that force all the physical constants to have the values they have, but it seems more likely that these values are "set" based on unknown factors at the birth of a given "universe." Indeed, some blend of these may be most likely.

Well I wouldn't say they are on record that in other universes they can have different values; we don't know that these other universe even exist. We just strongly suspect it. It is imaginable that deep connections may exist that force all the physical constants to have the values they have, but it seems more likely that these values are "set" based on unknown factors at the birth of a given "universe." Indeed, some blend of these may be most likely.

Although I find no feasibility for the existence of parallel universes, the idea of multiverses diminish nothing from the concept that something cannot cause itself into existence. The Creator is still implied, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fine-tuned universe is not evidence for God, it is only evidence for a fine-tuned universe. Given the fact that you or I would not exist if not for the fine-tuning it makes perfect sense why we observe it to be fine-tuned. I do not understand why this is evidence for a creator God. A watch is evidence for the watchmaker because we know for a fact that nature does not assemble watches together. We do not know for a fact that physics does not naturally assemble into a fine-tuned universe so the fact that we live in one is not evidence for God, it is simply evidence for the fact that we still have a lot to learn about the universe.

Not only a fine-tuned universe but the universe itself is an evidence of a designer. How? Thus: If the universe was designed and it could not have designed itself, by necessity it must have been designed by a designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally beleive in a multiverse theory, which then takes the 'fine-tuned' universe arguement out of the question.

It then becomes probibility.

Like the good old saying: Put a group of monkeys and a type writer into a room, Give them an infinite amount of time and they will produce shakespear.

Same with universes, given an infinite amount of time, Matter will configure into the correct conditions for a universe as we know it.

This is my own opinion of course.

I know. And mine is that instead of moving an infinite amont of time forward but rather backward, the Designer is still implied because the universe could not have

caused itself into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the world and indeed the universe, you have to wonder how it came into being. Like I've stated in other threads, I do not believe in coincidence at all. The world was created and therefore there has to be a creator. It's that simple for me. It is a matter of faith and either you have it or you don't.

I believe almost as you do except that you do by faith and I do by logic. According to the concept that something cannot cause itself into existence the Creator is implied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincidence has nothing to do with it; it's called natural processes. I find the claim of faith nothing more than a rather weak excuse for believing what you find pleasant rather than having the intellectual integrity to accept the world as it really is.

Well, finally I agree with you on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe almost as you do except that you do by faith and I do by logic. According to the concept that something cannot cause itself into existence the Creator is implied.

At best, the concept implies that something that can create exists. It need not be a 'being' or sentient entity of any sort. Likewise any type of 'out' from this rule that you wish to apply to this hypothesized creator we can apply to these non-sentient things also; if you want to say that 'things' like this creator may have always existed, and thereby doesn't require a creator himself, there's no reason why a non-sentient thing/natural law/creation force can't also have always existed. A sentient Creator is not the only possible implication and seems no better than a non-sentient one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. And mine is that instead of moving an infinite amont of time forward but rather backward, the Designer is still implied because the universe could not have

caused itself into existence.

And what is outside of our universe? You don't know. Nobody does. So you do not now that it would be necessary for the universe to cause itself. This is only your opinion. Explain and show the me equations that prove that the universe could not 'cause itself' (can you define what you mean here, exactly?) into existence and #1 you will probably win a Nobel prize in physics, and #2 you would convince me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is outside of our universe? You don't know. Nobody does. So you do not now that it would be necessary for the universe to cause itself. This is only your opinion. Explain and show the me equations that prove that the universe could not 'cause itself' (can you define what you mean here, exactly?) into existence and #1 you will probably win a Nobel prize in physics, and #2 you would convince me.

People who ask questions like, "What's outside the universe?" reveal the fact that they can't think outside their parochial little box. The same applies to people who assert that the universe has to have a cause. You think you are so important that it's our job to convince you when the fact is you just simply lack imagination and the ability to think outside the physics you learned as a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jor-el

I've fallen a little behind and Einsteinium has provided a lot of the same replies I would have; I may be somewhat repetitive here with what he's already said more clearly than I can so please forgive, I've done a quick read-through of your back-and-forth though.

No, I don't deny that, I have no basis to deny that. I deny what I apparently misunderstood you saying, that there is no energy in the universe; we both agree there is. And I disagree with using the word 'truth', which of course scientists do not, when describing what our current theoretical hypotheses are concerning subjects that are on the very edge of our understanding.

Then it is now a moot issue that arose because as we debated we applied wording that the other misunderstood. As I had said earlier, yes we have energy, but ultimately it is borrowed from nothing and ultimately be returned to nothing due to the increase of entropy.

Emphasis mine. When I asked for some evidence or indication that any of these constants can have any different values at all, you did not provide any and instead just repeated that some scientists think that it is improbable that they have the values that they do; I already knew that. Maybe there is some evidence, I don't know, like I had said I've had trouble finding it in the past. Scientists, especially I'd expect those that are working in the domain of theoretical physics, probably evaluate all kinds of propositions based on 'if this is true'. Isn't that largely what string theory has derived from, if you assume these strings exist then string theory is a good theory and ties up (I think) some problems that we have with the current models, but of course suffers from the fact that we have no evidence that these strings actually exist? There are cosmologists on record who suspect that fine-tuning may be an illusion also, so?

How can I supply something that does not exist in scientific circles. The assumption they are all making is that there can be different values, they do so because they have created stable mathematical models where these constants can be different, effectively creating models of other possible universes that can have these different constants. That is why you do not find any discussion that these constants could be related and depend on one another in some way, none of them as far as I know even consider this idea.

As we both know string theory is merely an attempt to bring the different laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity into a common framework, since these different laws apparently contradict one another in their expressions. Many theoretical physicists (among them Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind) believe that string theory is a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature. This is because string theory allows for the consistent combination of quantum field theory and general relativity, agrees with general insights in quantum gravity (such as the holographic principle and black hole thermodynamics), and because it has passed many non-trivial checks of its internal consistency

Again it is merely an attempt to explain the data we do have of our universe, but it also brings into being some things that cannot be tested.

Of course I've wondered, but I've never thought for a second that I should believe that what kind of universe I can imagine has any probability of all of actually being able to exist. Yet another gigantic assumption that I think is being made in the fine-tuning argument is the assumption that we can change these constants and all of the natural laws apply and work the same way they do in this universe. What is the basis and justification for that assumption?

A fact that we have both determined for ouselves, is that the assumption exists due to the stable mathematical models they have built where these constants are different. You will not find any discussion on the possibility that the constants are interrelated or cannot come out any other way but in they way they came out in our universe. You do realize that if such a common denominator is found it ultimately undermines a multiverse?

The way I'm reading it, we might be equivocating a little on 'nothing' in this statement. I don't know that we can really discuss 'causes' without assuming some type of 'time', so keep that framework in mind with my following sentences (unless of course that assumption is the flaw in my statements here). I don't think that 'the universe came from nothing' translates to what we usually mean by 'nothing existed before the big bang'; the latter statement implies that nothing ever existed before the big bang. If something can come from nothing, then can't that something also become nothing, isn't that an implication of 'the energy of the universe nets to zero', and also what I thought might happen if universes are configured in such a way that a 'big crunch' occurs? Thus it could be cyclical, something becoming nothing becoming something forever, and thus this cycle could have always existed, just like God is asserted to have?

The way that time is reckoned in the space time continuum depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer. In the case of our universe any particle or object that moves through space must do so within a time frame which would give us its acceleration or velocity, since neither particles nor space existed before the big bang, both being a result of the big bang through inflation and coalescing of energy into matter states that gave us the observable universe and its equivalent dark matter. We cannot speak of time before this event because we have no way of knowing what things were like before that event. There are no mathematical models describing that state, there are no proofs regarding that moment. There are anly hypothesis as to how this state caused the big bang. The only thing that we can confidently state is that the universe did have a beginning and that time came into existence after the big bang. Even if we could imagine something that is called imaginary time, we still won't know how that would influence events within the big bang.

As you say, if something came from nothing then it will eventually become nothing again. this describes perfectly my position and that of others that need to account for entropy in the universe, there is no logical reason to choose something like a big crunch, when that would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy goes downhill, it doesn't come back up without external aid. Thus the logical consequence of the universe is heat death, not a crunch. It also means that there is only one cycle in the universe and none other.

Naturally there may be something that I'm missing here that would change the equation, but I can't see it.

No, it doesn't have to be immaterial, scientists have no idea how or if 'nothing' applies outside of our universe, or that our universe contains all the 'material' that exists. They have just said that, given our current hypotheses, our universe didn't necessarily have to come from something. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, including whether there is some kind of meta- or other space-time. If you really want to adhere to the 'truth' that nothing existed before the big bang well then I guess we've settled that god then didn't exist, since god is 'something'; if you want to make an exception to that 'truth', then to be consistent you then have to allow for other 'somethings' to exist. You can't have it both ways without special pleading.

I would think that there is an error in your thinking here in that you are needing to attribute to God a "something" for him to exist, why is that so, Why does a non-material mind need to have something there for it to exist? As I said earlier an immaterial being that is beyond, matter, space and time can exist outside of the very conditions necessitated by the existence of our universe. How that could actually be, I haven't the faintest idea. But the opposite view, needs a meta-time, a meta-universe, and meta-matter something that they cannot actually demonstrate except as a leap of the imagination.

It is the basic idea that matter must of neccessity come 1st, only afterward can one have mind and information, I on the other hand believe that mind and information must of neccessity have come 1st.

Whoa whoa, it doesn't mean that at all. You just listed that a non-mind fit the category and then immediately say essentially, 'therefore intelligence existed before matter', that leap really does require some fleshing out.

Yes I did because logic dictates that an abstract object has no influence at all and can neither move forward or back or create or uncreate, and those things are essential to actually create something from nothing, don't you think? Only an immaterial mind, that is not actually bound to the universe (space and time) could make it come about.

#3 seems to be really just a restatement of #1; the fine tuning argument in this context relies on the probabilities being unlikely, if they are not, the fine tuning argument doesn't really have much to do with dieties. As I thought you had already admitted, fine tuning, assuming it's not an illusion, can currently be explained by invoking a largely unevidenced multiverse or a largely unevidenced god, so on it's own, it doesn't lead us to favor one over the other. I've searched this thread for all your references to the golden ratio, and I honestly don't know what you are talking about with your invocation of 'coincidence' here. I looked also on wiki and unlike a lot of other entries, the golden ratio one does not include a blurb concerning why this might be an argument for a god. You seem to think that it is remarkable or improbable that we should find the golden ratio so prevalently in nature, on what basis exactly? Please provide your explanation of what you were actually expecting, and on what basis. You were expecting some other ratio? If you have no ground for expecting any other values in these different areas of nature, then where does the 'coincidence' come from? Right now, this seems like someone long ago stating, 'isn't it remarkable that so many mammals in arctic regions have white fur? We know that mammals can have fur of all different colors, and it just so happens that every animal in snowy regions has white fur? The odds are huge against that.'. But of course, the odds are not huge against that, they're actually quite favorable. But again, I'm not sure the details on the 'golden ratio, therefore God' argument so not sure if that's an accurate analogy.

So basically you are asking me for the reason why I invoke the golden ratio?

Basically, the golden ratio is found everywher in the universe, it is like the underlining law that makes this universe exist in the form it does. Think of lego blocks, with them we can build anything but they all have different sizes, so even though you can have very distinct objects their building blocks are made of the same thing. The golden ration goes one step further, no matter what things are made of, they will always adhere to a specific ratio in terms of structure.

The DNA molecule in which all the physical features of living things are stored, has also been created in a form based on the golden ratio. DNA consists of two intertwined perpendicular helixes.

The length of the curve in each of these helixes is 34 angstroms and the width 21 angstroms. (1 angstrom is one hundred millionth of a centimeter.)21 and 34 are two consecutive Fibonacci numbers.

The golden ratio also manifests itself in crystal structures. Most of these are in structures too minute to be seen with the naked eye. Yet you can see the golden ratio in snowflakes. The various long and short variations and protrusions that comprise the snowflake, all yield the golden ratio.

http://www.wellaware...ibonaccipdf.pdf

Well the golden ratio is found not only in living organisms but in things like galaxies. It is found at the quantum level of existence. Now this ratio could be seen as a signature of the designer of this universe, since it is absolutely everywhere one looks, in our very DNA, in nature, in music in our concept of symmetry and beauty. It doesn't just occur randomly in some places, the entire observable material universe depends on this constant, from the nano scale to the macro scale.

And if I can make a request, please do not reply to my questions of this nature with videos. It is entirely cool and legit to back up what you say concerning science with quotations and videos, and I appreciate you taking the time to find and post them as many are interesting. And it's great that you post videos that are essentially, 'here's something that you might also find interesting concerning this topic', again, thanks for your trouble. But the problem with them is two-fold. First, I usually am asking very specific questions and my question may be discussed, and then only indirectly, in just a small portion of the overall video so I'd rather not slog through 7 minutes of discussion if my point is only addressed indirectly in 1 minute of it. Most importantly though, I'm more interested in having a conversation with you, not youtube. I realize though that you may have gone over many of these questions before in previous conversations where you detailed your argument, so feel free to either just paste those responses or just let me know that they actually exist and where I might find them and I'm happy to search for myself and try to track them down.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't... :no:

I'll try to refrain from adding more videos, but as I stated, some things can better be explained by them rather than a hefty paragraph or two of my own. And sisnce I have explained this at least twice before, it also gets frustrating when the same question gets asked later on by someone else, or even by the very same poster I responded to. I even added a video of the golden ratio being the

at the very beginning of the discussion
I don't disagree that neither are testable, but it absolutely does not follow that the chances are even, we don't know. I'm going to use chance to determine a number between 2 and 12 (this range of values may indicate to you how I'm likely going to determine this number) but not let you know how I'm going to do that; it doesn't follow at all that we should think that the likelihood of, oh let me just choose a number at random, a 7 coming up being 1 in 11. And I disagree, Occam's razor has to do with the evaluation of two propositions neither of which requires proof, but that may be tangential to our conversation here. Regardless, you have made clear that your argument is not that the odds are even between the multiverse and god explanations, you have specifically stated that you find god to be a better explanation.

Yes I do, because of everything that I have explained. It is the simpler and more elegant explanation and it requires the least ammount of propositions to come up with an explanation. It doesn't mean its correct, but in regards to the rest, it is honestly the better explantion.

Ha, indeed! And of course as we all know, if it's on the internet, it must be true! ;)

Well if you know of any other studies that come up with a different and better answer please share.

Agreed, it would be very interesting to have that type of information, I haven't seen anything either. But this seems to be a very relevant point to resolve prior to arguing how other universes may work, probabilities of constants having values, etc, at least to avoid the kind of errors as seen in the 'white fur in the arctic is an unlikely coincidence' analogy above. A lot of the scientists you have quoted seem to always include the words 'if' and 'seems to be' and other hedging words, but these aren't always reflected in your translations.

So in sum, the main dispute I have with you is that god is a better explanation than a multiverse. I think it's actually the opposite, the multiverse at least posits more of something we do know exists, a universe, which gives it a leg up on god.

I can only disagree with your view but you can certainly claim it legitimately as the other side of the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor-el then said:

I think you really need to decide whether Hawking's thoughts are relevant or not, because right now your argument here seems to be indulging in a little confirmation bias. Some of his statements are bull because you find him 'presumptious' (can I just wave away your quotes from physicists if I can find something presumptious they said?), but you're more than happy to accept some of other statements despite this. And not-so-remarkably, the statements that are bull are the ones that just happen to disagree with your opinion and the ones that are not bull are the ones that agree with you ('even he admits design is apparent').

No, he's not, that's what priests do. He's explaining his theory and opinion. Again, you seem to not see the following words when you then try to restate what his position is: 'if', 'appear to have', 'could'. Those are not the words of most clergy. But in a way, you are also just demonstrating that as far as God is concerned, this whole discussion is moot. You can play the, 'but what created that?' game endlessly. If we show that the multiverse does exist, is that going to be evidence against god's existence? I sincerely doubt it, it just means he created some other way. The reason you could respond with that is that the god hypothesis is unburdened by having any evidence for it's existence with which we could compare to find something inconsistent. I'm personally not too impressed with largely unfalsifiable positions, which is unlike atheism which can be refuted in myriad ways.

Ha ha, yes yes, they dole out awards and employ people as professors at Cambridge just if they are smart, not real smart. If I can find a quote from Paul Davies indicating that he believes Hawking is 'real smart', can I just ignore all your quotes from him because Davies is then presumptious? And please quote anyone here who takes the existence of the multiverse as 'gospel' while using that word consistently with how priests take things as 'gospel'.

Stephen Hawking is not someone I dismiss, I respect his views, but I am also aware just how much people take his word for things and then proceed to believe them as pure fact that cannot be contradicted, I have issues with that. I have issues with the man himself, while a very good theoretical physicist and cosmologist, also uses arguments that are philosphical in nature while at the same time declaring that philosophy is dead. So yes I do see inconsistency in his work and in his arguments. His persoanl beliefs are being brought to light alongside his professional judgements. He could do his work and not once actually bring up the subject of God, he does so by choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply do not see why a designed universe is any more likely than a chance universe. That is all. Simple as that. The more I research it, the more I look into it, the more I understand that a creator or designer is simply not necessary.

There are a practically infinite number of designed universes capable of supporting life. There is a perfectly finite number of undesigned universes capable of supporting life.

Which do you think you are a part of? That is all. Simple as that. I'd be the last person to tell you that a designer was necessary, but it's definitely likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Design does not require a designer, and even then we have no real basis for claiming design: accident and circumstance are enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who ask questions like, "What's outside the universe?" reveal the fact that they can't think outside their parochial little box. The same applies to people who assert that the universe has to have a cause. You think you are so important that it's our job to convince you when the fact is you just simply lack imagination and the ability to think outside the physics you learned as a baby.

Good point. The physics we know could be just a small part of a much bigger picture. Physicists currently only understand about 4% of what the universe is made of. The other 96% they theorize about but they do not know. We could be looking at it all wrong. The universe could be far stranger than we think it is. Right now with the understanding that we have claiming that a designer is absolutely required is rather naive in my opinion because there is so much we do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. The physics we know could be just a small part of a much bigger picture. Physicists currently only understand about 4% of what the universe is made of. The other 96% they theorize about but they do not know. We could be looking at it all wrong. The universe could be far stranger than we think it is. Right now with the understanding that we have claiming that a designer is absolutely required is rather naive in my opinion because there is so much we do not know.

Well let me put it this way, at this time amid all the conjecture, the designer argument is the one that has the strongest basis upholding it... it is rather incredible that a book like the bible that has so consistently been criticized and taken apart over the last century and a half is actually spot on an a creation from nothing argument.

Contrary to all the old school Platonic and Aristotelian beliefs that the universe was eternal. It even goes against the Ancient Near Eastern beliefs that the universe came from chaos and disorder and that order was imposed by the gods. So it may be naive and premature, but at this time it is without doubt the best argument around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At best, the concept implies that something that can create exists. It need not be a 'being' or sentient entity of any sort. Likewise any type of 'out' from this rule that you wish to apply to this hypothesized creator we can apply to these non-sentient things also; if you want to say that 'things' like this creator may have always existed, and thereby doesn't require a creator himself, there's no reason why a non-sentient thing/natural law/creation force can't also have always existed. A sentient Creator is not the only possible implication and seems no better than a non-sentient one.

Every thing or every one that exists can create. What I mean is that something cannot have created itself into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is outside of our universe? You don't know. Nobody does. So you do not now that it would be necessary for the universe to cause itself. This is only your opinion. Explain and show the me equations that prove that the universe could not 'cause itself' (can you define what you mean here, exactly?) into existence and #1 you will probably win a Nobel prize in physics, and #2 you would convince me.

Be my guest because I am going to prove to you by means of Logic that the universe or anything cannot have caused itself into existence. For something to cause itself into existence it must exist first. If it already exists it does not need to cause itself into existence. Therefore the universe could not have caused itself into existence because it did not exist prior to that action. Clear enough? I think one must read more than several times to catch the piece of the puzzle. Again in the form of a question: How can something cause itself into existence if it does not exist? Needless to say, the Creator has to be outside the universe to cause the universe into existence or expand it further.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Design does not require a designer, and even then we have no real basis for claiming design: accident and circumstance are enough.

How could there be design without a designer? It is like having a house without a builder of that house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let me put it this way, at this time amid all the conjecture, the designer argument is the one that has the strongest basis upholding it... it is rather incredible that a book like the bible that has so consistently been criticized and taken apart over the last century and a half is actually spot on an a creation from nothing argument.

Still posting empty statements I see. As much as you delude yourself, the creation "argument" found in the Bible isn't even close (hint: the universe came from God). However if you think that is the most supported, you haven't been paying attention to the evidence. Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still posting empty statements I see. As much as you delude yourself, the creation "argument" found in the Bible isn't even close (hint: the universe came from God). However if you think that is the most supported, you haven't been paying attention to the evidence.

Rlyeh, I thought for a moment that you had left the discussion, couldn't resist the temptation could you? :tu:

The only empty statements I've seen have actually been yours, at least all the others had the decency to discuss the subject at hand. They did not insult their oponent even when disagreeing with him, kudos to them. I really enjoyed debating this subject with them. All in all I hope you learnt something.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlyeh, I thought for a moment that you had left the discussion, couldn't resist the temptation could you? :tu:

I had. I thought I'd see if you came up with any better arguments since, but no, still clutching at straws and non-existent evidence. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had. I thought I'd see if you came up with any better arguments since, but no, still clutching at straws and non-existent evidence.

Your belief (which is all it really is) is not superior to mine. But enough of that, I won't be found guilty of bad manners to other members of this forum. Good luck and all that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.