There is no evidence for God

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
    Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...
    Maybe the cake has always been there but was previously invisible, rather like your god. After all, if the god can be there why can't a cake?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
    Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...
    Because of the conservation of energy, which only applies in this universe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    I suggest you learn how to spell before bringing up any point, so everyone can understand you and what you're trying to say (which still does not make sense).
    The same thing can go for the big-bang theory. Were the scientists there when two random particles from a singularity collided? Were YOU there? Just because they said it dosen't mean its real. And even the evidence they bring forth has a vast number of uncertainties.
    And there are many loopholes in that theory, just trying to make you guys feel like you know what happened whereas you know nothing.
    God is the answer, you don't need to agree with him it's your choice. Just don't come up with random stuff and listen to scientists who are not sure themselves.
    God bless.
    I'm on my phone.Sometimes I make typos ok.Its not the same thing at all just because you are not there doesnt mean you cant work out what happened.A detective doesnt have to be at a crime to work out who did it.Its the same with the big bang.We have evidence to show what happened.We know the universe is expanding so it means that once it must have been much smaller.Evidence also comes from the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was Em radiation left over from the big bang.Hydrogen and helium is present in the exact abundances which would be expected from the big bang.Its not the same at all.There is no evidence at all for god.The only evidence comes from an old book.No one even knows who wrote the bible.The only reason you believe in god is because your parents indoctrinated you who were indoctrinated by their parents and so on.

    http://www.universetoday.com/106498/...-the-big-bang/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I'm on my phone.Sometimes I make typos ok.Its not the same thing at all just because you are not there doesnt mean you cant work out what happened.A detective doesnt have to be at a crime to work out who did it.Its the same with the big bang.We have evidence to show what happened.We know the universe is expanding so it means that once it must have been much smaller.Evidence also comes from the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was Em radiation left over from the big bang.Hydrogen and helium is present in the exact abundances which would be expected from the big bang.Its not the same at all.There is no evidence at all for god.The only evidence comes from an old book.No one even knows who wrote the bible.The only reason you believe in god is because your parents indoctrinated you who were indoctrinated by their parents and so on.

    http://www.universetoday.com/106498/...-the-big-bang/
    the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.

    same as you state in start of your paragraph. you use critical thinking skills to work it out. just God evidence is harder and more complex because there is less if not no emperical evidence.

    just like not being there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.
    So isn't evidence at all, just a philosophical thought. Philosophy isn'ta science, nor are its hypotheses fact.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    the evidence is worked out through philosophical means.

    same as you state in start of your paragraph. you use critical thinking skills to work it out. just God evidence is harder and more complex because there is less if not no emperical evidence.

    just like not being there.
    Philosophy isn't evidence.Its just speculation.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    Where is the "real scientific evidence" for a benevolent God?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So isn't evidence at all, just a philosophical thought. Philosophy isn'ta science, nor are its hypotheses fact.
    none of the other sciences can be done with out philosophy, which determines logic.

    concept of atoms was first produce by thought. as was concept of gravity. these things come to be understood after scientific break through.

    despite not having things to scan or feel, we can still come to reality that God may, can, and does exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Philosophy isn't evidence.Its just speculation.
    not evidence because you don't want it to be? way to think inside box.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Why would it make cosmology obsolete? If causality is generally agreed to be temporally bound then in the absence of time it starts to stop making sense.
    I've repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case; there's no real consensus on the conditions and directionality of causality. Causality as a metaphysical principle is very much embedded in cosmology, hence the reason why physicists continue to investigate the possible causes/mechanisms for the origin of the universe; many would argue spacetime itself is an emergent phenomenon as opposed to a fundamental "background" within which causality plays out.

    When the only example of atemporal causation you can give that would do something like 'create' a universe is the 'creation' of the universe itself then isn't that just special pleading?
    It's not really special pleading if it's a special case, but if you can find explicit defences of simultaneous causation within the physical world in the philosophical literature (see "Causation as simultaneous and continuous" by Huemer and Kovitz for examples from physics).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
    This is what causality I am referring to, note that it ceases to function in the absence of time.
    Is this supposed to be an exhaustive article on causation as a concept?
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...n-metaphysics/

    The wiki article you posted doesn't actually say causality is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.

    Why do you say that nothing has by definition no potential? Why do you choose that definition?
    Because potentiality arises from something; potentiality itself is something. If there are no properties, there is no potentiality. How could nothingness be something? That would be a contradiction. But if you think genuine nothingness (as opposed to a quantum vacuum) has potential to create universes from nothing, what's preventing nothingness from creating Beethoven in my room from nothing? Why would nothingness be bound by the laws of physics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I've repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case; there's no real consensus on the conditions and directionality of causality. Causality as a metaphysical principle is very much embedded in cosmology, hence the reason why physicists continue to investigate the possible causes/mechanisms for the origin of the universe; many would argue spacetime itself is an emergent phenomenon as opposed to a fundamental "background" within which causality plays out.


    It's not really special pleading if it's a special case, but if you can find explicit defences of simultaneous causation within the physical world in the philosophical literature (see "Causation as simultaneous and continuous" by Huemer and Kovitz for examples from physics).



    Is this supposed to be an exhaustive article on causation as a concept?
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...n-metaphysics/

    The wiki article you posted doesn't actually say causality is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.



    Because potentiality arises from something; potentiality itself is something. If there are no properties, there is no potentiality. How could nothingness be something? That would be a contradiction. But if you think genuine nothingness (as opposed to a quantum vacuum) has potential to create universes from nothing, what's preventing nothingness from creating Beethoven in my room from nothing? Why would nothingness be bound by the laws of physics?
    How does a worldline exist in the absence of time or space?

    Why does potentiality arise from something?

    In your room there's not nothing, your room is part of the universe hence it is something.

    Also how can you talk about simultaneity in the absence of time?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    How does a worldline exist in the absence of time or space?

    Why does potentiality arise from something?

    In your room there's not nothing, your room is part of the universe hence it is something.

    Also how can you talk about simultaneity in the absence of time?
    The worldline is a concept useful in relativity physics, but it's not employed in quantum gravity hypotheses.

    I don't understand the question.

    What's restricting nothingness from creating something in something? Note: I'm not the one claiming nothingness has properties (and thus, potential). But if you're going to posit potentiality to nothingness, despite nothingness by definition precluding anything of the sort, then you need to show why nothingness is discriminatory in its production of things.

    In a timeless (B-theory) view of the universe, all moments are "simultaneous". Moreover absolute simultaneity is about identifying simultaneous events at different locations in space. That's different from the simultaneous causation being discussed here, which is about whether effects can be simultaneous with their causes (which might apply at a single point in and/or at the beginning of spacetime). So I can reject absolute simultaneity without necessarily rejecting simultaneous causation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The worldline is a concept useful in relativity physics, but it's not employed in quantum gravity hypotheses.

    I don't understand the question.

    What's restricting nothingness from creating something in something? Note: I'm not the one claiming nothingness has properties (and thus, potential). But if you're going to posit potentiality to nothingness, despite nothingness by definition precluding anything of the sort, then you need to show why nothingness is discriminatory in its production of things.

    In a timeless (B-theory) view of the universe, all moments are "simultaneous". Moreover absolute simultaneity is about identifying simultaneous events at different locations in space. That's different from the simultaneous causation being discussed here, which is about whether effects can be simultaneous with their causes (which might apply at a single point in and/or at the beginning of spacetime). So I can reject absolute simultaneity without necessarily rejecting simultaneous causation.
    We know relativistic physics works, quantum gravity is pure speculation. I would refrain from using speculative physics to 'disprove' accepted physics.

    You asserted that potentiality *must* arise from something, I was wondering how you reached that conclusion.

    Nothingness within something is not nothing because it is in the universe. As long as it is in the universe it is something. You seem to be confusing nothingness from a physical perspective with nothingness from a philosophical perspective.

    B theory is not timeless and it does not say that all events are simultaneous. For effects to be simultaneous with their causes you have to have some notion of time, and they both occur with no time passing between them. This notion requires the existence of time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Since when do people believe things based on evidence? :holmes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    not evidence because you don't want it to be? way to think inside box.
    Evidence is evidence. The only one wanting something here, is you, pretending that there is "evidence".

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    despite not having things to scan or feel, we can still come to reality that God may, can, and does exist.

    Come to realize? And yes, God may and can exist. But do tell, when and how did you realize that he does exist for sure?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    We know relativistic physics works, quantum gravity is pure speculation. I would refrain from using speculative physics to 'disprove' accepted physics.
    Relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions, hence the need for a quantum gravity model. No one is "disproving" accepted physics; your insistence on upholding concepts applicable in limited domains is unjustified and can be dismissed as a red-herring.

    You asserted that potentiality *must* arise from something, I was wondering how you reached that conclusion.
    Potentiality relates to substance and the laws of physics. Absolute nothingness precludes potentiality by definition. This isn't that hard to comprehend :s

    Nothingness within something is not nothing because it is in the universe. As long as it is in the universe it is something.
    Irrelevant. If nothingness can produce universes, if nothingness has potential, surely it wouldn't be limited in its production of things. Surely objects that may appear out of nowhere in my room would violate the laws of physics and be out of nothing. What's stopping nothingness from producing things in something?

    You seem to be confusing nothingness from a physical perspective with nothingness from a philosophical perspective.
    On the contrary, it's you who has conflated one species of causation as causation in general, and it's you who seems to be suggesting that nothingness may have something (namely, potential).

    B theory is not timeless and it does not say that all events are simultaneous. For effects to be simultaneous with their causes you have to have some notion of time, and they both occur with no time passing between them. This notion requires the existence of time.
    You don't understand B-theory in that case. And you're begging the question again; simultaneous causation doesn't require prior flow of time given timelessness, even if it did the beginning of spacetime would be in time. In simultaneous causation the cause and effect exist co-incidently. But in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation. So if simultaneous causation is possible, I see no reason to think timeless causation is impossible. At least we'd need an argument to show that it is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
    Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...
    Actually, to declare that Reality had a cause is an assumption.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions, hence the need for a quantum gravity model. No one is "disproving" accepted physics; your insistence on upholding concepts applicable in limited domains is unjustified and can be dismissed as a red-herring.
    Considering we have no idea what, if anything, exists outside of our known universe, we do live in a limited domain.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Considering we have no idea what, if anything, exists outside of our known universe, we do live in a limited domain.
    I think you misunderstood what I meant by "limited domain". In terms of physics, relativity is not universally applicable even inside the known universe. Worldline as a concept ceases to make sense in the quantum realm, for example. However causality still holds as a metaphysical principle, which is what we presuppose in science.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I think you misunderstood what I meant by "limited domain". In terms of physics, relativity is not universally applicable even inside the known universe. Worldline as a concept ceases to make sense in the quantum realm, for example. However causality still holds as a metaphysical principle, which is what we presuppose in science.
    Does this change anything about what I said? Using know physics of the universe to make assumptions of what is or is not beyond it, is simply conjecture.
 
 
 
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.