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 yudothis)
    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.
    I wasn't the one using known physics to make any assumptions; on the contrary, the poster I was replying to was insisting that we must extend our understanding of relativity to domains outside of relativity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I wasn't the one using known physics to make any assumptions; on the contrary, the poster I was replying to was insisting that we must extend our understanding of relativity to domains outside of relativity.
    And what is wrong with that? Extending our understanding?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And what is wrong with that? Extending our understanding?
    What's wrong with extending relativity to these domains, you ask? We get nonsensical results. It doesn't work, hence the need for a higher quantum gravity model. Not really sure what any of this has to do with the topic we were discussing tbh, this was a bit of an unnecessary tangent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    What's wrong with extending relativity to these domains, you ask? We get nonsensical results. It doesn't work, hence the need for a higher quantum gravity model. Not really sure what any of this has to do with the topic we were discussing tbh, this was a bit of an unnecessary tangent.
    The point is that you were dismissing an argument because it was limited and yet your argument is just as limited.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    The point is that you were dismissing an argument because it was limited and yet your argument is just as limited.
    How is the dismissal of causality in anyway comparable to the dismissal of relativity in domains where we know it breaks down? The former is a metaphysical concept that allows us to carry out investigations in the first place, while the latter is a theory that works in some areas but not others.
    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.



    Potentiality relates to substance and the laws of physics. Absolute nothingness precludes potentiality by definition. This isn't that hard to comprehend :s



    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?



    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).



    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.
    if you agree with me that relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions like for example I don't know maybe the creation of the universe then you're agreeing with my initial comment and you've spent this entire chain wasting both of our time.

    Why do you need substance and the laws of physics to have the potential of something 'happening'?

    As I said you're failing to understand the difference between philosophical nothing and physical nothing. Philosophical nothing may be able to exist in your room but physical nothing cannot.

    Unfortunately people from different fields use the same words for different things. Causality in physics means something different to causality in philosophy, you were the one who interpreted my use of causality in a physical context as being in a philosophical context.

    Would you care to explain how everything occurs simultaneously in b theory? In b theory time still exists, and events occur at different times.

    What do you mean by "in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation"?

    The beginning of space time would be in time but the creation of space time itself wouldn't be. Space time cannot be created in itself because that's just an infinite regression.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    How is the dismissal of causality in anyway comparable to the dismissal of relativity in domains where we know it breaks down? The former is a metaphysical concept that allows us to carry out investigations in the first place, while the latter is a theory that works in some areas but not others.
    You want to carry out investigations about the origin of the universe, yet don't acknowledge our knowledge is limited to within the universe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    if you agree with me that relativistic physics breaks down at extreme conditions like for example I don't know maybe the creation of the universe then you're agreeing with my initial comment and you've spent this entire chain wasting both of our time.
    Where did you get this from? What makes you think causality breaks down with relativistic physics, when models that go beyond general relativity and any notion of spacetime as we understood nevertheless rely on causal explanations?

    Why do you need substance and the laws of physics to have the potential of something 'happening'?
    How else do you get potential of something happening? You can replace physical laws and substance with something else, and the point would still stand. Out of nothing, nothing comes. As soon as you ascribe potentiality to nothingness, you have something, which is a contradiction.

    P.S. If you think potentiality from nothingness can be actualised without time, your entire argument falls apart anyway. In terms of causal explanations, you've replaced God (or any other mechanism) with nothingness actualising some potential.

    As I said you're failing to understand the difference between philosophical nothing and physical nothing. Philosophical nothing may be able to exist in your room but physical nothing cannot.
    I'm not sure you understand the point I'm making. You're the one making the claim that philosophical nothing, or absolute nothingness, can have "potential" - which is something, to create. If we grant this frankly nonsensical possibility that even the likes of Krauss wouldn't entertain, what's stopping the philosophical nothingness from creating physical objects in our universe?

    Unfortunately people from different fields use the same words for different things. Causality in physics means something different to causality in philosophy, you were the one who interpreted my use of causality in a physical context as being in a philosophical context.
    Causality in a physical context is a subset of the general causal principle, and the former doesn't even rely on any prior notions of spacetime.

    Would you care to explain how everything occurs simultaneously in b theory? In b theory time still exists, and events occur at different times.
    In B theory, the flow of time and any concept of change is illusory; in that sense, everything is "happening" at once.

    What do you mean by "in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation"?
    See logical entailment for timeless dependency.

    The beginning of space time would be in time but the creation of space time itself wouldn't be. Space time cannot be created in itself because that's just an infinite regression.
    The beginning of spacetime would be simultaneous with its creation; both would be "in time" as t=0 is still within the confines of the temporal domain. You don't need a pre-existing spacetime for that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You want to carry out investigations about the origin of the universe, yet don't acknowledge our knowledge is limited to within the universe.
    Knowledge of the content of scientific laws is limited to within the universe, sure, no one really disputed that. But why assume the concept of carrying out investigations and the need for explanations is limited to this universe? That would be special pleading. I don't see why we should just throw away causality as a metaphysical principle when it doesn't suit us; why would we keep cosmologists from trying to figure out the origin of the universe in causal terms?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Knowledge of the content of scientific laws is limited to within the universe, sure, no one really disputed that. But why assume the concept of carrying out investigations and the need for explanations is limited to this universe? That would be special pleading. I don't see why we should just throw away causality as a metaphysical principle when it doesn't suit us; why would we keep cosmologists from trying to figure out the origin of the universe in causal terms?
    Who said anything about throwing it away. I am simply saying anything one comes up with is pure conjecture.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Who said anything about throwing it away. I am simply saying anything one comes up with is pure conjecture.
    That would depend on the individual reasoning behind the different models. There are dozens of cosmological models that are conjectural but more or less consistent with known science, so I'd prefer to assess the merits of these models on their own instead of dismissing the conjectural approach outright.

    As for "theological" models that posit some sort of a God, personally, I don't think cosmological arguments like that one put forth by Craig et al are convincing arguments. But equally unconvincing is the common retort "causality doesn't exist outside of spacetime, therefore God CANNOT create the universe", which appears to be a very simplistic assessment of causality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    That would depend on the individual reasoning behind the different models. There are dozens of cosmological models that are conjectural but more or less consistent with known science, so I'd prefer to assess the merits of these models on their own instead of dismissing the conjectural approach outright.

    As for "theological" models that posit some sort of a God, personally, I don't think cosmological arguments like that one put forth by Craig et al are convincing arguments. But equally unconvincing is the common retort "causality doesn't exist outside of spacetime, therefore God CANNOT create the universe", which appears to be a very simplistic assessment of causality.
    But the last point is not even what I am getting at. They are using known science to figment an argument on the "scientific" basis of what we know. I am simply saying, we do not know. It is irrelevant whether or not their argument is correct (for what it's worth, I obviously think it's not). For all we know there is an infinite blub in existence and our universe is just one of infinitely many universes within this infinite blub. And within this infinite blub there exist a physics that can very easily explain the "cause" of our universe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The one and only answer to this question is that you are correct. I believe in God and there is no factual evidence that God exists.

    However, people try to prove that it is rational to believe in God, NOT the fact that it has been proven.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "Blessed are those who believe without seeing". John 20:29

    Belief does not require evidence, it requires faith.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But the last point is not even what I am getting at. They are using known science to figment an argument on the "scientific" basis of what we know. I am simply saying, we do not know. It is irrelevant whether or not their argument is correct (for what it's worth, I obviously think it's not). For all we know there is an infinite blub in existence and our universe is just one of infinitely many universes within this infinite blub. And within this infinite blub there exist a physics that can very easily explain the "cause" of our universe.
    My criticism of their argument would not be that they're using known scientific concepts and applying it outside the universe (they're not, metaphysical principles are not known science - they're beyond science), but that they're ascribing properties of a personal God to this "cause".

    I think the multiverse is very plausible given known science (it's difficult to construct quantum gravity models without ending up with multiverses).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    "Blessed are those who believe without seeing". John 20:29
    John is clearly the patron saint of second-hand car sellers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    My criticism of their argument would not be that they're using known scientific concepts and applying it outside the universe (they're not, metaphysical principles are not known science - they're beyond science), but that they're ascribing properties of a personal God to this "cause".

    I think the multiverse is very plausible given known science (it's difficult to construct quantum gravity models without ending up with multiverses).
    Of course, there is no link to a benevolent God. I guess that first part should also be a criticism though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Delusions are comforting. We all believe and trust without reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    "Blessed are those who believe without seeing". John 20:29

    Belief does not require evidence, it requires faith.
    False. What is sufficient to justify a belief varies from person to person.

    However, evidence is infinitely better than nothing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    John is clearly the patron saint of second-hand car sellers.
    The deduction that there is an engine in a car that drives is analogous to that there is a God if you read the scripture and observe human behavior. Humans require biblical scripture like a car requires an engine, it is enriching, and there's a reason that it is.
    (Original post by Onde)
    False. What is sufficient to justify a belief varies from person to person.

    However, evidence is infinitely better than nothing.
    I find that the belief that there is no higher power requires more evidence than that there is one. If there is no God, then why is there beauty and order in nature? How is it that we can write Physics equations, where did the fundamental constants come from? This is not a God of the gaps. The equations are determined, there is order and therefore there is a 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.

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.