Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does God Exist?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. Therefore matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe. No?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DoctorVertigo)
    If the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. Therefore matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe. No?
    True. According to the laws of physics that we currently know. Try asking again in 100 years and maybe it'll be the same, or maybe it'll be different. Who knows what advancements physics will make in that time.

    The trouble with using science to disprove religion is that science has in fact disproved itself many times.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DoctorVertigo)
    If the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. Therefore matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe. No?
    I think you're thinking of the more general law of conservation of energy - the first law of thermodynamics although closely related is much more specific and to do with the relationship between work and heat.

    Anyway - there may be some things in the observable universe which do explain the origin of energy and matter. There are models in which the universe has zero total density - if there are regions of negative density that would support this. We haven't observed obvious regions of negative density, but there are great voids in space where we can't see anything, so who knows. It's also possible that such regions could be separated from us, maybe even beyond our cosmic horizon due to the effects of inflation.

    Another possibility is that the energy was already there - a primeval singularity of some sort which decayed would fit the bill. This is essentially the original idea behind the big bang. If the universe turns out to be closed, which seems unlikely but is not totally ruled out, that lends credence to the idea because the whole thing will eventually collapse back into one big singularity (and potentially explode again at some point in the future).

    The last option is that the energy came 'from' somewhere. Religion tends to assume this and say it came from their particular creator-god, but there are other options. The ekpyrotic scenario is a particularly exciting possibility since it also allows for other universes, and is potentially (although we don't have the technology at the moment) testable.

    The honest scientist will tell you that the universe is full of things that we don't understand, or can only begin to theorise about, and that this is indeed one of them.
    • 54 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DoctorVertigo)
    If the first law of thermodynamics tells us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. Therefore matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe. No?
    A key flaw with this reasoning is that by positing a being which can flaunt absolute universal laws, you disqualify them as absolute universal laws, thus invalidating your original premise. The correct conclusion that scientists to arrive at is that we are not currently aware of any conceivable means of creating matter/energy, the same could have been said for flight a few hundred years ago. Supposing that matter/energy are not eternal then your conclusion is right and that what we perceive as this law must have been breached, however without its own evidence suggesting it was the result of a conscious, deliberate action is just as unfounded as the next guy's idea about it popping up spontaneously. It's a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do you really believe the universe could have been created by anything other than God?
    People don't ask "Where's Da Vinci in the Mona Lisa?"
    Or "Where's Michelangelo in the Cistine Chapel?"
    The presence of the artist is expected. So why should we not expect God to have created the Universe? Ignore even the fact that the Universe exists or that we exist for the moment, look at a can of aerosol or, an even better example, your computer screen. Not only has God created life but he has created life which have the independance of free-thinking and ingenuity to think and do and act and create more and more and more.
    I find it hard to deny the existence of a God.

    P.s - I'm not a fundamental, 'hate evolution-theory' etc. Christian. I do believe in Evolution but I also believe in Creation. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidLloydGeorge)
    Do you really believe the universe could have been created by anything other than God?
    People don't ask "Where's Da Vinci in the Mona Lisa?"
    Or "Where's Michelangelo in the Cistine Chapel?"
    The presence of the artist is expected. So why should we not expect God to have created the Universe?
    Da Vinci, in your example, would have been created by your version of God. So, if we extrapolate that back to the universe (as you are doing), why should we not expect a daddy God to have created your God (other than the obvious special pleading which you will probably reply with)?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidLloydGeorge)
    Do you really believe the universe could have been created by anything other than God?
    People don't ask "Where's Da Vinci in the Mona Lisa?"
    Or "Where's Michelangelo in the Cistine Chapel?"
    The presence of the artist is expected. So why should we not expect God to have created the Universe? Ignore even the fact that the Universe exists or that we exist for the moment, look at a can of aerosol or, an even better example, your computer screen. Not only has God created life but he has created life which have the independance of free-thinking and ingenuity to think and do and act and create more and more and more.
    I find it hard to deny the existence of a God.

    P.s - I'm not a fundamental, 'hate evolution-theory' etc. Christian. I do believe in Evolution but I also believe in Creation. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive.
    What makes you assume that the universe is created? I don't look at the perfect shape of a sand bar, or the smoothness of a wave cut platform and think 'this is a creation of an intelligent being'. Both wave cut platforms and sand bars have order, but neither are designed - is it so unlikely that the Universe simply arose from the natural laws of physics?
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    Da Vinci, in your example, would have been created by your version of God. So, if we extrapolate that back to the universe (as you are doing), why should we not expect a daddy God to have created your God (other than the obvious special pleading which you will probably reply with)?
    Because his god is special, and because he assumes the conclusion god and doesn't follow his line of reasoning down any other avenue.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes, HE exists! Will this topic ever get to an end? I don't think so. Do you people really foresee?
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perky.)
    Yes, HE exists! Will this topic ever get to an end? I don't think so. Do you people really foresee?
    So, you know for certain he exists?

    Please supply your proof.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perky.)
    Yes, HE exists! Will this topic ever get to an end? I don't think so. Do you people really foresee?
    Foresee what?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    That's exactly what's wrong with your reasoning, knowledge is not defined by mathematical probability and can change.
    Actually from using mathematical terms you can prove that something can happen randomly and that nothing can come from nothing, just as I believe a 'God' made the universe from nothing (Ex Nihilo). From factorial notation, 0! = 1 which basically means that there is still some 'thing' on the outside despite the fact we can't see the 'thing' on the inside!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by As_Dust_Dances_)
    Actually from using mathematical terms you can prove that something can happen randomly and that nothing can come from nothing, just as I believe a 'God' made the universe from nothing (Ex Nihilo). From factorial notation, 0! = 1 which basically means that there is still some 'thing' on the outside despite the fact we can't see the 'thing' on the inside!
    People "knew" the earth was flat. They "knew" there was the ether. We currently "know" that smoking causes cancer. I "know" god doesn't exist. We base what we know on the evidence we have, and clearly it is possible for that subset of information to change.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    People "knew" the earth was flat. They "knew" there was the ether. We currently "know" that smoking causes cancer. I "know" god doesn't exist. We base what we know on the evidence we have, and clearly it is possible for that subset of information to change.
    Of course anything can change, but I guess we'll only discover the real truth in the afterlife.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by As_Dust_Dances_)
    Actually from using mathematical terms you can prove that something can happen randomly and that nothing can come from nothing, just as I believe a 'God' made the universe from nothing (Ex Nihilo). From factorial notation, 0! = 1 which basically means that there is still some 'thing' on the outside despite the fact we can't see the 'thing' on the inside!
    This is rubbish. 0!=1 but that has absolutely nothing to do with something from nothing. It seems like you're just trying to use something that sounds technical ("factorial notiation") to make your claim sound more valid than it is. By the way, are you claiming that something can come from nothing? I think you accidentally a word.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    People "knew" the earth was flat. They "knew" there was the ether. We currently "know" that smoking causes cancer. I "know" god doesn't exist. We base what we know on the evidence we have, and clearly it is possible for that subset of information to change.
    People also 'didn't know' things too, and still today we don't have definite answers to some things such as whether God exists or not, but because in today's age Science has such a big influence on our lives, many people tend to take a more scientific approach to life rather than a Religious one, hence the amount of criticism that Religion does tend to receive. And for your point about smoking causing cancer, we do know that from the evidence we've got in today's society that some people who don't smoke or drink in their lives still unfortunately get cancer. Lot's of diseases have been cured though that have taken the lives of millions like Polio. I do pray that there will be some kind of a cure for cancer. With technology improving rapidly and more people going into research to fight cancer, I hope that someday in the future there will be somebody that will be divinely guided and a cure will happen.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    This is rubbish. 0!=1 but that has absolutely nothing to do with something from nothing. It seems like you're just trying to use something that sounds technical ("factorial notiation") to make your claim sound more valid than it is. By the way, are you claiming that something can come from nothing? I think you accidentally a word.
    I wasn't suggesting that 0! = 1 itself is a valid explanation, I was trying to explain why the idea of 'nothing' is still 'something' and even if you look at this sentence the word 'nothing' still has an impact. And so yes, I am 'claiming that something can come from nothing'. Multiplying anything by 0 is nothing yet something still remains! The greatest number can also only be obtained in division as you get closer to 0. This is also suggests that the idea of 'nothing' must be greater than the idea of 'something', meaning there must be a nothing (God) for something (universe) to exist.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by As_Dust_Dances_)
    I wasn't suggesting that 0! = 1 itself is a valid explanation, I was trying to explain why the idea of 'nothing' is still 'something' and even if you look at this sentence the word 'nothing' still has an impact. And so yes, I am 'claiming that something can come from nothing'. Multiplying anything by 0 is nothing yet something still remains! The greatest number can also only be obtained in division as you get closer to 0. This is also suggests that the idea of 'nothing' must be greater than the idea of 'something', meaning there must be a nothing (God) for something (universe) to exist.
    This really does sound like quackery. In fact, it sounds like an english lit class studying a maths text book.

    I think you're just choosing a ridiculous way to say that something can come from nothing and that God is required for the universe to exist.

    As for me, I don't think it's possible that there was nothingness and then from that, something came into existence. I don't think that God is a satisfactory answer for why there is something rather than nothing because a) there's no justification and b) it doesn't get to the heart of the issue which is answering the question of why anything (gods, universes, etc) exists.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes because we don't really understand infinity and that's where the question of who created the creator doesn't make sense because you cannot apply the infinite regress in this situation.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cringe)
    Yes because we don't really understand infinity and that's where the question of who created the creator doesn't make sense because you cannot apply the infinite regress in this situation.
    So, special pleading fallacy this time?
Updated: August 21, 2012
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.