Is God not explainable?

Watch
Mr.Obsessed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
The whole notion of God sounds a bit silly to most of us- doesn't it? The idea behind their being a big unseen body that controls the universe seems to be absurd in the modern day. There is no scientific evidence for it, perhaps the whole idea should be binned into the rubbish van.

The most common question that I often ask myself is, if there is a creator, there must be someone who created the creator. Right? And that idea could be recursive, the creator creating the creator and so on.. There is no CEO to the universe, maltesers.

Perhaps there had to be something that started this universe off, but that something isn't defined by E=mc^2 and must be out of space and time. Something that isn't part of the universe, or the physics that we know of-
0
reply
HIV
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Of course

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mr.Obsessed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
HIV
0
reply
viriol
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
The fact that a concept "sounds silly" to you or even most people is hardly a good argument against it. After all, few concepts sound as silly as spacetime, wave function, photon, etc.

As for your argument about a Creator, I don't understand why you have no problem with everything not having been created yet seem to have a problem with only one thing (the Creator) not having been created.

That being said, many people would argue God is beyond what we commonly refer to as the Universe and the laws of Physics.
2
reply
member403966
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
It's called faith for a reason, I guess.
0
reply
German123
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
The whole notion of God sounds a bit silly to most of us- doesn't it? The idea behind their being a big unseen body that controls the universe seems to be absurd in the modern day. There is no scientific evidence for it, perhaps the whole idea should be binned into the rubbish van.

The most common question that I often ask myself is, if there is a creator, there must be someone who created the creator. Right? And that idea could be recursive, the creator creating the creator and so on.. There is no CEO to the universe, maltesers.

Perhaps there had to be something that started this universe off, but that something isn't defined by E=mc^2 and must be out of space and time. Something that isn't part of the universe, or the physics that we know of-

How you not heard of the cosmological and teleologica argumentts before?
This may help with regards to your questions.
2
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
The most common question that I often ask myself is, if there is a creator, there must be someone who created the creator. Right? And that idea could be recursive, the creator creating the creator and so on..
I am an atheist and I know lots of atheists, some of them being very ignorant and don't think about things before they try to argue against a creator. They tell me "if god created the universe, then what created god? What created the thing that created the thing that created god?"

They try to use this as an argument against god but they fail to see the pattern which is, if everything needs a creator, then nothing can exist. Whether people believe in god or not is besides the point, either there was always something or there was nothing, and then something spontaneously came into existence and was the first thing. Whether this first thing is the universe, a previous universe, a god or a pink unicorn is anyones guess.

The important question everyone should be asking is not if god exists, but was there always something, or was there nothing, and then something. The question of does god exist really doesn't phase scientists because it's simply not relevent.
2
reply
Mr.Obsessed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
I am an atheist and I know lots of atheists, some of them being very ignorant and don't think about things before they try to argue against a creator. They tell me "if god created the universe, then what created god? What created the thing that created the thing that created god?"

They try to use this as an argument against god but they fail to see the pattern which is, if everything needs a creator, then nothing can exist. Whether people believe in god or not is besides the point, either there was always something or there was nothing, and then something spontaneously came into existence and was the first thing. Whether this first thing is the universe, a previous universe, a god or a pink unicorn is anyones guess.

The important question everyone should be asking is not if god exists, but was there always something, or was there nothing, and then something. The question of does god exist really doesn't phase scientists because it's simply not relevent.
Whatever it was that made the big bang theory take place, whether it was a different universe or a pink unicorn, is the ideology that we call God. We don't know what it is, that's all there is to it. So I don't really see the difference between an athiest and a believer.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
The most common question that I often ask myself is, if there is a creator, there must be someone who created the creator. Right? And that idea could be recursive, the creator creating the creator and so on.. There is no CEO to the universe, maltesers.
This is why the creator has to be a supernatural entity, as a supernatural entity the creator can "just be there" and not need a creator.


(Original post by viriol)
The fact that a concept "sounds silly" to you or even most people is hardly a good argument against it. After all, few concepts sound as silly as spacetime, wave function, photon, etc.
The difference is that "silly sounding" science stuff generally has a reasonable explanation, whereas the creator requires a supernatural explanation.


As for your argument about a Creator, I don't understand why you have no problem with everything not having been created yet seem to have a problem with only one thing (the Creator) not having been created.
For me at least, it comes down to a case of, in effect, inconsistency, hypocrisy, and throwing Ocam's Razor in too.


That being said, many people would argue God is beyond what we commonly refer to as the Universe and the laws of Physics.
I don't think it's case of many, it's as good as a requirement for [insert deity] to be a supernatural being, especially if there is a creation story.

(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
I am an atheist and I know lots of atheists, some of them being very ignorant and don't think about things before they try to argue against a creator. They tell me "if god created the universe, then what created god? What created the thing that created the thing that created god?"

They try to use this as an argument against god but they fail to see the pattern which is, if everything needs a creator, then nothing can exist. Whether people believe in god or not is besides the point, either there was always something or there was nothing, and then something spontaneously came into existence and was the first thing. Whether this first thing is the universe, a previous universe, a god or a pink unicorn is anyones guess.

The important question everyone should be asking is not if god exists, but was there always something, or was there nothing, and then something. The question of does god exist really doesn't phase scientists because it's simply not relevent.
There is a theory that I heard a few years back, which as far as I know is not at all widely believed and/or dead, which basically states that nothing does exist. Similar to matter/antimatter, but not actually matter/antimatter, goes along the lines of effectively positive and negative existence, and similar to [anti]matter they cancel out.
Analogy used was digging a hole. When you dig a hole the dirt doesn't vanish, you form it into a mound next to the hole. As time passes it collapses back into the hole and the hole disappears. In a similar way, regard the universe as the hole, and upon creation this mound came with it too, as time passes the mound collapses into the hole and bye bye universe.

Bit of a far fetched theory, but then again a lot are upon initial conception.
0
reply
paddey7
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Somethings can not be explained by reason
0
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There is a theory that I heard a few years back, which as far as I know is not at all widely believed and/or dead, which basically states that nothing does exist. Similar to matter/antimatter, but not actually matter/antimatter, goes along the lines of effectively positive and negative existence, and similar to [anti]matter they cancel out.
Analogy used was digging a hole. When you dig a hole the dirt doesn't vanish, you form it into a mound next to the hole. As time passes it collapses back into the hole and the hole disappears. In a similar way, regard the universe as the hole, and upon creation this mound came with it too, as time passes the mound collapses into the hole and bye bye universe.

Bit of a far fetched theory, but then again a lot are upon initial conception.
I never heard of this "theory" before, is it scientific or just something going around in the inter-webz? I find it extremely difficult to believe that at some point in "time" there was absolutely nothing. The human mind, for obvious reasons cannot comprehend nothing but from a physics model, nothing is the absence of something.

Of course the topic is up for debat and people say that nothing is actually an object of nothing.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
I never heard of this "theory" before, is it scientific or just something going around in the inter-webz? I find it extremely difficult to believe that at some point in "time" there was absolutely nothing. The human mind, for obvious reasons cannot comprehend nothing but from a physics model, nothing is the absence of something.

Of course the topic is up for debate and people say that nothing is actually an object of nothing.
I would assume that it's scientific since it was on a science documentary, I believe it was a Stephen Hawking one, either into the universe or brave new world. I doubt that the scientists that are on the documentaries would be particularly willing if they knew there was some apparent bogus in the program if it wasn't a Hawking one.

I think it's, at least partly, related to the Black Hole Information Paradox.
0
reply
brap man 420
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
HIV
This was a response to the Africa thread right? I was a bit concerned at your response to his post simply saying HIV lol
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
The whole notion of God sounds a bit silly to most of us- doesn't it? The idea behind their being a big unseen body that controls the universe seems to be absurd in the modern day. There is no scientific evidence for it, perhaps the whole idea should be binned into the rubbish van.

The most common question that I often ask myself is, if there is a creator, there must be someone who created the creator. Right? And that idea could be recursive, the creator creating the creator and so on.. There is no CEO to the universe, maltesers.

Perhaps there had to be something that started this universe off, but that something isn't defined by E=mc^2 and must be out of space and time. Something that isn't part of the universe, or the physics that we know of-
No.

This is what most people mean by God.
0
reply
viriol
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The difference is that "silly sounding" science stuff generally has a reasonable explanation, whereas the creator requires a supernatural explanation.
Perhaps, but the criticism was directed at the "silly sound" rather than the kind of explanation it requires. BTW, it is not all that obvious what "supernatural" means in this situation, especially when you're admitting that Nature is part of this Creation...

For me at least, it comes down to a case of, in effect, inconsistency, hypocrisy, and throwing Ocam's Razor in too.
Even though I see what you mean, I have to disagree. It is perfectly possible for something/someone eternal to create stuff which is finite in time - borrowing your "revived" hypothesis, we can easily think of an eternal child in an eternal beach digging and covering holes...
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by viriol)
Perhaps, but the criticism was directed at the "silly sound" rather than the kind of explanation it requires. BTW, it is not all that obvious what "supernatural" means in this situation, especially when you're admitting that Nature is part of this Creation...
To a rational mind any idea should be believable if there is a logical argument with sufficient evidence, no matter how crazy the idea is. And I'm not following the second part.


Even though I see what you mean, I have to disagree. It is perfectly possible for something/someone eternal to create stuff which is finite in time - borrowing your "revived" hypothesis, we can easily think of an eternal child in an eternal beach digging and covering holes...
I'm not sure if you aren't realising that the inconsistency, hypocrisy and ability to apply Occam's Razor is due to the necessity of the supernatural nature of the creator. The whole point of the net existence of zero theory is to remove one of the main problems that arise from dismissing the supernatural, ie there is something now and wasn't before, but the laws of physics as we know them shouldn't allow that.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by viriol)
The fact that a concept "sounds silly" to you or even most people is hardly a good argument against it. After all, few concepts sound as silly as spacetime, wave function, photon, etc.
Except there is reams and reams of experimental observation to back up those silly sounding ideas. Not to mention all the tech that we use that requires the use of those theories.

Fairies and unicorns, not so much.
0
reply
viriol
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
To a rational mind any idea should be believable if there is a logical argument with sufficient evidence, no matter how crazy the idea is. And I'm not following the second part.
Once again, I'm not arguing arguments because that is not what the OP criticised.

The second part is just me saying the following: if you entertain the possibility of a Creator, then Nature stems from Him. If that is so, what does supernatural mean? Something "bigger" than the Nature we see? Is it not simpler to think of this being as part of a side of Nature we don't usually experience?

I'm not sure if you aren't realising that the inconsistency, hypocrisy and ability to apply Occam's Razor is due to the necessity of the supernatural nature of the creator. The whole point of the net existence of zero theory is to remove one of the main problems that arise from dismissing the supernatural, ie there is something now and wasn't before, but the laws of physics as we know them shouldn't allow that.
The laws of physics as we know them don't have anything to say about that. They break down if you peek sufficiently far into the past.
0
reply
viriol
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Except there is reams and reams of experimental observation to back up those silly sounding ideas. Not to mention all the tech that we use that requires the use of those theories.

Fairies and unicorns, not so much.
As I've said, the OP made no reference to evidence or even consistent speculation. He attacked the idea solely on the basis that it "sounds silly". Therefore I feel entitled to attack his argument - because of the premise he used, not because of the premise he could have used (that leads to a very different kind of discussion).
0
reply
The_Duck
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
Quite simply, something that exists is something that is definable. If we have something that we cannot possibly define then that object cannot exist.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (66)
14.9%
I'm not sure (16)
3.61%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (148)
33.41%
I have already dropped out (8)
1.81%
I'm not a current university student (205)
46.28%

Watched Threads

View All