The Student Room Group

Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Plantagenet Crown
There's no evidence for a creator, that's the point. Evolution has given us our senses.



I've seen a lot of Muslims use this sun example and I find it very bizarre. Firstly, Muslims believe Allah has no physical form and is unlike anything in physical reality. And as light is definitely part of physical reality, being blindingly bright cannot be a property of Allah.

Next, the light from the sun is dangerous because it's incredibly bright and our eyes haven't evolved to deal with it, nothing to do with divinity.

Moreover, why choose the sun? There are countless number of things which we CAN look at with no problem and I assume you believe God also created those. So by this weird logic we should be able to see evidence for God as we can see evidence for many other things.

Lastly, your statement is a non-sequitur. How does there not being evidence for God follow from the sun being bright?


And also, if this god was all powerful, why can't he assume a non-harmful form? By their own example looking at the sun for too long is harmful. So that must mean that god is a harmful influence? Better to be without him, me thinks. Thank god ( pun intended) that there are other rational thinkers on this thread.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Just baseless assumptions. An uncaused cause doesn't have to have the characteristics typically associated with God.

Also, this doesn't answer the question. Unless you're a pantheist then it's likely you believe God's creation is not part of himself ergo it must have been made from nothing if God was all that existed before the universe.


And what characteristics would an uncaused cause have?

The Law of Cause and Effect isn't a baseless assumption? LOL

God wasn't mad - that's what an uncaused cause means.
Original post by StrawbAri
I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.


No-one said it was a belief system but you can believe in scientific theory - belief has multiple definitions and bigotry won't change time.

If you don't understand that you can't believe in a theory then let me help you:

believe

bɪˈliːv/verbverb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing

1) accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"

synonyms:be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful
antonyms:disbelieve

accept the statement of (someone) as true."he didn't believe her"

have religious faith."there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe"

feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something."I wouldn't have believed it of Lavinia—what an extraordinary woman!"

2) hold (something) as an opinion; think.
"I believe we've already met"

synonyms:think, be of the opinion that, think it likely that, have an idea that, imagine, feel, have a feeling, hold, maintain, suspect, suppose, assume, presume, conjecture, surmise,postulate that, theorize that, conclude, come to the conclusion that, deduce;
antonyms:doubt
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
False, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. They are two independent theories. Even if it were proven that life were instigated by a magical troll evolution would continue to be true.



Not so. There are hypotheses and logical constructions that one can come up with to describe an eternal universe that also undergoes Big Bangs, the cyclical model being but one example. Whether those ideas have evidence in their favour is a different matter.


Not false. I never said they weren't two independent theories. Macroevolution can't happen without abiogenesis just like the Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe.

The universe would be eternal but the Big Bang wouldn't be.
Original post by StudyJosh
And what characteristics would an uncaused cause have?

The Law of Cause and Effect isn't a baseless assumption? LOL

God wasn't mad - that's what an uncaused cause means.


I didn't say cause and effect is an assumption. What's a baseless assumption is saying that any eternal cause would be sentient, intelligent and magical. The cause of the universe couldn't have just been an unthinking natural process.

And the topic was in the subject of nothing. Many theists try and ridicule atheists for believing something can come from nothing (and most atheists don't believe this anyway) whilst believing that their own god created everything from nothing.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by StudyJosh
Not false. I never said they weren't two independent theories. Macroevolution can't happen without abiogenesis just like the Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe.

The universe would be eternal but the Big Bang wouldn't be.


It is false. You said evolution relies on abiogenesis, it does not. The former explains how animals adapt and the latter examines how life came to be. As I said, the origin of life does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution.

"The Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe"? The Big Bang was what created our universe in its current form, not a by-product of its creation.
Original post by !!mentor!!

Actually, I never tried to link that into a big bang is happening now. I submitted that to highlight to you that if big bangs happened before the big bang, then how could there be an outside of time, since big bangs hypothetically happen continuously. I'm loving the fact that you couldn't discern that. A study of science would've given you critical thinking skills. Winning this debate against you is sooo easy.


You've lost due to Danth's law - but ANYWAY. If Big Bangs happened before the Big Bang which that thing was trying to say - it is literally just saying there was time before the Big Bang.

Original post by !!mentor!!

And no-one can state if the big bang is over or is still in the process of happening. I read a couple of articles about that a few years back which put forth that it is continuous, which i'll find and post up (oh no, more evidence).

But it goes along the lines of this:

pic.jpg

In this image, when has the explosion finished? At picture 2? Picture 10? Or at picture 20? We know there was a 'big bang' i.e sudden rapid expansion but we have no idea to what extent it will expand. We have no idea at what stage in the universe's expansion process we are in and so we don't know if the process of the big bang is over.


The Big Bang is an event which means it would have already happened. The expansion is still happening but the Big Bang is over.

Original post by !!mentor!!

At last, you show evidence of learning. It has only taken a couple of weeks. You understood that I was putting humour into my condescension (oh, by the way, that word means I talk down to you).

There's an easy way to show that it's not a made up story...evidence. Or perhaps that evidence also exists outside of the outside of time. Alongside the big band.


I understand later on you will claim you are not being rude despite the fact you admit to condescension. No-one brought up 'the outside of the outside of time' - an event can't be outside of time.

Original post by !!mentor!!

You don't have to say something to insinuate it. Again, you should refrain from using words that you don't know their application for. Something that is eternal requires time to be applied to it (by its very nature if it's eternal) and there's no evidence that the concept of eternal / eternity can exist outside of time.

If something is south of something, by the very fact it is south means it exists in a place where direction exists. If this god concept is eternal then it must exist in a place where time exists, thus this god concept can't exists outside of time if it's eternal.


But I'm disagreeing with you and saying it doesn't. I never said God is 'north' of time or he is 'infinite time' - I said he is outside of time - eternal. To use the word eternal for a different meaning doesn't mean God is in time. If I used a word saying 'in every direction' it would mean he is in a place where direction exists but to say 'in no direction' doesn't mean he's a place where direction exists - he's just out of a place where direction exists and the fact you can't comprehend shows you lack critical thinking skills not me.

Original post by !!mentor!!

Now here is the place to use the term 'strawman' (hopefully you won't take weeks to learn the appropriate usage like you did in regards to humour) argument. Those peer-reviewed studies absolutely go against what you say. I've asked multiple times for you to provide evidence for your stance and you've failed everytime. You'll likely continue to fail to provide evidence for your stance.


Not really but okay. They don't go against what I said, and what exactly do you want me to provide evidence for.

Original post by !!mentor!!

I've not asked people to educate themselves. I've asked one person, you, to educate themselves (#triggered Do you need a safe space now. Perhaps you can use a safe space outside of time? There's no safer place to be). You are not people. You're a person. One person does not make people. And i've never been anything but polite and humorous (even by your admission). Oh, how our schools have failed you since you fail to even understand that.

Perhaps you never went because there were no schools in your area. Maybe because the schools existed outside of time...hmmm.


Condescension isn't polite but if you want to pretend it is, sure. If you want to say I got triggered over a forum, then you can believe what you want but weren't you making fun of me saying LOL two posts ago. Being a pedant just wastes time. Comparing schools to God isn't funny, it just makes no sense.


Original post by !!mentor!!

Again, using 'strawman' in a place where it doesn't apply. How about this, how about we put this debate on hold whilst you go and learn about the term 'strawman' (judging by the speed of your mental uptake, I say I have a few weeks before that term registers with you). And what on earth are you talking about i.e crow?

Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Those are two separate fields. Education would have helped inform you of that.

But...but...but abiogenis exists outside of time which is why you can't find evidence, har de har.


It simply seems that you're the one that slow if you don't know how crows relate to strawmen. I never said evolution and abiogenesis are the same field - Macroevolution needs abiogenesis to exist. You're the one that needs empirical evidence for everything but when you get cornered, you just say something about it existing outside of time which only leaves us wondering how evolution could have happened.

Original post by !!mentor!!

I've never said or insinuated that because you don't accept the big bang that must mean you believe that god is the cause. I've tackled your god claim, because you out and out stated that god was the eternal first cause. You should read over your posts to keep track of what you're saying.

Again, you haven't proved me wrong. You simply made a counter-statement without evidence. Whilst you're spending weeks trying to learn the term 'strawman', you should take that time to understand the terms 'proof / prove'.


Read your own posts because you did. You started comparing me the 'Tides goes in, tide goes out, can't explain that' meme when I never implied that. You want evidence that the Big Bang isn't eternal? You actually want evidence that an event isn't eternal? LOL

That other atheist disproved it - lemme just get a quote:


Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
Without having read the full thread of comments, I would just like to point out that referring to the Big Bang as eternal, or using any other measure of time to describe the Big Bang, is inherently wrong. The Big Bang theory proposes that the Big Bang was the point at which time began; asking what came 'before' the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole - it's an inherently contradictory question. I'll quote Stephen Hawking (from The Grand Design) as he puts it far better than I ever could:

1) “In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.”

2) “The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”


Original post by !!mentor!!

Religion typically does go against science. Your posts shows this to be the case. Although people harm people, most mainstream religions encourage people to harm other people. Science doesn't. A relationship with god is one of the most harmful forces the world has ever known.

If people took christianity for what it is, then we would've had the dark ages, the persecution of scientists etc...oh wait, we did when christianity was more wide spread.


But it doesn't. Christianity doesn't encourage people to harm people. A relationship with God isn't harmful in anyway. Christianity is more widespread now than it was then and the Dark Ages was due to people

Original post by !!mentor!!

You know what's funnier, I only used the smiley face 10 times yet you felt it warranted a remark. #more triggered than John Wayne's handgun. :u:

There was nothing hypocritical about my LOL usage. I meant it...LOL.


Yeah, it was kind of worrying, but if I only used it 10 times and I'm triggered for making a remark, surely you're more triggered for making a remark about my LOL usage twice? rip

Just because you mean something doesn't mean it's not hypocritical LOL.

Original post by !!mentor!!

If it has affected you that much, perhaps you should find a safe space outside of time. But not a safe space outside of the outside of time. Because that would be ridiculous :rolleyes:
At no point did I say that the cyclic hypothesis had proof. I even said that it was a hypothesis which may be an explanation why there is no such thing as before the big bang or outside of time.

If you find hypocritical judgement embarrassing, then perhaps stop making hypocritical judgements. No need to be so easily embarrassed.


Of course it would be, because there's no outside of outside. I can't get into the outside of time yet so meh.

Bringing it up was a waste of time then.

I haven't made any hypocritical judgements. I'm not embarrassed about anything but you should be.

Original post by !!mentor!!

I've not been rude at all and I don't think you have either. Perhaps working on your sensitivity would improve state of mind?

You've not asked me about how i consider my actions in relation to consequences. How can you assume to misrepresent them if you don't know what my beliefs about consequences are? Oh yeah, that's because you're happy assume a position without evidence. All you had to do was ask but we can't have you using evidence to prove your position, can we?

I've already given a counter-counter-statement as to how the big bang can be considered to be ongoing (i'll find the links soon). And the cyclic hypothesis is an counter argument to the outside of time concept as I explained above. This has as much weight as the god delusion.

Multiverses aside, I don't put faith in anything. I base my position on evidence and facts, not faith. Try it and find enlightenment.


Just because I think you're being rude in general, doesn't mean I would personally take effect. It's just funny how you think condescension isn't rude in anyway.

Just like when you tried to make the point the Big Bang was eternal. I'm allowed to make assumptions until they are proven wrong. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF AN ASSUMPTION LOL.

assume: suppose to be the case, without proof.

Whether you can consider the Big Bang to be on-going through that theory (even though you said it had 0 proof which you constantly need, right?) - it doesn't mean it's eternal so you still failed. Cyclic Hypothesis has nothing to do with the Metacosm so idk wut ur talking about.

If you're all about facts and evidence, how can you accept macroevolution when you don't even know how it could have happened seeing as abiogenesis has no empirical evidence or proof.

Your misconceptions of Christianity mean nothing to God's judgement so you can hold them as long as you want.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I didn't say cause and effect is an assumption. What's a baselsss assumption is saying that any eternal cause would be sentient, intelligent and magical. The cause of the universe couldn't have just been an unthinking natural process.

And the topic was in the subject of nothing. Many theists try and ridicule atheists for believing something can come from nothing (and most atheists don't believe this anyway) whilst believing that their own god created everything from nothing.


There's nothing magical about him - we can assume the uncaused cause had the abilities and powers to cause the other causes.

They believe their God is something and so the nothing came from something which was God.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It is false. You said evolution relies on abiogenesis, it does not. The former explains how animals adapt and the latter examines how life came to be. As I said, the origin of life does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution.

"The Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe"? The Big Bang was what created our universe in its current form, not a by-product of its creation.


I quote from the RationalWiki:

In spite of its name, the Big Bang theory says nothing about how the Universe first came into being. In other words, it says nothing about the Big Bang itself. All it says is "OK, we know the laws of physics at these energy scales, so we can extrapolate back to around 10-43 seconds, but beyond that we have no idea what happened; we'd need a quantum theory of gravity for that."

and

As Brian Greene put it, "A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."[20] You could say that the Big Bang theory is to the origin of the universe what the theory of evolution is to abiogenesis.
[emphasis mine]
Original post by StudyJosh
There's nothing magical about him - we can assume the uncaused cause had the abilities and powers to cause the other causes.

They believe their God is something and so the nothing came from something which was God.


I don't know why you're denying that God is described by virtually all cultures as magical. Calling him omnipotent and whatever else is just posher ways of saying he has magical powers.

No, that doesn't work because God didn't create everything from himself, did he? The main religions are very clear that God is completely separate from his creation.

Only pantheists can say that God created everything from himself.
Original post by StudyJosh
I quote from the RationalWiki:

In spite of its name, the Big Bang theory says nothing about how the Universe first came into being. In other words, it says nothing about the Big Bang itself. All it says is "OK, we know the laws of physics at these energy scales, so we can extrapolate back to around 10-43 seconds, but beyond that we have no idea what happened; we'd need a quantum theory of gravity for that."

and

As Brian Greene put it, "A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."[20] You could say that the Big Bang theory is to the origin of the universe what the theory of evolution is to abiogenesis.
[emphasis mine]


I wasn't talking about time 0. I'm saying the Big Bang was the inflation of the universe and what caused it to be in its current form. Science not yet knowing what came "before" does not give any weight whatsoever to theists' arguments.

Well not really, your logic is bizarre. Just because both evolution and abiogenesis deal with living things doesn't mean they depend on each other. Obviously evolution wouldn't occur without living things in the first place, but that's just stating the obvious and not really a very helpful point because both theories deal with completely different things. The Big Bang theory actually aims to describe and study the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution doesn't at all aim to deal with how life began.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Your God may be a Daddy God. Mine's a Mummy God. :yep:


Huh. I always had you pegged as the Daddy god type. :hmmmm2:
(edited 7 years ago)
An inifinite regression is a logical impossibility as this would mean there would be an infinite number of events between any two events. This would mean you would never actually reach the next event. This would also mean that between any two events there would be an inifinite time frame.

This is obviously not seen in reality. Let's take energy changing from kinetic to heat energy as an example. If an infinite regress was true this would take an I figure number of changes before kinetic energy turned into heat energy. This would take an infinite amount of time and therefore, the kinetic energy would never manifest itself into heat. Since in reality energy does change forms we can conclude there were a finite number of changes of energy and therefore there cannot be an inifinite regress.

Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument some people have posed. That is stupid as it would be made of spaghetti I assume. One of the laws of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. Matter is a manifestation of energy. So this also applied to matter. Now consider we cannot have an infinite changes of firms as an infinite regress cannot exist as demonstrated earlier in my post both matter and energy must've been created.

Whatever created matter and energy must pre exist matter and energy. Therefore, it by definition must be immaterial and infinitely powerful (created energy from nothing). It must also be inifinite as it created time (as if time was truly infinite the time within any two events would also be infinite, however there is a finite amount of time between yesterday and today for example and therefore time must be finite). It must be omnipresent as it also created space and is therefore not restricted by spacial boundaries (Big Bang theory suggests there was no space in the singularity). I think I should clarify energy beyond created means the Big Bang itself cannot be the ultimate first cause.

Therefore, through pure logic an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal creator of the universe exists. This creator must also be persona (so it can therefore make choices to affect the reality it's created and so therefore listen to prayers for example) Why?

Because an infinite being cannot causer something finite unless it chose to do it at a particular point in time. If it was a necessity rather than a choice than its creation would also be infinite. But as we can see the universe is not infinite through the logical steps that I have pointed out as well as scientific evidence backing this (Big Bang theory).

So we have infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the Universe. There must also only be one God because two beings can't have exactly the same characteristics and the same spacial composition. Since, we therefore can't actually differentiate the two identities then it must only be one identity that exists. For example if I said there is two cans of Heinz baked beans on my table in the exact same 3D coordinates and look exactly the same you would say that's impossible as there is nothing to differential the two baked beans so there must only be one can of baked beans.

So in conclusion, we have one being that is infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe. That sure sounds a lot like the God mentioned in the Abrahamic religions.

Remember all the characteristics of God can never be proven as life is a test and if all of Gods characteristics did end up being proven then that defeats the purpose of a test to an extent. We need some sort of faith. But remember this isn't a weakness everyone needs faith to some extent. Scientists need faith in the scientific method for example.

But even if we look at pure logic the evidence clearly points to a God creating the universe than any other alternative. I apologise for my red for being so long but that are my thoughts on this topic. I hope I have opened some people's eyes a little bit. Even if one person reads all of this and changes their opinion on this then it was worth it.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
True, but only up to a point. Once theories become very widely shared and completely accepted, they do become beliefs effectively. For example, it would be foolish not to 'believe' in gravity and most people would be happy to believe now that the Moon orbits the Earth due to gravity. It's not a religious belief, but it's still a kind of belief - it's an acceptance that generations of experts and generations of experiments and theorising are more likely to be right than any other explanation.

Actually, religious ideas were like that for past generations. Repeatedly being told that it was OK for the church to steal 10% of your food or produce every year to provide for the Vatican and the Bishop was widely 'accepted' as a belief by the majority because for many centuries they accepted their 'expert' view that the Bible justified it, etc. The view gradually began to collapse when people heard other views or evidence.


The difference is that anyone can learn about those theories and see the evidence for themselves.If they actually put in the time and effort to learn those hard subjects then they could see the evidence for themselves.It is out there.Its not the same kind of belief at all.Religous ideas have no evidence to back them up all we have is the bibles unreliable say so.
Original post by Hydeman
Huh. I always had you pegged as the Daddy god type. :hmmmm2:


Again atheists being silly again. The eternal creator of the Universe (or multiverse) must be immaterial as pointed out in my earlier post. So it cannot have a gender or cannot be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. So stop trying to mock God. It just looks immature and unintellectual. *
Original post by StrawbAri
I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.


A theory by definition required some sort of faith as it is not proven by definition. If it was proven it wouldn't be stated as a theory anymore but rather as a fact. Remember the key word is proof. Yes, a theory could have a lot of evidence supporting it but by no means does that mean it is proven. So yes in this sense all scientists need an element of faith in scientific theories as they *cannot be 100% sure this is true. **

Furthermore, the scientific theory assumes our observations of the universe actually reflects reality. There is no proof of this we just have to believe it is true. If this is not true then all scientific theories go out if the window. So in conclusion, no matter even if you're a scientist you still need faith to an extent so stop bashing religious people for having faith.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Hamzah17
A theory by definition required some sort of faith as it is not proven by definition. If it was proven it wouldn't be stated as a theory anymore but rather as a fact. Remember the key word is proof. Yes, a theory could have a lot of evidence supporting it but by no means does that mean it is proven. So yes in this sense all scientists need an element of faith in scientific theories as they *cannot be 100% sure this is true. **

Furthermore, the scientific theory assumes our observations of the universe actually reflects reality. There is no proof of this we just have to believe it is true. If this is not true then all scientific theories go out if the window. So in conclusion, no matter even if you're a scientists you still need faith to an extent so stop bashing religious people for having faith.


Scientists do not rely on faith.They depend on evidence.It is proven that the earth is spherical.It is proven that gravity causes apples to fall to the ground.It is proven that the planets orbit the sun.Of course if you want to be philosphical then you could say that we depend upon our senses to tell us about the world.But there are certain things you just have to accept as true if reality is to have any meaning.For example you have to accept that you exist.If you dont exist then its useless speculating about reality so you should accept that otherwise the whole endeavour is useless.

Its a very different kind of faith to religous people.Religous people completely ignore what their senses tell them and say that its true because the holy book says so.Scientists listen to their senses and use them to find out about the world.Its a completely different sort of faith.And you need to look up the meaning of a scientific theory,it is not just a guess.The word for that is hypothesis.
This is some of the most flawed logic I've seen in quite a while.

Original post by Hamzah17
An inifinite regression is a logical impossibility as this would mean there would be an infinite number of events between any two events. This would mean you would never actually reach the next event. This would also mean that between any two events there would be an inifinite time frame.


Mathematics has proven that some infinities are bigger than others. If you think about it, there are an infinite number of combinations after the decimal point between any two integers. 1, 1.0000000000001, 1.00000000000001 ad infinitum to get to 2, yet we can still get from one number to the next without spending an eternity doing so.

Secondly, most atheists don't consider an infinite regress logical either so you're arguing against something that very few people claim.

This is obviously not seen in reality. Let's take energy changing from kinetic to heat energy as an example. If an infinite regress was true this would take an I figure number of changes before kinetic energy turned into heat energy. This would take an infinite amount of time and therefore, the kinetic energy would never manifest itself into heat. Since in reality energy does change forms we can conclude there were a finite number of changes of energy and therefore there cannot be an inifinite regress.


You're mixing up your concepts here. How is the number of ways particles can rearrange themselves an infinite regress? The latter goes back in time, studying the transfer of heat goes forward in time and as previously demonstrated, we go through infinities all the time, every time we count for example.

I also chuckled at your phrase "this is obviously not seen in reality" because that's exactly what I'd say about God!

Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument some people have posed. That is stupid as it would be made of spaghetti I assume. One of the laws of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. Matter is a manifestation of energy. So this also applied to matter. Now consider we cannot have an infinite changes of firms as an infinite regress cannot exist as demonstrated earlier in my post both matter and energy must've been created.


You are contradicting yourself. You say matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and then go on to say matter and energy must have been created :confused:

In any case, that's false. You don't seem to be thinking outside the box much because there is another option: that matter and energy have always existed, in some form or other. This would certainly agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics that you're repeatedly bringing up.

Whatever created matter and energy must pre exist matter and energy.


There's no evidence anything created matter and energy. In fact, your own Laws of Thermodynamics say their creation is impossible.

Therefore, it by definition must be immaterial and infinitely powerful (created energy from nothing).


False premises from the get-go. First, there is no evidence for the creation of matter and energy and second, it violates basic logic to say something can come out of a literal nothing. That is impossible.

It must also be inifinite as it created time (as if time was truly infinite the time within any two events would also be infinite, however there is a finite amount of time between yesterday and today for example and therefore time must be finite).


Perhaps take greater care with the words you choose. I presume you're trying to say God would be eternal, which means something very different to infinite. I don't even know what it would mean to call a person or being infinite. Also, as I previously demonstrated, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two integers and that obviously applies to seconds, minutes, hours, yet we still move through them without wasting an eternity. Maths proves you wrong on this front I'm afraid.

It must be omnipresent as it also created space and is therefore not restricted by spacial boundaries (Big Bang theory suggests there was no space in the singularity). I think I should clarify energy beyond created means the Big Bang itself cannot be the ultimate first cause.


Again, you don't appear to know the definitions of the words you're using. Omnipresent does not mean one isn't bound by spatial boundaries, it simply means something is present in all space. Most of your next sentence is unintelligible.

Therefore, through pure logic an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal creator of the universe exists.


Your logic has demonstrated no such thing. It is a jumble of unsupported assumptions and shoddy mathematics.

This creator must also be persona (so it can therefore make choices to affect the reality it's created and so therefore listen to prayers for example) Why?


And here we have it, another assumption for which there is not an iota of evidence. What caused the Big Bang may have been an unthinking law of nature/reality with no ability to reason and make decisions.

Because an infinite being cannot causer something finite unless it chose to do it at a particular point in time. If it was a necessity rather than a choice than its creation would also be infinite. But as we can see the universe is not infinite through the logical steps that I have pointed out as well as scientific evidence backing this (Big Bang theory).


This is a confused mess. As far as we know, time began with the Big Bang so it doesn't even make sense to say a being chose to create the universe at a particular point in time because when making that decision time itself wouldn't even have existed.

Moreover, the Big Bang doesn't actually prove the universe isn't eternal. There are many hypotheses out there which outline how an eternal, changing universe could still produce Big Bangs, the cyclic model perhaps being the most well-known.

So we have infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the Universe.


You have shown none of those things through logic, merely made unsupported claims.

There must also only be one God because two beings can't have exactly the same characteristics and the same spacial composition.


Nonsensical statement to make. We see in the world all around us plenty of things which have identical characteristics and compositions, the chemical elements to name the most obvious example. Therefore there is no logical argument against multiple gods.

Since, we therefore can't actually differentiate the two identities then it must only be one identity that exists.


Where are you getting this garbage from? I could place two identical pieces of anything in front of you and your inability to tell them apart would not mean only one existed. Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this kind of thing to an adult presumably. Even a 5-year-old would understand this.

For example if I said there is two cans of Heinz baked beans on my table in the exact same 3D coordinates and look exactly the same you would say that's impossible as there is nothing to differential the two baked beans so there must only be one can of baked beans.


What is this about coordinates? They inherently rely on space, yet you've been saying this whole time that God exists outside of space and implying it doesn't need space to exist, therefore multiple gods could exist by this exact line of reasoning.

So in conclusion, we have one being that is infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe. That sure sounds a lot like the God mentioned in the Abrahamic religions.


Again, you have shown no such thing. Also, I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic gods are regarded as being omnipresent. In Islam for example it is believed that Allah is not anywhere in physical reality, he is merely observing it from a different dimension/plane of existence. Ergo if he is not in physical reality then he is not omnipresent. I'm pretty sure the same theology applies to Christianity and Judaism.

It is only pantheists and panentheists who can say God is omnipresent while actually meaning it.

Remember all the characteristics of God can never be proven as life is a test


Life absolutely cannot be a test if God is all-knowing. You only test someone if there is an element of doubt involved. You cannot test someone if you 100% know what they're going to do because you cannot be surprised in any way. This is basic logic.

and if all of Gods characteristics did end up being proven then that defeats the purpose of a test to an extent.


This is just a cop-out so theists don't have to provide evidence for their claims: "Guys, God is real yeah, but there isn't any evidence for him because that would defeat the test!" I have to hand it to whoever made that up, they clearly weren't stupid having their cake and eating it too. What do you think of this statement:

"Guys, an invisible pink rabbit that is more powerful than Allah exists yeah, but there isn't any evidence for it because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah look like God"

?

We need some sort of faith. But remember this isn't a weakness everyone needs faith to some extent. Scientists need faith in the scientific method for example.


We don't need faith in the way you mean and it is extremely disingenuous to try and conflate religious faith with scientific "faith". Science is all based on empirical evidence and observation. The belief in God is not based on any empirical evidence and observation, you yourself have admitted there is no evidence for God because it would render the test defunct.

But even if we look at pure logic the evidence clearly points to a God creating the universe than any other alternative. I apologise for my red for being so long but that are my thoughts on this topic. I hope I have opened some people's eyes a little bit. Even if one person reads all of this and changes their opinion on this then it was worth it.


Logic points to no such thing and yours certainly hasn't by any stretch of the imagination. You haven't opened my eyes up no, but you have made me bang my head against my desk. Several times.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Robby2312
Scientists do not rely on faith.They depend on evidence.It is proven that the earth is spherical.It is proven that gravity causes apples to fall to the ground.It is proven that the planets orbit the sun.Of course if you want to be philosphical then you could say that we depend upon our senses to tell us about the world.But there are certain things you just have to accept as true if reality is to have any meaning.For example you have to accept that you exist.If you dont exist then its useless speculating about reality so you should accept that otherwise the whole endeavour is useless.

Its a very different kind of faith to religous people.Religous people completely ignore what their senses tell them and say that its true because the holy book says so.Scientists listen to their senses and use them to find out about the world.Its a completely different sort of faith.And you need to look up the meaning of a scientific theory,it is not just a guess.The word for that is hypothesis.


You clearly didn't interpret my post properly. Did I say that a scientist faith is the same type of faith that religious people use. No of course not. All I stated was that scientists do have faith to an extent which is 100% true. Again as you said there are some things you have to accept are true otherwise everything we discuss regarding the reality of anything is useless. Again as mentioned before that therefore means we require faith that these things we true. I'm not by any mans saying it's wrong to believe that to be true. What I am saying is that scientists do require faith.*

Also regarding the scientific theory here's a definition "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."*

Found this on google which looks really familiar to what you said almost word for word at some points. I think you should maybe understand that you read. I did not claim scientific theories to be "guesses" at any point of the post I sent. I merely claimed that scientists still need faith to believe in many scientific theories. Yes, whilst it's proven the earth is round it isn't proven the Big Bang is 100% true. Yes the evidence heavily supports it but that doesn't make it a fact. There still needs to be an element of faith.*

Regarding religious people not using their senses. I think that's very naive on your part. Of course we use our senses. Many religions encourage to study science to understand the reality that God has created. Religious people have their faith in God which is why we have the utmost trust in holy books.

However, many of us don't just have blind faith in God, as mentioned in my earlier posts we believe in God as the evidence seems to point towards a God existing rather than a God not existing when we apply the laws of what we know about reality and then use logic. This is demonstrated in my earlier posts. In this sense I don't believe there is any difference in the faith a scientist has compared to a religious person. We both have faith in something due to the evidence supporting it. Once you believe in a creator and its qualities then you become much more open to holy books and they're validity. But that is a whole new discussion. When talking about Gods existence using logic and scientific laws when we think deeply it becomes evident that a God existing is much more likley than a God not existing. Check my first post on this thread to see the details.*
Original post by Hamzah17
Again atheists being silly again. The eternal creator of the Universe (or multiverse) must be immaterial as pointed out in my earlier post. So it cannot have a gender or cannot be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.


What are you on about? That was a joke aimed at the user I quoted, whom I know from other threads. I didn't read or quote any of your previous posts, so why you think it was a reply to something you've said is beyond me.

So stop trying to mock God.


Perhaps you should stop looking for mockery where none exists? :rolleyes:

It just looks immature and unintellectual.


While I'm here, I may as well point out that the superficial appearance of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. The point of an argument is not to look 'mature' or 'intellectual', though it's not hard to see why creationists would think that it is, lacking as they usually are in substance.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply