The Existence of God

[D'Anconia]

Why do so many people think that it is irrational to believe that God created the universe?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Why is it unreasonable to believe that God was that cause?

[Guest1]

Well... what created god?

This really is not a debate that will convince either side, I don't think you're gonna get anywhere.

[D'Anconia]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 04:14 AM
Well... what created god?

This really is not a debate that will convince either side, I don't think you're gonna get anywhere.
If God is the infinite, immaterial being that is necessary to set the universe in motion He is the First Cause and is himself uncaused.
That is, it is metaphysically impossible for God to be caused by the world because His very being is such that it exists, whereas the world exists as a metaphysical contingency as evidenced by its beginning point.

If not God, then what?

[Individual]

Here are two recent posts I made very similar to the subject. These are from the Philosophy forum:

My first thoughts on the subject. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=23574&st=0&#entry369774)

My second thoughts on the subject. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=23574&st=0&#entry369785)

[Nickademus]

i think before you get into this you really have to define GOD. are you referring to the christian god? see to me the concept of the god and the goddess is just a way of dealing with the unkown beyond this earth ..... i don't know what created the world, the universe etc., so i just use these 'generic' terms. thus to me, i see no reason why the goddess and god didn't create the universe ... but then again, i don't even know what the god and goddess are ... whether they just be two asteroids smashig into each other, a boom, or whatever.

hope that's not too confusing ... i don't think i was as articulate there as i would have liked to be.

[Rasta Sapian]

God is the almighty father, creator of heavan and earth. ie. the universe!

Its not unreasonable its a miricle!

peace yall

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by D&#39;Anconia+Apr 2 2004, 04:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (D&#39;Anconia @ Apr 2 2004, 04:29 AM)
Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 04:14 AM
Well... what created god?

This really is not a debate that will convince either side, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re gonna get anywhere.
If God is the infinite, immaterial being that is necessary to set the universe in motion He is the First Cause and is himself uncaused.
That is, it is metaphysically impossible for God to be caused by the world because His very being is such that it exists, whereas the world exists as a metaphysical contingency as evidenced by its beginning point.

If not God, then what? [/b]
If god is infinate, timless etc, why cant the universe be?

Your arguments suck.

[RedAnarchist]

God is simply an invention of humanity to help calm fears about death and to help make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful.

There is no God people. Even so, to have science without religion is to be materialistic and to have religion without science is to be superstitious.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 2 2004, 09:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Apr 2 2004, 09:47 AM)
Originally posted by D&#39;[email protected] 2 2004, 04:29 AM

Che y [email protected] 2 2004, 04:14 AM
Well... what created god?

This really is not a debate that will convince either side, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re gonna get anywhere.
If God is the infinite, immaterial being that is necessary to set the universe in motion He is the First Cause and is himself uncaused.
That is, it is metaphysically impossible for God to be caused by the world because His very being is such that it exists, whereas the world exists as a metaphysical contingency as evidenced by its beginning point.

If not God, then what?
If god is infinate, timless etc, why cant the universe be?

Your arguments suck. [/b]
God is not material. That is how. Nothing material can possibly be infinite, because it is impossible to have an actual infinite. This is opposed to a theoretical infinite i.e. time is theoretically infinite because we do not know when in the future it will end or even that it will. This is an example of the impossibility that has been given (it is not mine) Hilbert&#39;s Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course&#33;" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full&#33; Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest&#39;s name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course&#33;" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full&#33; And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before.

But Hilbert&#39;s Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds&#33; Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don&#39;t talk to that laundry woman&#33; In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.


If it is impossible to have an actual infinite number of material things, how can it be possible that the universe (which I think we can all agree is made up of matter thereby making it material) is infinite or eternal?

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 06:46 AM
i think before you get into this you really have to define GOD. are you referring to the christian god? see to me the concept of the god and the goddess is just a way of dealing with the unkown beyond this earth ..... i don&#39;t know what created the world, the universe etc., so i just use these &#39;generic&#39; terms. thus to me, i see no reason why the goddess and god didn&#39;t create the universe ... but then again, i don&#39;t even know what the god and goddess are ... whether they just be two asteroids smashig into each other, a boom, or whatever.

hope that&#39;s not too confusing ... i don&#39;t think i was as articulate there as i would have liked to be.
I think I may have gotten to God a little too quickly. For now, I am arguing only for a First Cause. I&#39;ll convince you all of God after that. ;)

[Dune Dx]

I think to the question what created God - God created time so there is nothing before him because he started time

[Osman Ghazi]

God has always been the easy way out, It is just a way to answer questions that you can&#39;t otherwise. &#39;Oh, it&#39;s raining. Why? Umm... God?&#39; or &#39;Hmm... bright flashes in the sky. It&#39;s God, for sure.&#39; This is the same situation: &#39;How was the universe created? Hmm... God?&#39; Your whole argument rests on the fact that we can&#39;t prove how the universe was created and conveniently god fills the gap. Also, I&#39;ve never heard that the universe was inifinite. I always thought that it was infinitely expanding. But maybe that&#39;s the same thing. Well, I&#39;ve never claimed to have more than a rudimentary grasp of astrophysics.

[jimi2times]

I&#39;ll convince you all of God after that

I&#39;m a christian so i&#39;ve already been convinced of this.



If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase &#39;to make money.&#39; Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words &#39;to make money&#39; hold the essence of human morality.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."
---Ayn Rand


I might take a bit more convincing on your signature though. Money is the root of all evil, not good. Or is this an ironical comment, some other meaning to this?

[jimi2times]

God has always been the easy way out#


I&#39;m a christian, which means the way i live my life should be about trying to reflect my belief and knowledge in God. Very few of my friends are christians, and i wasn&#39;t brought up as one. I can tell you that believing in God is definitely NOT the easy way out. I have the same temptations and desires as anyone, but to not act on them because of my beliefs isn&#39;t something that is easy to do.

[Dune Dx]

lightinin is cause by heated up particles in the air so they aline and alow charged static electricity to escape. only kidding i have no idea about lightining.

[Osman Ghazi]

What I&#39;m saying is that in terms of knowledge it is the easy way out. It is easy to just say god did this and that but it is difficult to actually take the time to find out why something actually happens. Also, lightning is caused by the positive charge of the earth and the negative charge of the clouds and is essentially a giant spark. Also, you should know that D&#39;anconia is totally serious. Objectivism is just ayn Rand crooning in rich people&#39;s ear: "it&#39;s good to have money, rich people are morally just, not like those poor scumbags who can&#39;t even pull their own weight." It&#39;s quite disgusting actually and what is more she doesn&#39;t even provide any evidence, short of logical fallacies and false analogies.

[Wenty]

Typically, people who argue against God try and argue with the Rational, i.e. who created him, how is it possible etc.

Surely though the possibility of his existence renders these arguments void. It is unknowable what this supreme beings capabilities are, so to argue against this deity (hypothetically in some cases) with rational arguments is in my view erroneous.

To believe in God is not irrational, nor is it irrational to not believe.

[Severian]

Originally posted by D&#39;[email protected] 1 2004, 10:09 PM
Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Quantum mechanics shows this is not always the case.

"Nothing material can possibly be infinite, because it is impossible to have an actual infinite."

This would have to be proved experimentally, not just with logic games. Your "Hilbert&#39;s Hotel" quote proves nothing, except that infinity seems ridiculous to its author. This tells us something about him/her, but nothing about the universe.

If you proved that it could not be finite in space, this would not prove anything as to eternity in time. The universe does appear finite to astronomers, that is, it has been expanding from a single point for a finite period of time. This does not tell us what happened before that, whether the universe is cyclic, etc.

"Why is it unreasonable to believe that God was that cause?"

Because it is unreasonable to believe in things without evidence for their existence. Otherwise, I would have to believe in not just God, but all possible gods, monsters, demons, aliens, flying purple people eaters, and things that only eat hippies. BTW, this is also the problem with Pascal&#39;s wager.

"I think to the question what created God - God created time so there is nothing before him because he started time "

This could also be said of the Big Bang. Hawking&#39;s Brief History of Time gives a mathematical explanation of this idea.

[God of Imperia]

I don&#39;t believe that God is like an old bearded person in the sky watching eveyone of us and things. I think there is this universal power, amongst us, between us, in us and everything ... There has to be something, why are there all these similar stories ...

[Dune Dx]

Not that it will count for much, because its only my word you have to go on but, there was this tribe in Africa and when it was first contacted by the outside world the guy in charge told the westerners the tribes story which began with the whole world building a huge tower to reach God then God punsihed them by giving them all different languages so they couldnt finish the tower. which is the tower Babel

[Osman Ghazi]

Well where was this tribe? What part of Africa I mean. Babylon is in Iraq which isn&#39;t really that far from Africa. Also, the Tower of Babel was &#39;finished&#39; in that they got as far as they could get and just stopped but it was destroyed by weather or something. Not that this has anything to do with god, so why are we talking about it?

[revolutionindia]

D&#39;Anconia you are wasting your time.

Most of the people on this website are so ignorant they can
neither understand nor comprehend the meaning and
nature of god .

They want proof for everthing and anything that cannot be
scientifically proven is not believed.
They do not understand that we have only five senses which
are not sufficient to know the truth about the world.

All the time they argue about is homosexuality and how poor
homosexuals are being oppressed.
The highest ideals these communists can think of are gays liberation

I have said this before and i will say it again

There 4 types of people

1.Those who know not that they know not.
Ignore them
2.those who know not that they know.
Awaken them
3.Those who know that they know not
Guide them
4.Those who know that they know
Follow them

Most of the people on this site come in the 1st category
leave them alone.

Because preaching is not for us forbecause

We are those blessed ones who are about to start the
longest and the most fascinating journey that mankind
has ever undertaken through the
infinite universe that lies within us.

To become what we are destined to become

"THE ONE WITH GOD"

Aum

[God of Imperia]

with all respect, this topic is the same as all the others ... And it is almost impossible to convice someone with an other point of vies, you believe in god or you don&#39;t ... or if you choose something in the middle, whatever ...

[Dune Dx]

So stop wasting your time by posting these topics :D

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Severian+Apr 2 2004, 02:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Severian @ Apr 2 2004, 02:14 PM)
D&#39;[email protected] 1 2004, 10:09 PM
Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Quantum mechanics shows this is not always the case.

"Nothing material can possibly be infinite, because it is impossible to have an actual infinite."

This would have to be proved experimentally, not just with logic games. Your "Hilbert&#39;s Hotel" quote proves nothing, except that infinity seems ridiculous to its author. This tells us something about him/her, but nothing about the universe.

If you proved that it could not be finite in space, this would not prove anything as to eternity in time. The universe does appear finite to astronomers, that is, it has been expanding from a single point for a finite period of time. This does not tell us what happened before that, whether the universe is cyclic, etc.

"Why is it unreasonable to believe that God was that cause?"

Because it is unreasonable to believe in things without evidence for their existence. Otherwise, I would have to believe in not just God, but all possible gods, monsters, demons, aliens, flying purple people eaters, and things that only eat hippies. BTW, this is also the problem with Pascal&#39;s wager.

"I think to the question what created God - God created time so there is nothing before him because he started time "

This could also be said of the Big Bang. Hawking&#39;s Brief History of Time gives a mathematical explanation of this idea. [/b]
The example was just a logic game, yes. But that alone does not disprove its validity. How in the world can anyone prove that there is something that is actually infinite? Theoretically, numbers are infinite, but how could you deterrmine that? Suppose a man started counting up from the negative end of infinity in eternity past. Today he claims that he will finally reach -3, -2, -1, 0. (this next part is not mine)
We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done&#33; In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.

[Severian]

Originally posted by D&#39;[email protected] 2 2004, 06:10 PM
The example was just a logic game, yes. But that alone does not disprove its validity. How in the world can anyone prove that there is something that is actually infinite?
Huh? You claimed it was impossible, so the burden of proof&#39;s on you, not me, to show it&#39;s impossible. I haven&#39;t claimed to be able to prove anything.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Severian+Apr 3 2004, 03:52 PM--> (Severian &#064; Apr 3 2004, 03:52 PM)
D&#39;[email protected] 2 2004, 06:10 PM
The example was just a logic game, yes. But that alone does not disprove its validity. How in the world can anyone prove that there is something that is actually infinite?
Huh? You claimed it was impossible, so the burden of proof&#39;s on you, not me, to show it&#39;s impossible. I haven&#39;t claimed to be able to prove anything. [/b]
I gave an example of how an actual infinite cannot be possible. You did not even consider what my example was demonstrating. All you did was dismiss it because you say
This would have to be proved experimentally, not just with logic games. Your "Hilbert&#39;s Hotel" quote proves nothing, except that infinity seems ridiculous to its author. This tells us something about him/her, but nothing about the universe.

If the example (which was devised by the German mathematician David Hilbert (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hilbert.html)) does not prove anything, you have failed to say why it does not. You dismissed it only because you disagree with its conclusion and what that would imply.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Just thought I&#39;d take the liberty of kicking this thread back up to the top. No one has really had any answer for my example other than to blindly claim that it proves nothing.

So, if there is no such thing as an actual infinite, there must be some point at which the universe began. There can be no infinite regress of causes, because to have that would require an infinite number of actual events proceeding into eternity past, which as already demonstrated is impossible.

Science confirms a beginning point of the universe as observed by the red shift in the light from distant galaxies. The universe is expanding. To believe in a Big Bang theory (I do not) one must conclude that sonce the universe is expanding now it must have begun in a point of infinite density. To say something was infinitely dense is essentially to say that it is nothing. No object could actually be infinitely dense because if it had any size at all it could be more dense. So, even to believe in the Big Bang one must believe that the universe was created from nothing.

[Eastside Revolt]

If there were a creating factor to our universe, it would have to exist in a reality sepperate from our universe, maybe similar maybe completely different. It doesn&#39;t matter.

As for phenomena that exist on earth, that humans can attest to; I find no evidence for a singular "god" to coerce the evolution of our planet. In fact it would almost make more sence for there to be many "gods" that control different factors in our existence. I mean doesn&#39;t the christian concept of god kind of seem ironic?

[D&#39;Anconia]

If there were a creating factor to our universe, it would have to exist in a reality sepperate from our universe, maybe similar maybe completely different.

Finally, someone who makes a little bit of sense.


I mean doesn&#39;t the christian concept of god kind of seem ironic?

How is it ironic?

[Osman Ghazi]

Again we come back to this facetious argument. You say that there has to be a centre point of the universe which, considering it is a main tenet of the big bang theory i assume most of us would agree to. Then you said how it would need to be infinitely dense, (i didn&#39;t really get why). I also agree that the universe had to be created from nothing (how could it be something without having been nothing? What would be the difference?) However, to wrap it all up you say that the force which caused this is god. Again, whenever you can&#39;t find a definate answer for something, you simply say that it was god. I just think that it must get boring after a while.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+Apr 5 2004, 10:18 PM--> (Osman Ghazi &#064; Apr 5 2004, 10:18 PM) Again we come back to this facetious argument. You say that there has to be a centre point of the universe which, considering it is a main tenet of the big bang theory i assume most of us would agree to. Then you said how it would need to be infinitely dense, (i didn&#39;t really get why). I also agree that the universe had to be created from nothing (how could it be something without having been nothing? What would be the difference?) However, to wrap it all up you say that the force which caused this is god. Again, whenever you can&#39;t find a definate answer for something, you simply say that it was god. I just think that it must get boring after a while. [/b]


The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. Richard J. Gott, et.al., "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American (March 1976), p. 65.


That&#39;s where I get it.


Osman [email protected] 5 2004, 10:18 PM
I also agree that the universe had to be created from nothing (how could it be something without having been nothing? What would be the difference?)

You seem to be saying that the universe came into being out of nothing and without any cause. Obviously, certain physical conditions were required if the Big Bang were to have happened. But whatever those conditions were, they were not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the Big Bang. Even if the conditions existec they did not guarantee that it would happen.
To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever. . . if absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang--no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no deity--, then it seems impossible that anything should begin to exist.So you can&#39;t really say that the universe came into being without a cause and out of nothing.

EDIT:

If the universe has a cause then it is plausible that the cause was a personal creator. How else could a temporal effect (the universe) come about from an eternal cause (whatever it was that caused the universe)? If the cause were only mechanically operating principles or laws i.e. physics, why would the effect not exist from eternity also? If the cause of water&#39;s being frozen is that the temperature drop below 32 degrees F, then if the temperature had been below this from eternity, any existing water would be frozen from eternity.
The only way an eternal cause can have a temporal effect is if the cause is a personal agent. If a man existing eternally had been lying on his stomach for eternity chooses to roll over of his free will, you have an example of an eternal cause having a temporal effect.

So why is it unreasonable to believe that the personal cause of the universe was God?

[DSCH]

The rational argument for God goes like this.

All mortal events and things are caused.

The Big Bang and universe were caused.

The cause of the Big Bang and universe we call "God."

God is the First Cause (This is from Aristotle and Aquinas). God does not have a cause because God is the First Cause whose Cause is in itself.

Of course, as Communists, our religion is Atheism and we reject causality and science in favor of politics.

"Communism begins at the outset with Atheism" -- Karl Marx

[Osman Ghazi]

So why is it unreasonable to believe that the personal cause of the universe was God?

Why? Because it answers the question without giving any real meaning. You don&#39;t know the answer to the question, so instead of looking for it, you blindly state that it is god that did it. It is perfectly &#39;reasonable&#39; in the sense that I could understand why someone would do it, but it most certainly is not &#39;the answer&#39;.

Why not just assume without proof that it was caused by a mass explosion in another dimension. It has as much proof as your theory, so why isn&#39;t it reasonable to assume that this universe was caused by a massive explosion in another dimension?

[yoshim]

i have thought about and i just can&#39;t think how god can exist. I don&#39;t believe in god and i never will that&#39;s just my view.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 6 2004, 02:34 AM

Why not just assume without proof that it was caused by a mass explosion in another dimension. It has as much proof as your theory, so why isn&#39;t it reasonable to assume that this universe was caused by a massive explosion in another dimension?

How else could a temporal effect (the universe) come about from an eternal cause (whatever it was that caused the universe)? If the cause were only mechanically operating principles or laws i.e. physics, why would the effect not exist from eternity also? If the cause of water&#39;s being frozen is that the temperature drop below 32 degrees F, then if the temperature had been below this from eternity, any existing water would be frozen from eternity.
The only way an eternal cause can have a temporal effect is if the cause is a personal agent. If a man existing eternally had been lying on his stomach for eternity chooses to roll over of his free will, you have an example of an eternal cause having a temporal effect.

Read first, then post. ;)


a mass explosion in another dimension. would be an impersonal, eternal cause with a temporal effect.

[Osman Ghazi]

Umm... right. You didn&#39;t actually answer me but okay. I did read your post but I don&#39;t agree with it. Why must an eternal cause have a personal agent to have temporal effect? You haven&#39;t explained why it is a must. Basically, you are saying that all the conditions for the Big Bang were there except for &#39;condition A&#39; which was, in your opinion caused by god. I&#39;m saying that condition A was fulfilled by trans-dimensional fluctuations. What makes your theory more valid than mine?

[187]

"Nothing material can possibly be infinite"

Take any object you can think of in your mind. Now break it down until it doesn&#39;t exist.

Let me know when you&#39;ve split the object into a piece that renders it non-existant.













....Alright well I&#39;m pretty sure you can&#39;t, and the result is infinite regression. Matter can be infinitely broken down.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 6 2004, 07:18 PM
I&#39;m saying that condition A was fulfilled by trans-dimensional fluctuations.
If the cause were only mechanically operating principles or laws i.e. "trans-dimensional fluctuations," why would the universe not exist from eternity also? If these "trans-dimensional fluctuations" have existed eternally to cause the universe, why would they not still be causing the existence of other universes? If the causes you assume are eternal enough to have caused the universe why are they not still in action?

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:21 AM
"Nothing material can possibly be infinite"

Take any object you can think of in your mind. Now break it down until it doesn&#39;t exist.

Let me know when you&#39;ve split the object into a piece that renders it non-existant.













....Alright well I&#39;m pretty sure you can&#39;t, and the result is infinite regression. Matter can be infinitely broken down.
I meant infinite as in eternal. Matter cannot have existed from eternity. In that sense nothing material can be infinite. Think of an object and then ask yourself when it began to exist. Let me give you some examples: your computer, a cup of coffee, the neighbor&#39;s dog, even yourself.



If you can think of any time that it began to exist then you do not have infinite regression.

[Osman Ghazi]

Im saying a trans-dimensional fluctuation that happened one time. Who knows, maybe it is still going on. After all, it isn&#39;t like we&#39;re in the habit of measuring activity in other dimensions. Would you know if other universes were being created? Niether would I. Look, I made the whole trans-dimensional fluctuation thing up as an example of how you really can&#39;t prove that the universe was &#39;caused&#39; by anything. Yet, at least. Saying that it is god is just a naive way of saying you don&#39;t know the answer. And what is more, saying that it is god only creates barriers for the real answers.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 03:11 AM
Im saying a trans-dimensional fluctuation that happened one time. Who knows, maybe it is still going on. After all, it isn&#39;t like we&#39;re in the habit of measuring activity in other dimensions. Would you know if other universes were being created? Niether would I. Look, I made the whole trans-dimensional fluctuation thing up as an example of how you really can&#39;t prove that the universe was &#39;caused&#39; by anything. Yet, at least. Saying that it is god is just a naive way of saying you don&#39;t know the answer. And what is more, saying that it is god only creates barriers for the real answers.
So really, you can offer no more "proof" for your point of view, than you say I can offer for mine. If that is the case than I think you should apply Ockham&#39;s Razor. All things being equal (you can offer no proof of your explanation), the simplest explanation is usually the best. In this case, believing that Gos caused the universe is much simpler than "trans-dimensional fluctuations."

[Osman Ghazi]

You&#39;re kidding right? Do you know how many laws we would have to make up to explain what &#39;gos&#39; (sic) supposedly did? If you just say that &#39;god did it&#39;, then yes, it would be much simpler but I think people may want a bit more explanation than that. Think about it, we would have to make up new laws concerning the spiritual/temporal matrix (assuming that god does not dwell in the material world, that is). All in all, if you actually try to explain it in any depth, &#39;trans-dimensional fluctuations&#39; comes out looking much simpler in terms of the science that would need to be applied to explain it.

[Shredder]

I gave an example of how an actual infinite cannot be possible.

This is the center of your argument, but it doesn&#39;t convince me.

I&#39;ve never seen matter created from nothing, and thus have no reason to believe it ever has been.

The big bang theory itself seems to in fact be an attempt to reconcile fact with religion. If there was a big bang responsible for the distribution of matter in our universe, I&#39;m not convinced that it was the beginning of time and the origin of matter. Did you know that the universe has a slanted trajectory? As in perhaps there was no big bang at all, simply the universe &#39;rubberbanded&#39; in biggest game of &#39;chicken&#39; of all time.

[187]

"I meant infinite as in eternal. Matter cannot have existed from eternity. "

Matter can not be made or destroyed, therefore it is eternal.

"Let me give you some examples: your computer, a cup of coffee, the neighbor&#39;s dog, even yourself."

these are only forms of matter... These don&#39;t hit the root of matter. The same matter used to make me and you and everything has existed forever, and always will.

Why must an immaterial object(god) be able to have existed eternally, but matter can not?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by D&#39;Anconia+Apr 7 2004, 05:38 AM--> (D&#39;Anconia @ Apr 7 2004, 05:38 AM)
Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 03:11 AM
Im saying a trans-dimensional fluctuation that happened one time. Who knows, maybe it is still going on. After all, it isn&#39;t like we&#39;re in the habit of measuring activity in other dimensions. Would you know if other universes were being created? Niether would I. Look, I made the whole trans-dimensional fluctuation thing up as an example of how you really can&#39;t prove that the universe was &#39;caused&#39; by anything. Yet, at least. Saying that it is god is just a naive way of saying you don&#39;t know the answer. And what is more, saying that it is god only creates barriers for the real answers.
So really, you can offer no more "proof" for your point of view, than you say I can offer for mine. If that is the case than I think you should apply Ockham&#39;s Razor. All things being equal (you can offer no proof of your explanation), the simplest explanation is usually the best. In this case, believing that Gos caused the universe is much simpler than "trans-dimensional fluctuations." [/b]
Occam&#39;s Razor seems to work against you, not for you. We are given a choice between the universe being created by completely natural causes (which scientific evidence would suggest) or between some anonymous, unscientific entity, named "God" creating the universe of his own free will.

Occam&#39;s Razor says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily."

Hmm...

[peaccenicked]

Who created god, primitive mankind did. He/she/it can be no other than an idea. God as a manifestation has no showable credence. Atheism could not exist otherwise. I find it impossible logically to believe in anything. I can only believe things about something.
God from this point of view can only be presented as an absurd notion, that is merely reproduced by blind uncritical loyalty.

[DarkAngel]

I don&#39;t believe in god. I mean what was before him/her? There had to be something, and then what was before that, and before that. Why bother thinkin about it, just an easy way to confuse the fuck out of yourself.

Hey anybody else believe my alien theory?