The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dima-Blackburn
The canonical version gives this definition.


Your OED link gives:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
Original post by Good bloke
Your OED link gives:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.


Yes, while the QED's "lack of belief" definition has been an idiosyncrasy, that particular definition is consistent with the "positive atheism" definition used by pretty much every other dictionary.
That must have been someone else
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Not really. You said: "...cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe". If true, this would make cosmology obsolete. But this is absurd. You've erroneously conflated causality with the inductive generalisations known as the laws of physics.



The purpose of the previous example was to show that causality isn't limited to the physical realm or tangible objects. If the "creation" of the universe is a result of a logical entailment of some sort, then that would atemporal causation. I don't have to give an example of atemporal cause/effect within a temporal world, but I'm guessing the main contention you have is the lack of "temporal lag" between a cause and its effect; this can be resolved by looking at simultaneous causation. Again, there are differing thoughts on that too. See the philpapers link for contemporary literature on the subject.



But no one is assuming that. You're conflating the principle of causality/reason/explanation with the known laws of physics again.



Nothingness by definition cannot be something; it can have no properties, no attributes, no potential, no anything. Disputing this is about as rational as disputing the claim "Oil is oily". When physicists talk about the possibility of universes "coming from nothing", they redefine nothing to mean some sort of a quantum vacuum that has potential - it is very much "something". Even so, not all physicists agree with the central proposal:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091


Why would it make cosmology obsolete? If causality is generally agreed to be temporally bound then in the absence of time it starts to stop making sense.

When the only example of atemporal causation you can give that would do something like 'create' a universe is the 'creation' of the universe itself then isn't that just special pleading?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
This is what causality I am referring to, note that it ceases to function in the absence of time.

Why do you say that nothing has by definition no potential? Why do you choose that definition?
Original post by Robby2312
The point is that no one believes in ancient gods anymore.Give it a few thousand years probably less and nobody will believe in the judeo christian god.He'll just be one more dead god on the scrapheap who was once thought immortal.


But that can't happen though. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is not limited by time.
Original post by davidoriakhi
But that can't happen though. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is not limited by time.


What you mean to say is that preists and clergy have agreed he is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end.That doesnt mean he is.More likely he is just one of many gods mankind has dreamed up over the years.
Original post by D3LLI5
for the sake of showing why your analogy is inaccurate,

Why *must* someone have put the cake there?


Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...
Original post by Robby2312
What you mean to say is that preists and clergy have agreed he is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end.That doesnt mean he is.More likely he is just one of many gods mankind has dreamed up over the years.


I suggest you learn how to spell before bringing up any point, so everyone can understand you and what you're trying to say (which still does not make sense).
The same thing can go for the big-bang theory. Were the scientists there when two random particles from a singularity collided? Were YOU there? Just because they said it dosen't mean its real. And even the evidence they bring forth has a vast number of uncertainties.
And there are many loopholes in that theory, just trying to make you guys feel like you know what happened whereas you know nothing.
God is the answer, you don't need to agree with him it's your choice. Just don't come up with random stuff and listen to scientists who are not sure themselves.
God bless.
Original post by davidoriakhi
Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...


Maybe the cake has always been there but was previously invisible, rather like your god. After all, if the god can be there why can't a cake?
Original post by davidoriakhi
Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...


Because of the conservation of energy, which only applies in this universe.
Original post by davidoriakhi
I suggest you learn how to spell before bringing up any point, so everyone can understand you and what you're trying to say (which still does not make sense).
The same thing can go for the big-bang theory. Were the scientists there when two random particles from a singularity collided? Were YOU there? Just because they said it dosen't mean its real. And even the evidence they bring forth has a vast number of uncertainties.
And there are many loopholes in that theory, just trying to make you guys feel like you know what happened whereas you know nothing.
God is the answer, you don't need to agree with him it's your choice. Just don't come up with random stuff and listen to scientists who are not sure themselves.
God bless.


I'm on my phone.Sometimes I make typos ok.Its not the same thing at all just because you are not there doesnt mean you cant work out what happened.A detective doesnt have to be at a crime to work out who did it.Its the same with the big bang.We have evidence to show what happened.We know the universe is expanding so it means that once it must have been much smaller.Evidence also comes from the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was Em radiation left over from the big bang.Hydrogen and helium is present in the exact abundances which would be expected from the big bang.Its not the same at all.There is no evidence at all for god.The only evidence comes from an old book.No one even knows who wrote the bible.The only reason you believe in god is because your parents indoctrinated you who were indoctrinated by their parents and so on.

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
Original post by Robby2312
I'm on my phone.Sometimes I make typos ok.Its not the same thing at all just because you are not there doesnt mean you cant work out what happened.A detective doesnt have to be at a crime to work out who did it.Its the same with the big bang.We have evidence to show what happened.We know the universe is expanding so it means that once it must have been much smaller.Evidence also comes from the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was Em radiation left over from the big bang.Hydrogen and helium is present in the exact abundances which would be expected from the big bang.Its not the same at all.There is no evidence at all for god.The only evidence comes from an old book.No one even knows who wrote the bible.The only reason you believe in god is because your parents indoctrinated you who were indoctrinated by their parents and so on.

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.

same as you state in start of your paragraph. you use critical thinking skills to work it out. just God evidence is harder and more complex because there is less if not no emperical evidence.

just like not being there.
Original post by da_nolo
the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.


So isn't evidence at all, just a philosophical thought. Philosophy isn'ta science, nor are its hypotheses fact.
Original post by da_nolo
the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.

same as you state in start of your paragraph. you use critical thinking skills to work it out. just God evidence is harder and more complex because there is less if not no emperical evidence.

just like not being there.


Philosophy isn't evidence.Its just speculation.
Original post by saran23
Ok, that part of the challenge can be omitted. However I need real scientific evidence for the rest of your claim.


Where is the "real scientific evidence" for a benevolent God?
Original post by Good bloke
So isn't evidence at all, just a philosophical thought. Philosophy isn'ta science, nor are its hypotheses fact.


none of the other sciences can be done with out philosophy, which determines logic.

concept of atoms was first produce by thought. as was concept of gravity. these things come to be understood after scientific break through.

despite not having things to scan or feel, we can still come to reality that God may, can, and does exist.
Original post by Robby2312
Philosophy isn't evidence.Its just speculation.


not evidence because you don't want it to be? way to think inside box.
Original post by D3LLI5
Why would it make cosmology obsolete? If causality is generally agreed to be temporally bound then in the absence of time it starts to stop making sense.


I've repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case; there's no real consensus on the conditions and directionality of causality. Causality as a metaphysical principle is very much embedded in cosmology, hence the reason why physicists continue to investigate the possible causes/mechanisms for the origin of the universe; many would argue spacetime itself is an emergent phenomenon as opposed to a fundamental "background" within which causality plays out.

When the only example of atemporal causation you can give that would do something like 'create' a universe is the 'creation' of the universe itself then isn't that just special pleading?

It's not really special pleading if it's a special case, but if you can find explicit defences of simultaneous causation within the physical world in the philosophical literature (see "Causation as simultaneous and continuous" by Huemer and Kovitz for examples from physics).


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
This is what causality I am referring to, note that it ceases to function in the absence of time.


Is this supposed to be an exhaustive article on causation as a concept?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

The wiki article you posted doesn't actually say causality is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.

Why do you say that nothing has by definition no potential? Why do you choose that definition?


Because potentiality arises from something; potentiality itself is something. If there are no properties, there is no potentiality. How could nothingness be something? That would be a contradiction. But if you think genuine nothingness (as opposed to a quantum vacuum) has potential to create universes from nothing, what's preventing nothingness from creating Beethoven in my room from nothing? Why would nothingness be bound by the laws of physics?
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
I've repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case; there's no real consensus on the conditions and directionality of causality. Causality as a metaphysical principle is very much embedded in cosmology, hence the reason why physicists continue to investigate the possible causes/mechanisms for the origin of the universe; many would argue spacetime itself is an emergent phenomenon as opposed to a fundamental "background" within which causality plays out.


It's not really special pleading if it's a special case, but if you can find explicit defences of simultaneous causation within the physical world in the philosophical literature (see "Causation as simultaneous and continuous" by Huemer and Kovitz for examples from physics).



Is this supposed to be an exhaustive article on causation as a concept?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

The wiki article you posted doesn't actually say causality is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.



Because potentiality arises from something; potentiality itself is something. If there are no properties, there is no potentiality. How could nothingness be something? That would be a contradiction. But if you think genuine nothingness (as opposed to a quantum vacuum) has potential to create universes from nothing, what's preventing nothingness from creating Beethoven in my room from nothing? Why would nothingness be bound by the laws of physics?


How does a worldline exist in the absence of time or space?

Why does potentiality arise from something?

In your room there's not nothing, your room is part of the universe hence it is something.

Also how can you talk about simultaneity in the absence of time?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by D3LLI5
How does a worldline exist in the absence of time or space?

Why does potentiality arise from something?

In your room there's not nothing, your room is part of the universe hence it is something.

Also how can you talk about simultaneity in the absence of time?


The worldline is a concept useful in relativity physics, but it's not employed in quantum gravity hypotheses.

I don't understand the question.

What's restricting nothingness from creating something in something? Note: I'm not the one claiming nothingness has properties (and thus, potential). But if you're going to posit potentiality to nothingness, despite nothingness by definition precluding anything of the sort, then you need to show why nothingness is discriminatory in its production of things.

In a timeless (B-theory) view of the universe, all moments are "simultaneous". Moreover absolute simultaneity is about identifying simultaneous events at different locations in space. That's different from the simultaneous causation being discussed here, which is about whether effects can be simultaneous with their causes (which might apply at a single point in and/or at the beginning of spacetime). So I can reject absolute simultaneity without necessarily rejecting simultaneous causation.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest