There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    The singularity occurred in this very universe. So the 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.
    The singularity was not *in* this universe. It *was* this universe. The scientific principles we know apply in this universe are so intertwined with this universe it would be foolish to assume they exist in the absence of this universe, I.e we can't really talk about the Big Bang as if it occurred in this universe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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.
    Explain an example of causation occurring in the absence of time
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    To all if not most atheists,

    "Nothing exists but natural phenomena.
    All we see and know is natural phenomena as our world is the natural world. If someone claims there is phenomena that is not natural then the burden of proof is on them to show it.

    Scepticism is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.
    Occam’s Razor is a scientific principle or is inherently scientific.
    These are definitions.

    If you see something that seems impossible, you imagined it or were fooled.
    At first, yes, just as would most religious people actually. But if sufficient and observable, testable and repeatable evidence were produced then it's likely people would change their minds, as they have done across history and in the history of science itself.

    Our thoughts are entirely a property or function of chemicals in the brain.
    As far as we know, yes, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Altering and damaging parts of the brain is known to affect personality and other mental functions, providing further evidence that the mental faculties are dependent on the brain. There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the mind has some supernatural component or origin.

    There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature.
    As far as we know there are not. Indeed, by definition one could say that if anything exists in the universe then it must be natural as there is precisely no evidence for anything outside the universe and physical reality.

    There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which transcend nature.
    If nature is defined as physical reality then we can agree with that statement given that there's no evidence for anything external to nature.

    There are no forces, phenomena, or entities which are supernatural.
    No evidence for such forces.

    If you don’t have a good theory as to why something works, you can dismiss the evidence that it works anyway.
    Not necessarily. Theories don't appear overnight, they usually are years in the making so the evidence will be taken into account and compared to more of it that's found and will be incorporated if it makes sense and dropped if it doesn't.

    The laws of physics are explained by science.
    The laws of nature are scientific laws, yes.

    The laws of physics don’t change or, if they do, they only change in ways scientists can predict and measure.
    Yes, relative to our understanding of a particular law of course.

    Science is how we determine if things are true or not.
    A rather vague statement. Science helps explain the natural world, but there are many mundane situations where science as such is not needed to prove something is true. CCTV and recording devices as well as objects such as documents etc can all prove something happened without having to invoke science per se.

    Religion and science are warring forces.
    Again, this is rather simplistic. I guess at their core you could say they oppose each other as one asks you to believe without seeing and the other purports that only that which can be tested and observed is real. However, religions across history have adopted scientific principle, either through choice or by force and religionists tend to employ the scientific method to any other religion that isn't their own.

    Faith is about believing without evidence.
    That is a definition of faith, yes, and the one most commonly used in discussions of this nature.

    "Logic works just because it does.
    Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.

    The laws of physics work just because they do.Science “overcame” or “surpassed” religion.
    Yes, laws are just the way they are, this much is obvious.

    Science had to fight off belief in God to advance.
    Science had to fight off religion to advance.
    Science had to fight off Christianity to advance.
    In its early development, science indeed had to free itself from the shackles of religion to advance, in the West at least.

    Christians believe things solely because they’re in the Bible.
    Ex-Christian atheists understand the Bible better than Christian scholars.
    Fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
    19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist atheists understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
    19th and 20th Century Historico-critical revisionist liberal Protestants understand the Bible better than orthodox scholars.
    Not necessarily.

    Most Christians and Jews should be Creationists because the Book of Genesis describes how Planet Earth was created like a science text.
    Why are you asking me to determine what someone else should believe about their holy book?

    People who think God and spirituality are rational things to pursue are mentally ill.
    Not necessarily.

    Asking what makes existence possible at all is not a real question.
    Don't agree. Also, it's more conducive to a debate to ask someone a few questions at a time, not bombard them with 20 million.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    I totally agree that the Christian god doesn't exist. But for the big bang to happen something must have caused it. Whatever that cause is it is beyond human comprehension and is the creator of the universe.
    As time began with the universe the concept of something causing it before time was even a thing is questionable. And even if it somehow did, there's no reason this cause would have to be sentient, intelligent and magical. It could be an unthinking natural law/phenomenon.

    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    I'm going to answer your question with another. If you walked into a room and in the centre of the room was a cake and i told you that one day that cake just appeared would you believe me or would you think someone put it there? You would think someone put it there. And thats why I believe something must have caused it.
    This is just a modified version of the Watchmaker fallacy which has been debunked many a time. Cakes don't occur in nature, we can make them and see them being made. We have never observed a cake coming into existence without someone making it therefore we know it has a designer.

    Conversely, no one has designed a universe, we haven't observed anyone either designing or creating a universe so there is no evidence it was manufactured, unlike the cake.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    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.
    (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.
    These are total non-sequiturs. Even if one is to accept that the Big Bang has a cause, how do you get from "there must be a cause" to "this cause is sentient, intelligent, magical and therefore a god"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    The singularity was not *in* this universe. It *was* this universe. The scientific principles we know apply in this universe are so intertwined with this universe it would be foolish to assume they exist in the absence of this universe, I.e we can't really talk about the Big Bang as if it occurred in this universe.
    Still the theory contradicts with the scientific principles(such as some of Newton's law of thermodynamics). Let me rephrase my previous post with the concept that it "was" the universe.

    "The singularity was this 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)
    Explain an example of causation occurring in the absence of time
    Sure: if p, then q. p, therefore q.

    Notice how p and q are not objects in spacetime, but nevertheless there exists a causal relation between the premise and the conclusion. True premises cause true conclusions; if causality (and hence all logic) requires time, then logic is not timeless. But this is absurd. Therefore causality, like logic, is a metaphysical necessity not subject to any contingent laws of nature.

    Your turn: explain an example of a brute fact (i.e. it cannot have an explanation) without special pleading.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    All we see and know is natural phenomena as our world is the natural world. If someone claims there is phenomena that is not natural then the burden of proof is on them to show it.



    These are definitions.



    At first, yes, just as would most religious people actually. But if sufficient and observable, testable and repeatable evidence were produced then it's likely people would change their minds, as they have done across history and in the history of science itself.



    As far as we know, yes, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Altering and damaging parts of the brain is known to affect personality and other mental functions, providing further evidence that the mental faculties are dependent on the brain. There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the mind has some supernatural component or origin.



    As far as we know there are not. Indeed, by definition one could say that if anything exists in the universe then it must be natural as there is precisely no evidence for anything outside the universe and physical reality.



    If nature is defined as physical reality then we can agree with that statement given that there's no evidence for anything external to nature.



    No evidence for such forces.



    Not necessarily. Theories don't appear overnight, they usually are years in the making so the evidence will be taken into account and compared to more of it that's found and will be incorporated if it makes sense and dropped if it doesn't.



    The laws of nature are scientific laws, yes.



    Yes, relative to our understanding of a particular law of course.



    A rather vague statement. Science helps explain the natural world, but there are many mundane situations where science as such is not needed to prove something is true. CCTV and recording devices as well as objects such as documents etc can all prove something happened without having to invoke science per se.



    Again, this is rather simplistic. I guess at their core you could say they oppose each other as one asks you to believe without seeing and the other purports that only that which can be tested and observed is real. However, religions across history have adopted scientific principle, either through choice or by force and religionists tend to employ the scientific method to any other religion that isn't their own.



    That is a definition of faith, yes, and the one most commonly used in discussions of this nature.



    Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.



    Yes, laws are just the way they are, this much is obvious.



    In its early development, science indeed had to free itself from the shackles of religion to advance, in the West at least.



    Not necessarily.



    Why are you asking me to determine what someone else should believe about their holy book?



    Not necessarily.



    Don't agree. Also, it's more conducive to a debate to ask someone a few questions at a time, not bombard them with 20 million.
    Impressive, but you have not produced any evidence in support which I asked for. If something is logical an evidence can surely be procured.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Impressive, but you have not produced any evidence in support which I asked for. If something is logical an evidence can surely be procured.
    Because you didn't ask anything specific. What do you want evidence for?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReeceFraser)
    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.
    You have no basis for claiming there must be a cause.Havent I just explained that.If the universe doesnt yet exist then how can any of its current laws apply to it? And even if cause and effect do apply then there is still no reason to call that cause God.The cause could just be some kind of universe creating force like gravity.But it makes no sense to worship a force because its emotionally unsatisfying and most people dont mean that by the idea of God.Most people mean the kind of figure depicted in the bible or in major religions who actively intervenes in human affairs.Such a god is petty and far too human to be anything other than made up.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Still the theory contradicts with the scientific principles(such as some of Newton's law of thermodynamics). Let me rephrase my previous post with the concept that it "was" the universe.

    "The singularity was this 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. "
    Not really black holes are supposed to be singularities within which all the laws of physics break down.But you wouldnt claim they are outside the universe.There is no reason to bring divinity into this and not a scap of evidence.Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Where is your evidence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Not really black holes are supposed to be singularities within which all the laws of physics break down.But you wouldnt claim they are outside the universe.There is no reason to bring divinity into this and not a scap of evidence.Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Where is your evidence?
    That is false. Black holes obey the laws of physics.

    http://hubblesite.org/explore_astron...c_mod3_q2.html

    Maybe it was wrong to bring divinity into this context without me producing any evidence. But there is a possibility that there is a first cause. Some force caused the expansion of a finite number of matter. Right?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    That is false. Black holes obey the laws of physics.

    http://hubblesite.org/explore_astron...c_mod3_q2.html

    Maybe it was wrong to bring divinity into this context without me producing any evidence. But there is a possibility that there is a first cause. Some force caused the expansion of a finite number of matter. Right?
    Even if there is some force there is no reason to call it God.It makes no sense to worship a force and thats not what the vast majority of people mean when they say God.And im pretty sure its not false
    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/...ularities.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Because you didn't ask anything specific. What do you want evidence for?
    Statement: "Logic works just because it does"

    Your comment: Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.

    Sources have to be reliable and scientifically proven(preferably scientific journals). They must support your comment on the statement I provided.

    I am very curious to find out how logic is only a human construct...

    Just putting it out there while you research:

    Is there a difference between perceived logic and actual logic?


    If you are able to complete this challenge successfully, then I will gladly accept the definition of the term "atheism" as valid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Sure: if p, then q. p, therefore q.

    Notice how p and q are not objects in spacetime, but nevertheless there exists a causal relation between the premise and the conclusion. True premises cause true conclusions; if causality (and hence all logic) requires time, then logic is not timeless. But this is absurd. Therefore causality, like logic, is a metaphysical necessity not subject to any contingent laws of nature.

    Your turn: explain an example of a brute fact (i.e. it cannot have an explanation) without special pleading.
    I don't follow the link between logic and the creation of the universe.

    What do you mean by a brute fact?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Statement: "Logic works just because it does"

    Your comment: Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.

    Sources have to be reliable and scientifically proven(preferably scientific journals). They must support your comment on the statement I provided.

    I am very curious to find out how logic is only a human construct...

    Just putting it out there while you research:

    Is there a difference between perceived logic and actual logic?


    If you are able to complete this challenge successfully, then I will gladly accept the definition of the term "atheism" as valid.
    I didn't say "only a human construct". The more advanced forms of logic are exclusive only to humans, but many animals make basic logical conclusions based on what they see around them. Logic is nothing more than the analysing and interpreting of events/causes/consequences/ideas etc, there's no such thing as one thing called "logic" that's floating around in nature.

    Besides, what is the relevance of this?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Even if there is some force there is no reason to call it God.It makes no sense to worship a force and thats not what the vast majority of people mean when they say God.And im pretty sure its not false
    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/...ularities.html
    It seems as though the internet does not know for sure. Both you and me haven't provided reliable sources with references (my mistake as well) so we can't know who is really right So Black holes can't be used to argue for the violations of the laws of nature in the singularity of the Big Bang. Unless you can produce evidence in your favour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I didn't say "only a human construct". The more advanced forms of logic are exclusive only to humans, but many animals make basic logical conclusions based on what they around them.
    Ok, that part of the challenge can be omitted. However I need real scientific evidence for the rest of your claim.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Still the theory contradicts with the scientific principles(such as some of Newton's law of thermodynamics). Let me rephrase my previous post with the concept that it "was" the universe.

    "The singularity was this 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. "
    I'm struggling to understand what your trying to get at. The creation of the universe itself hardly needs to obey the laws of the universe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    For what claim?! Can you please be clear and outline the relevance concerning the existence of God?
 
 
 
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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.