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

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I say sloppy things too! Doesn't make it right.
    I hardly think saying "x isn't real" every time someone made a ridiculous claim is sloppy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It is a silly redefintion because it cripples atheism as an intellectual viewpoint. It's just a description of how you feel - neither right nor wrong. You say there's no evidence for theism (though you know there is, of course), but I'm genuinely interested in what you're putting your faith in for the origin of the universe. How do atheists reconcile something coming from nothing? Or there being anything at all, rather than nothing? Is it all resting on quantum mechanics or what?
    I don't see how lacking a belief in deity cripples atheism. It would be more crippling to positively assert there is definitely no evidence and never will be because that would require one to produce evidence for an unfalsifiable claim.

    Why are you telling me what I believe? No, I don't think there is any evidence for theism at all.

    The something from nothing is a strawman because I've never seen any atheist say they believe that everything came from a literal nothing. When nothing is used it's usually in reference to quantum fluctuations and the like.

    Ironically it is most theists who say that God created everything from nothing.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I don't see how lacking a belief in deity cripples atheism. It would be more crippling to positively assert there is definitely no evidence and never will be because that would require one to produce evidence for an unfalsifiable claim.

    Why are you telling me what I believe? No, I don't think there is any evidence for theism at all.

    The something from nothing is a strawman because I've never seen any atheist say they believe that everything came from a literal nothing. When nothing is used it's usually in reference to quantum fluctuations and the like.

    Ironically it is most theists who say that God created everything from nothing.
    So... if your faith is that the universe is eternal (since this wouldn't require ex nihilo creation), what do you say to the question of why there is something rather than nothing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    So... if your faith is that the universe is eternal (since this wouldn't require ex nihilo creation), what do you say to the question of why there is something rather than nothing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The universe in its current form clearly isn't eternal as it began with the Big Bang. Whether the singularity/quantum fluctuations that "preceded" it have always existed in some form is another matter and science isn't yet at the point where it can answer that question.

    I don't see why the "something rather than nothing" is seen as a convincing or powerful point because it's nothing more than the Anthropic Principle. We can only question and talk about this because there is something, allowing us to evolve. We are here because of the conditions. The conditions didn't think ahead and tailor themselves to us like would be expected from an intelligent design argument.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The universe in its current form clearly isn't eternal as it began with the Big Bang. Whether the singularity/quantum fluctuations that "preceded" it have always existed in some form is another matter and science isn't yet at the point where it can answer that question.

    I don't see why the "something rather than nothing" is seen as a convincing or powerful point because it's nothing more than the Anthropic Principle. We can only question and talk about this because there is something, allowing us to evolve. We are here because of the conditions. The conditions didn't think ahead and tailor themselves to us like would be expected from an intelligent design argument.
    I'm not talking about whether or not the universe is designed for us. I'm just noting the fact that it exists, and asking for a credible reason why this is. The fact humans exist has no bearing on why there is something rather than nothing.

    Saying 'the only reason we can talk about this is because we exist' is irrelevant to this point, and besides, the only reason we can talk about anything is because we exist, including science.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

    We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.
    If you can have an eternal creator, why not an eternal universe?

    Also, if the creator is eternal, isn't she really just another name for that universe?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I'm not talking about whether or not the universe is designed for us. I'm just noting the fact that it exists, and asking for a credible reason why this is. The fact humans exist has no bearing on why there is something rather than nothing.

    Saying 'the only reason we can talk about this is because we exist' is irrelevant to this point, and besides, the only reason we can talk about anything is because we exist, including science.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Anthropic Principle is a very important and oft-used fallacy. It is completely relevant because your question subtly implies that there is a reason why there's something rather than nothing. There isn't, or at least there's no evidence for this.

    I'm not actually sure what you're trying to get at. Something exists just because it does. It's like asking "Why does God exist?" or "Why is an atom with 6 protons carbon?" The point being that there doesn't need to be a reason as this implies there is an underlying intelligence that had reasons for doing so and there is no evidence of that. Matter and energy are unthinking and unconscious.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is a stupid argument if you accept that God exists eternally. So if you accept the Christian conception of God and still argue like that you're a moron. But, plenty of people don't see any reason to assume that the Christian or generally the Abrahamic conception of God is coherent let alone that such a God exists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
    Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
    Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
    Atheist: -_-
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
    Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
    Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
    Atheist: -_-
    Even better:

    Religionist: something can't come from nothing therefore the universe must have had a creator.

    Atheist: so what did God create the universe (i.e. everything) out of?

    Religionist: nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You're right. god isn't an event. god isn't anything but a made up story.
    Again the big bang could've been the "eternal first cause". A hypothesis gaining ground, which stems from the multiverse hypothesis suggests that the big bang has always been happening. Here's one of many links that you can check out.

    http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~st...skauthors.html

    Don't worry, if you don't understand, the rest of use scientifically literate people do. Perhaps you can pray to the flying spaghetti monster ( http://www.venganza.org/about/ ) or whatever made up god you believe in.for knowledge.
    Actually, the article is simply a theory saying there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang - don't try and connect that to the 'a Big Bang is happening right now' - trying to change your beliefs mid-argument just makes you look funny as we are talking about one Big Bang so if there were Big Bangs before it still couldn't be eternal.

    Your condescension is quite funny but you know. If you wanna say he's a made-up story then sure.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Just when I think you finally understand about the absurdity of the outside of the outside of time, you then show that you don't by believing god exists outside of time. If something can exist outside of time, then why not the outside of outside of time?

    Really, before you reply just take a bit of time to think about this.

    Again, eternal / eternity are indeed an application of time and so can't be outside of time. It's like saying 'south' isn't an application of direction as it exists outside of directions. I don't claim to be a quantum physicist, but I do tend to read a variety of scientific articles and if something piques my interest, i'll seek out academic papers, so i'm pretty sure I have a stronger grasp of such concepts. I believe that education is very important. If only you people believed in facts as much as you believed in fairy tales the world would be a better place.
    whoa - a round of applause for that strawman - it was magnificent but unfortunately not what I even said.

    South is an application of direction but something that is south of you isn't an application of direction. So just because the word eternal relates to time, doesn't mean the thing it is describing can't be outside of time. There is no outside of the outside of time because the outside of time is the Metacosm - how can there be an outside of an outside without you even acknowledging that that outside exists.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Now, if you feel the need to go to the bible to find a way to contradict peer-reviewed studies, then you can't hope to understand such concepts.



    I'm not confused. Although, i'm not a physicist, I do read around the subject. I make a huge amount of sense. I would implore you to educate yourself. If you disagree with my stance then read around the subject and link in some peer-reviewed science to justify your position. Otherwise, you'll remain ignorant and that would be a shame when we live in a world when we've more access to information than we've ever had. Thanks, science.
    Loving those peer-reviewed studies that didn't even go against me. Wow, someone says they made a huge amount of sense - they're obviously not biased. There's no point in hypocritical judgement in fact the Bible says it's wrong. Do not ask people to educate themselves in such a rude way. without you yourself being educated.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    But I didn't get proven wrong. I stated something and you said basically said, "That's not right. It's god, innit". That's not proof. That is a counter statement not backed by anything. If I were you, I wouldn't think of going to university just yet. You'll acquire unnecessary crippling debt by answering every question with, "god did it, innit".
    Another strawman - do I need to reassure you I am not a crow?

    I never said, because you're wrong 'god did it, innit' - just because scientists have no empirical proof for abiogenesis (which evolution depends on) doesn't mean 'god did it, innit' but it means that people who cry for empirical proof of God are only deceiving themselves when there is 0 empirical proof for abiogenesis.

    I believe God is the eternal first cause and I proved you wrong by saying the Big Bang as an EVENT can't be eternal - that's not attributing it God. You've been holding this strawman up the whole argument and that's the real misguided belief.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Your beliefs are totally misguided. If everyone had your beliefs then we'd be having this conversation still living in the dark ages. Again, thanks science.

    Science has never and can't ever harm anyone. People harm people. No-one ever said, "I will kill you as Charles Darwin demands in the book, 'The origin of species'. But people have and do still kill stating that that is what god demands in the bible.
    I doubt it because religion isn't even against science. I'm sure we would have gone further if people took Christianity for what it actually was.

    As you can say science has never and can't ever harm anyone - I can say a relationship with God doesn't harm anyone. People harm people.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Your cringy LOL's are getting weird. LOL

    LOL Again, you've offered no proof of anything. So there's no need to worry about my education. I consistently obtain firsts so i'll be okay. LOL

    LOL I probably did prove your logic...on opposite world. Unfortunately for you, this is Earth where facts and logic prevail over superstition. You should visit this plant more often to get used to it. LOL

    Just read up on the big bang and and the cyclic hypothesis.
    Uh oh, but that would mean educating yourself about something. We can't have that, can we.

    LOL
    Spoiler:
    Show
    LOL
    It's pretty funny how I used 'LOL' twice in my post and you used the smiley 10 times which if you didn't guess is 5 times as much as my usage but I guess you get triggered easily. You used the smiley after almost every sentence and it's funny how you just use the LOL in the same way in a hypocritical and worse way than mine own.

    As said before, hypocritical judgement is wrong and just plain embarrassing.

    I'm loving that clear empirical proof for the Cyclic Hypothesis - o wait there is none.

    How can you be so rude in a simple internet argument? I guess it just comes down to how triggered you are - but I shouldn't worry about your self-control - you don't believe in any real lasting consequences of your actions anyway (wait was that just a gross misrepresentation of your beliefs - yes it was - and it's exactly what you've been doing this whole argument with strawmans left, right and centre)

    I have no superstitions but if you actually knew what the Big Bang was, you'd know an event couldn't be eternal and that the Cyclic Hypothesis doesn't even say the Big Bang is Eternal :/

    rip don't force it and the Multiverse theory (which if you actually believe in - you are having as much faith as Christians in Christ) together to pretend as if you're right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    If you can have an eternal creator, why not an eternal universe?

    Also, if the creator is eternal, isn't she really just another name for that universe?
    If the Universe was eternal, there was no Big Bang which I'm guessing you believe in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The Anthropic Principle is a very important and oft-used fallacy. It is completely relevant because your question subtly implies that there is a reason why there's something rather than nothing. There isn't, or at least there's no evidence for this.

    I'm not actually sure what you're trying to get at. Something exists just because it does. It's like asking "Why does God exist?" or "Why is an atom with 6 protons carbon?" The point being that there doesn't need to be a reason as this implies there is an underlying intelligence that had reasons for doing so and there is no evidence of that. Matter and energy are unthinking and unconscious.
    The idea of 'nothing' is dreamed up in the world of something"Something predicates the absence of nothing. You have one or the other and never both or anything in between.I.E. If something ever existed at all, then something is all there ever wasAlso, if nothing existed, then it would be something by virtue of existing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
    Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
    Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
    Atheist: -_-
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Even better:

    Religionist: something can't come from nothing therefore the universe must have had a creator.

    Atheist: so what did God create the universe (i.e. everything) out of?

    Religionist: nothing.
    Not even how it goes

    Born-again Christian: Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

    Atheist: Who created God?
    Born-again Christian: That question sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

    Atheist: Stupid theists, always bending the rules - how do you even know that?

    Born-again Christian: How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.



    (with help from gotquestions)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The idea of 'nothing' is dreamed up in the world of something"Something predicates the absence of nothing. You have one or the other and never both or anything in between.I.E. If something ever existed at all, then something is all there ever wasAlso, if nothing existed, then it would be something by virtue of existing.
    Not sure how this is relevant to my post. I never said a literal nothing existed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Not even how it goes

    Born-again Christian: Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

    Atheist: Who created God?
    Born-again Christian: That question sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

    Atheist: Stupid theists, always bending the rules - how do you even know that?

    Born-again Christian: How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.



    (with help from gotquestions)
    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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)

    Also, if the creator is eternal, isn't she really just another name for that universe?
    God is a "He" you feminist witch :fuhrer:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
    Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
    Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
    Atheist: -_-
    That's not how most theistic philosophers would put the argument.

    Rather they'd say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause.

    God is eternal and therefore did not begin to exist at any point in time therefore it doesn't need a (an external) cause.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator
    Umm no it's not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We are humans. Our knowledge is limited , yet we must use our senses that the creator has given us.

    We humans cant even look at the sun for more than 5 seconds yet we demand evidence for a "God".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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: November 11, 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.

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.