Go to first unread
Back
to top
Is God not explainable?
Watch
Announcements
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-
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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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-
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
Report
#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..
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..
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
(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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#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.
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.
(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 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.
(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.
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.
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
Report
#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.
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.
Of course the topic is up for debat and people say that nothing is actually an object of nothing.
0
reply
Report
#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 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 think it's, at least partly, related to the Black Hole Information Paradox.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Mr.Obsessed)
HIV
HIV
0
reply
Report
#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-
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-
This is what most people mean by God.
0
reply
Report
#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.
The difference is that "silly sounding" science stuff generally has a reasonable explanation, whereas the creator requires a supernatural explanation.
For me at least, it comes down to a case of, in effect, inconsistency, hypocrisy, and throwing Ocam's Razor in too.
0
reply
Report
#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...
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...
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
Report
#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.
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.
Fairies and unicorns, not so much.
0
reply
Report
#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.
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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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
