God is real.

Original post by DavidMIliband

How did god come from nothing? your argument has a contradiction.

This is a mistake because there is no reason to think God came from nothing. He could be a being which cannot not be. This is an at least plausible definition of God, and i think less plausible as a function of the definition of material matter.

However, the actual problem with Op's "argument" is that why couldn't there have always never not been some physical thing ( and we don't even have to think about necessity here, as the universe/existence of things could contingently have existed infinitely. Possibly, maybe that's a place to start a debate) so he hasn't shown why it is necessary that the universe started from nothing.

Reply 28

sleepysnooze

3

Original post by Eggs20

How can you get something out of nothing?

Exactly you can't thus god is real.

End of discussion.

how did a god create something (the universe) out of nothing? your god of the gaps really isn't a logical explanation for anything at all. it could be the case that something existed before the universe, *or* something *did* come from nothing - but the role of a deity doesn't exist here. you have to press him into the equation against any kind of necessity.

Reply 29

Original post by Onde

The OP assumes that a) the laws of thermodynamics are falsifiable b) that something must always have a cause and c) that something which is apparently inexplicable must be caused by something which is logically impossible.

A) I his assumption (which I think A refers to) that something cannot come from nothing is nothing to do with the physical laws of energy and more to do with the metaphysical assumption that something cannot come from nothing (the onus is on anyone who disagrees with that to refute it tbh).

B) Actually, his assumption here can be refined to, in light of quantum mechanics etc, everything must have a cause for its existence if it exists. Well, again, that's an intuitive enough premise to warrant an argument to not accept it.

C) So any definition of any Creator God of any description is logically impossible? So you can go through every single possible definition of a God, as long as it creates the universe, and find some contradiction in all of them????

Reply 30

TeaAndTextbooks

Evolution can't even explain where the XY sex chromosomes came from. Thus science is flawed and God is real! Also there's nothing to lose if you believe in God but there is eternal damnation to gain if you don't believe in Him and He does exist, which he does. But at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So go ahead believe what u want. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would believe in God.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

yasaminO_o

11

Original post by TeaAndTextbooks

Evolution can't even explain where the XY sex chromosomes came from. Thus science is flawed and God is real! Also there's nothing to lose if you believe in God but there is eternal damnation to gain if you don't believe in Him and He does exist, which he does. But at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So go ahead believe what u want. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would believe in God.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It can though lmao

Reply 32

Original post by Onde

If god is real, then metaphysics doesn't come into it. The onus is on those who believe in the metaphysical to prove such things exist, not on everybody else. 1

God does not even need to be disproved, because "god" does not even qualify as a hypothesis: a feasible explanation for a series of observations. 2

That every effect must have a cause is an assumption: an assumption that has proved very useful for us, but an assumption all the same. For hypothetical first causes, it is isn't possible to determine if it absolutely has nothing preceding it. 3

Finally, god, as all supernatural entities are, is a logically impossible concept. To say that something contravenes the laws of nature is an oxymoron. Either it is within the laws of nature, or it does not exist.4

This post is confused.

1. ...I'm not sure what this even means. "If God is real then our reasoning of definitions doesn't come into it" is just a silly point. And if you think that metaphysics is meaningless, you're too late logical verificationism was disproven about 70 years ago. We have model logics which give us paramitres to meaningfully discuss metaphysical concepts.

2. Of course "God" isn't a hypothesis. You do not posit a single object as a hypotheses. That would be like positing "An electron" as a hypothesis in quantum theory, which is absurd. So I really don't see what you're getting at here.

3. Assume some definition of God which entail's its necessary permanence, and everything else's contingency (ontological dependence) towards it. You have just determined logically that no prior cause could have caused this being, if it did exist. And sure, we'll struggle to prove causation, but any theist who made an argument that logically entailed God if we merely accept that some form of causation exists would be a very, very happy theist. An outright rejection of the premise requires some argument, not just "it's logically possible that it's not true".

4. This is silly. Suppose you trivial and superficial definitions, which you imply, are true. Then God, as an entity which exists, is not supernatural. You'll argue that but God IS supernatural, and therefore (by definitions we wouldn't hold to), God CAN'T exist. Well, what aspect of the definition of supernatural precludes God's not being natural if supernaturalism is to do with ontology? To define that term in a way so as to preclude ANY definition of God you'll have to resort to ridiculous definitions like "for any object X, if object X is in anyway Godlike, X does not exist" and you'll have to resort to defining Godlike to mean anything you can think of that could be conceived as a good.

And obviously, you'll have just resorted asserting that "anything i think can be called a god doesn't exist, according to my ultra special definition" which is ridiculous.

Reply 33

Ashtar

1

Science can't explain how life originated

Reply 34

samendrag

Original post by Eggs20

He made himself obv.

So god can make himself out of nothing and the universe can't? The word 'obv' is completely wrong it is not 'obv' at all, in fact it has talking thelogists since the beginning of human thinking and they are still having debates. So for you to say obv, is really disrespectful and frankly just shows your ignornace

Reply 35

samendrag

Original post by Ashtar

No, God always existed

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. If God existed before the Universe, you are saying that god existed in nothingness. That makes no sense.
And you are saying that god exists because if he 'always' existed then he must have existed before the Universe began (approx 14 billion years ago). Plus you can say 'always' cos 'always' is a word relating to time and time only began after big bang, before it there was no time, relative to us.

Reply 36

Ashtar

1

Original post by samendrag

If God existed before the Universe

Who said the universe started with the big bang ? There is no scientific proof of that.

Reply 37

The Assassin

18

Original post by banterboy

This post is confused.

1. ...I'm not sure what this even means. "If God is real then our reasoning of definitions doesn't come into it" is just a silly point. And if you think that metaphysics is meaningless, you're too late logical verificationism was disproven about 70 years ago. We have model logics which give us paramitres to meaningfully discuss metaphysical concepts.

2. Of course "God" isn't a hypothesis. You do not posit a single object as a hypotheses. That would be like positing "An electron" as a hypothesis in quantum theory, which is absurd. So I really don't see what you're getting at here.

3. Assume some definition of God which entail's its necessary permanence, and everything else's contingency (ontological dependence) towards it. You have just determined logically that no prior cause could have caused this being, if it did exist. And sure, we'll struggle to prove causation, but any theist who made an argument that logically entailed God if we merely accept that some form of causation exists would be a very, very happy theist. An outright rejection of the premise requires some argument, not just "it's logically possible that it's not true".

4. This is silly. Suppose you trivial and superficial definitions, which you imply, are true. Then God, as an entity which exists, is not supernatural. You'll argue that but God IS supernatural, and therefore (by definitions we wouldn't hold to), God CAN'T exist. Well, what aspect of the definition of supernatural precludes God's not being natural if supernaturalism is to do with ontology? To define that term in a way so as to preclude ANY definition of God you'll have to resort to ridiculous definitions like "for any object X, if object X is in anyway Godlike, X does not exist" and you'll have to resort to defining Godlike to mean anything you can think of that could be conceived as a good.

And obviously, you'll have just resorted asserting that "anything i think can be called a god doesn't exist, according to my ultra special definition" which is ridiculous.

what a superb post. You a philosophy student by any chance?

Reply 38

Original post by Onde

My definition wasn't especially special, and I really do not see why a single object (as vague as you are being in defining it) cannot be the subject of a hypothesis.

If you are telling me that an omnipotent, omnipresent entity exists in my halls, based on your observations, that certainly would qualify as a hypothesis. I can tell you however that no such entity has ever been observed in any of the places where it has been supposed to exist, in any measurable display of force.

If god is real, by definition, it would be a physical phenomenon (...and would thus be contrary to the definition of god, so yes, an oxymoron: I DID say this). Try to demonstrate the metaphysical if you wish, but I should tell you it would be self-defeating. Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics.

Because a hypothesis has to at least contain a sentence. "God created the universe" could be one, but merely "God"? No.

So, you're committed to both A: That non physical object are logically impossible (they can exist in no possible world, merely saying the sentence entails some contradiction) and that B: that it's literally impossible to define God as physical. Controversial.

Reply 39

samendrag