There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Except that cause and effect is a physical law that only applies to this universe.Before this universe there would be no cause and effect.So the universe doesnt actually need a cause because the law of cause and effect doesnt have to apply outside of the universe.
    But now you're talking about things outside this universe which we know absolutely nothing about and there is no evidence for. If the laws of physics don't apply outside of this universe then a god could easily exist outside of this universe beyond human comprehension. Which i think is what you believe but you just wouldn't call it a god.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    for the sake of showing why your analogy is inaccurate,

    Why *must* someone have put the cake there?
    The cake may not have been put there. You could come up with a reason how the cake did just appear. But I would always believe someone did put the cake there because it is the most reasonable explanation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    The cake may not have been put there. You could come up with a reason how the cake did just appear. But I would always believe someone did put the cake there because it is the most reasonable explanation.
    Ok so you're analogy isn't very good at explaining why the universe *must* have a creator if you accept that in your example you don't need the person. Why is the person putting the cake there the most reasonable explanation though?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Ok so you're analogy isn't very good at explaining why the universe *must* have a creator if you accept that in your example you don't need the person. Why is the person putting the cake there the most reasonable explanation though?
    Can you give me a more reasonable explanation for a cake in the middle of a room?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    But now you're talking about things outside this universe which we know absolutely nothing about and there is no evidence for. If the laws of physics don't apply outside of this universe then a god could easily exist outside of this universe beyond human comprehension. Which i think is what you believe but you just wouldn't call it a god.
    But you were the one saying there must be a cause.Im saying that doesnt have to be the case because the law of cause and effect applies to things inside the universe.Before the universe existed there is no certainty that the same laws apply.I dont believe anything about the origin.I dont want to believe.I want to know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    Can you give me a more reasonable explanation for a cake in the middle of a room?
    I'm asking what your chain of thought / reasoning is to reach the conclusion that the most likely explanation is a person put it there. obviously you are assuming the existence of the physical laws of this universe, which didn't exist before this universe existed, hence the same laws cannot be applied to the case of the 'origin' of the universe I.e. The analogy falls flat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Why must something have caused it?
    It contradicts a lot of scientific principles especially violating Newton's law's of motion. Yes it works everywhere except at the point of the singularity.

    Tell me, if we all originate from a singularity, isn't the first push of all the matter into space(the initial expansion before the creation of subatomic particles) a signature of the first cause in this universe(which I believe was part of God's act). If that exertion on all known matter at the start did not happen then life could not have been created. We may not be able to prove that God created the Universe but isn't there a possibility to prove that God created us.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    But you were the one saying there must be a cause.Im saying that doesnt have to be the case because the law of cause and effect applies to things inside the universe.Before the universe existed there is no certainty that the same laws apply.I dont believe anything about the origin.I dont want to believe.I want to know.
    But you'll never know because outside of this universe as you said the same laws don't apply. It's like trying to imagine a colour not on the spectrum. And do believe there must be a cause because we have now determined the universe does have a start point and something cannot start without something else happening. Whether that something is outside of this universe, in a multiverse, acting in the 10th dimension we will never know, which is why it is a god.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    That is still false. Hindus(who form ~15% of the world population) believe in deities which are much older than Apollo and Jupiter.
    Ok maybe hindus do believe in ancient gods.But you're taking it too literally.My point was that there have been and are hundreds of gods and religions.Religous people conviniently ignore those other gods in favour of the one they were brought up with even though there is the exact same amount of evidence for all of them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    I'm asking what your chain of thought / reasoning is to reach the conclusion that the most likely explanation is a person put it there. obviously you are assuming the existence of the physical laws of this universe, which didn't exist before this universe existed, hence the same laws cannot be applied to the case of the 'origin' of the universe I.e. The analogy falls flat.
    How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know they cannot be applied? You and I both know nothing about what is before and and what is outside of this universe. But we both believe there was/is something, where you say the laws of physics don't apply and where I is say a god exists. But then i would also say that a god isn't bound by the laws of physics and that anything outside of this universe therefore must be some sort of god.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Many people believe in god because of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of losing someone close. Fear of failure. Fear of what's gonna happen when you die. Human's are incompetent to deal with it themselves. And believing in god ease's the fear in people or they think it does. Nothing wrong with it. The problem arises when people expect god to help them and nothing happens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    It contradicts a lot of scientific principles especially violating Newton's law's of motion. Yes it works everywhere except at the point of the singularity.

    Tell me, if we all originate from a singularity, isn't the first push of all the matter into space(the initial expansion before the creation of subatomic particles) a signature of the first cause in this universe(which I believe was part of God's act). If that exertion on all known matter at the start did not happen then life could not have been created. We may not be able to prove that God created the Universe but isn't there a possibility to prove that God created us.
    Those scientific principles only apply in this universe. Why must they apply in the absence of the universe?

    It's a pretty useless God that does such a small and simple task, and something that is far more complex than what it is doing.

    That's assuming that you need a 'God' to create that initial expansion, which is by no means a given.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know they cannot be applied? You and I both know nothing about what is before and and what is outside of this universe. But we both believe there was/is something, where you say the laws of physics don't apply and where I is say a god exists. But then i would also say that a god isn't bound by the laws of physics and that anything outside of this universe therefore must be some sort of god.
    Your argument for why there must be a god relies on the existence of the physical laws of this universe. For your argument to hold you have to show that the laws of physics of this universe also apply when the universe, space, time etc does not exist. You are focusing mainly on cause and effect for example, which requires time, but since time is part of this universe it cannot exist if this universe does not exist. Hence 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Religion, politics and football should be banned in this forum.

    The End.


    The argument goes on and on and never stops.

    EDIT: I deserve a pat on the back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Your argument for why there must be a god relies on the existence of the physical laws of this universe. For your argument to hold you have to show that the laws of physics of this universe also apply when the universe, space, time etc does not exist. You are focusing mainly on cause and effect for example, which requires time, but since time is part of this universe it cannot exist if this universe does not exist. Hence 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.
    But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the nature of a god is that it is beyond human comprehension, just like the place where space, time etc. doesn't exist is beyond comprehension. The difference is people who don't believe in god are trying to comprehend it a cannot whereas i know i will never be able to comprehend it and call it a god
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the nature of a god is that it is beyond human comprehension, just like the place where space, time etc. doesn't exist is beyond comprehension. The difference is people who don't believe in god are trying to comprehend it a cannot whereas i know i will never be able to comprehend it and call it a god
    No I understand the nature of what you're talking about. I'm showing you where your argument that it needs to exist is wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not religious at all but have you ever thought, maybe the evidence just hasn't been found yet?

    And on another note, why does it matter if people believe in God, they have a right to hold their own opinion so I think they can choose themselves whether they want to follow a particular religion or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    davidguettafan I'd like to have a chat with you one day. Maybe it's just me but I've noticed this is a question and topic you've dealt on/addressed frequently. Would you accept that God existed if it came out that there is evidence for it or would you not want to address it? And it seems at one point maybe you did believe in something but lost hope in it. You never know, maybe through this interest God could be calling upon you. I don't know. I'm not the best person or believer out there and my beliefs change from time to time but I've heard interests where it bothers our minds usually is the start of something new. Just know we don't know everything. Anything is possible. Whether or not God is a 'flying spaghetti monster', the truth is the truth. if it exists, it exists, if not, it does not. Whatever the truth is, whether or not you or I believe in it or don't, it will always be the truth. Just yesterday I watched a Youtube video named "13 colors humans can't see" where the person in the video beautifully explained how the Mantis Shrimp has 16 receptive cones allowing it to see 13 extra colours that we cannot see, with
    certain butterfly species also being able to see an extra two more divertive colours than we can and how he pitted a dog because his colour range is limited compared to the spectrum we see. Now, you may be thinking why did she bring this up but putting this all together, imagine you were that shrimp, that butterfly, that dog who though are all living, are subject to different perspectives of reality due to their state of being, you'll realise your perception of reality is limited. Imagine being that Shrimp. Doesn't mean the perspective of the butterfly or dog shouldn't be considered but it just tells me there is a lot we cannot see, that being humans in our state, we are subject to limitations. Imagine if God exists, my goodness only it could describe what it sees. What it sees would be unexplainable. Going beyond time, the past and present, universes, dimensions, every atom, object, person, thought, thing, colour, particle, consciousness in its purest and rawest form. Seeing things in a way no other has seen before. I remember in the bible, it said how no person has seen God it its truest form as if the person did, they would die. That God is of another energy, power and being of another dimension that isn't physical. So for us to be compatible to see it, our state of being would have to change. It's like wanting to go to space to look directly at the sun, jumping into it to feel its essence but unless you are a spectable of the sun what happens when you get too close? Physically, we can only go 95 yards before burning up. Now you can say, at least we can see the sun but then again if this God isn't physical but of another dimension all we can do is wait and see. We'll all die one day, leaving this state of being. If it exists and life beyond this exists, you'll know. Until now, no one is certain. The question itself is too much to dwell on. Let's focus on finding out much more on our universe first as there's still so much to discover.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Those scientific principles only apply in this universe. Why must they apply in the absence of the universe?

    It's a pretty useless God that does such a small and simple task, and something that is far more complex than what it is doing.

    That's assuming that you need a 'God' to create that initial expansion, which is by no means a given.

    The singularity occurred in this very universe. So scientific principles does contradict this generally well accepted theory. If you believe the scientific principles is not applicable to the Big Bang, you are indirectly claiming it to be outside a closed system. This means you are implying indirectly that the Big Bang is external to the Universe. Doesn't that contradict your current position.

    If God/or something else did not do that very task we would not be here. It doesn't matter how complex the task is. We owe it to that divine force.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Your argument for why there must be a god relies on the existence of the physical laws of this universe. For your argument to hold you have to show that the laws of physics of this universe also apply when the universe, space, time etc does not exist. You are focusing mainly on cause and effect for example, which requires time, but since time is part of this universe it cannot exist if this universe does not exist. Hence 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.
    That's the Humean definition, but it's by no means the only accepted definition. There's no consensus in physics or philosophy that causality requires the existence of time. Many would say causality is a fundamental metaphysical principle and the basis for all inquiry, including scientific investigation.

    We don't even have to use the word causation and time; we could replace it with reason or explantation and run the argument from contingency, which would be valid even if the universe is timeless.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.