This is why I think God exists.

Morbert

use logic please wrote: »

Are you sure about all that? How do you explain the existence of the universe? thanks for engaging with my argument.

The existence of the universe is not obliged to be understandable to this primate species. But we can, at the very least, understand how the universe behaves and evolves.

Morbert

use logic please wrote: »

Nothing can have happened "before the big bang." as without the big bang there'd be no time. Post 270 gives what axiom op, it's not something that created the big bang. It's the statement "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
It's explained better in my post 270. It's basically what I think is the best thing to base this discussion on, it has to be based on something.

Space and time occur "in" natural existence. Not vice versa. Natural existence does not need a cause any more than "supernatural" existence would.

use logic please

Zillah wrote: »

I was responding to your specific comments.



Well that's why it's such a fundamental axiom, your question doesn't even make sense without making that assumption. If we don't assume the universe is in principle knowable then no discussion of any sort can take place, because everything and anything and nothing goes.



That particular statement is to avoid the rather redundant school of thought known as solipsism.



Because I'm interested in an open debate. I have little doubt that I'm going to have numerous criticisms of your reasons for believing in a personal God and I'd rather continue that discussion here than start a two-way via PM.

Now really, you've clearly given up. You started out all of this confident that you could make a convincing logical case for the existence of God, and at this point you're resorting to vaguely hostile one liners. Are you going to address our criticisms of your position or not?

If you check back through the posts, the first hostility was from you. If you have a sound argument then why do you need terms like "horse ****" and "jibberish" instead of respectfully an accurately phrasing your comments? Using such language immediately reduces the tone of a discussion.

I never expected you to change your views based on what I said, I just thought it would be interesting to discuss the notion of God with people who don't accept such a notion. In fact, I got a lot more discussion than I thought I would. It seems to average a comment every five minutes in daytime hours.

Anyway, here's my address to your criticism.
Your criticism, basically, is that the situation outside space and time which I'm talking about is so far beyond human knowledge that I cannot hope to gain any grasp on it with currently existing science. That's basically it yeah?

For 2010, my explanation of a "supernatural creator" is more complete than any other explanation anyone has. That doesn't mean that it must be true, but I can't see why it's not reasonable and I would be happy, in the A&A forum, where any notions of personal experience of God or anyhting like that are unlikely to be accepted, to make a good argument that the existence of the supernatural creator is reasonable, that's the main point of what I'm personally trying to do. (Maybe other more dedicated philosophers could say more than I have, but that's up to them.) I know this claim is not what I started out with, but I started out, as is often wise, by aiming as high as I could, but I hardly really expected to convince you already sceptical people of everything involved in Theism!

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

I'm not gonna spell out to you the incorectness of what you just said

I am not surprised, because nothing about what I said was incorrect. Your lack of willingness therefore to explain what is wrong with it likely stems from an lack of ability to do so. As I said before, merely saying something is incorrect and wandering off does not mean it magically acquires the attribute.

raah! wrote: »

I read that in the last post, only one paramater is necessary to declare fine tuning. The cosmological constant. Saying you can "vary the others to make up with this" is the same as not changing anything.

Errrr no, it is not. Have you ANY evidence at all on which to base the claim that if you change the "cosmological constant" that there is no combination of other parameters that would result in a stable universe? If you have not then I am afraid what I am saying is perfectly valid and what you are saying is... to be kind to it... not.

If you HAVE then please let us know, but copyright it first in case someone gets to the nobel prize committee with it before you do.

I am however curious where you pulled the 20% out of.

raah! wrote: »

Yeah, because if you didn't change the parameters, they wouldn't be changed! That's your super powered argument.

No, it is not. I never made this argument, never said anything of the sort, and never would. Really you should re-read what I wrote because what you have taken from it does not represent the original in ANY form.

What my argument IS saying is that just because we have a universe with a number of constants that are all inter-balanced... we can not make any assumptions that this is the ONLY combination of such constants that would result in such a thing, nor have you presented anything to back up such an assumption.

Therefore the "fine tuning" argument falls apart, because we have no way of calling it fine tuned when our combination of constants could be any one of an infinite number of such balanced equations.

And if your only defense of this is "Physicists who know more than you came up with it" then I am not sure you have any ground at all to stand on, let alone weak ground.

robindch

use logic please wrote: »

For 2010, my explanation of a "supernatural creator" is more complete than any other explanation anyone has.

And I've an explanation that involves an infinite number of electric wombats who created the universe from yogurt. But I'm not going to say where the wombats or the yogurt came from, because it's beyond our ability as humans to understand it.

The yogurt, I need hardly add, is supernatural.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

With that attitude, you cannot expect take part in a logical discussion. Since this is an A&A forum, what you've done is a little like going to an Oasis fansite and saying "are oasis good?"

Do not think the analogy holds. It would be more accurate if you had said he went on to the Oasis fansite and said "Are Oasis still touring" and a very valid site it would be to go and ask on too.

use logic please wrote: »

Most people are on this forum because the are either Atheist or Agnostic, which means that they are biased when the question "is there any evidence of a God?"

Not a safe generalisation. Many people are here because this is a place targeted often by people who think they DO have the evidence. So it is a legitimate site, out of many types, to come and wait to find out if any has been presented yet.

use logic please wrote: »

What we see around us could be evidence of a God

And granny smiths apples COULD be evidence that OJ really did murder his wife. Simply saying something could be, or even is, evidence is not enough. Anything COULD be evidence for anything else. You have to then say HOW it is evidence for the proposition in question.

Too many people think giving evidence is a two step process as follows:

1) State your claim
2) List some stuff and leave.

When in fact it is a three step process as follows:

1) State your claim
2) List your evidence
3) Explain how and why 2 supports 1.

Anything I have ever been presented as “evidence” for god so far in 20 years of asking simply follows the 2 step process above and hence is NOT evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

I should say that my argument depends on an the axiom "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."

I am afraid your axiom is wrong from the outset. Space and Time occurs in natural existence or in our case our natural universe. You have it, therefore, exactly backwards from the outset so I am afraid the rest of this post based on it is similarly flawed by proxy.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not surprised, because nothing about what I said was incorrect. Your lack of willingness therefore to explain what is wrong with it likely stems from an lack of ability to do so. As I said before, merely saying something is incorrect and wandering off does not mean it magically acquires the attribute.

I believe I posted a definition.

Errrr no, it is not. Have you ANY evidence at all on which to base the claim that if you change the "cosmological constant" that there is no combination of other parameters that would result in a stable universe? If you have not then I am afraid what I am saying is perfectly valid and what you are saying is... to be kind to it... not.

Go read the wikipedia page on fine tuning, read any description of it, and read the part that relates to the cosmological constant. There are arguments against it, obviously, just your ones aren't very good.

What's more, there are plenty of variants of that argument that include the possiblity of a few (even life sustaining) universes, whilst still being arguments for fine tuning.

I am however curious where you pulled the 20% out of.

Well I'm not going to trawl back to quote anything, but it's probably the 25% involved in that experiment, where the parameters were varied over a certain level. Mind you these were only a certain set of parameters.

That experiment could be considered a proper response to fine tuning, yours cannot be. I can link you to a nice article which summarises the contentions if you like, by some fellow named stenger. (or you could look it up)

No, it is not. I never made this argument, never said anything of the sort, and never would. Really you should re-read what I wrote because what you have taken from it does not represent the original in ANY form.

Yes you did, the analogy with boys pushing is exactly that. That's like saying adding one to both sides of the equation changes something. It's ridiculous, if you multiply everything by the same constant it will be the same.

It would be helpful for you to recognise that the constants in question are generally more similar to the ratio of one boys strength to the other. They would not otherwise be dimensionless.

What my argument IS saying is that just because we have a universe with a number of constants that are all inter-balanced... we can not make any assumptions that this is the ONLY combination of such constants that would result in such a thing, nor have you presented anything to back up such an assumption.

Nor have I presented said assumption. It is however the only combination that would result in this universe. Or one of a very small number that result in a "habitable" universe.

Therefore the "fine tuning" argument falls apart, because we have no way of calling it fine tuned when our combination of constants could be any one of an infinite number of such balanced equations.

No it could not. And I reference the cosmological constant. The most fine tuned of all the fine tunings. The others can be used as well.

And if your only defense of this is "Physicists who know more than you came up with it" then I am not sure you have any ground at all to stand on, let alone weak ground.

Yes, because that's the only thing I said in that post.

Edit: I just read your thing there, it does seem to suggest that you don't actually know what the fine tuning arguments are. The analogies about cards and boys pushing particularly demonstrate this.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

I believe I posted a definition.

Quoting from a dictionary does not show why I was wrong. It just shows what a dictionary says. As I said already, but I am happy to repeat, you did not give a “premise” you gave a wholesale assumption. Given your skills with a dictionary however, I will not waste time pasting the definition of assumption for you.

As I said, all we know for sure is that we have a universe with a number of constants and that universe is “stable”. This is all I know. This is all you know. This is all anyone so far in all the works of peer reviewed science knows.

What we do NOT know therefore is whether this is the only set of such constants that are stable. It is the assumption that we CAN claim this however that the entire “fine tuning” argument is based on. However since the assumption itself is based on nothing, the “fine tuning” argument is based on nothing.

Quite literally all you are basing it on is you saying over and over “I mentioned the cosmological constant so there” as if merely mentioning it has proven something useful to anyone.

Yes you did, the analogy with boys pushing is exactly that. That's like saying adding one to both sides of the equation changes something. It's ridiculous, if you multiply everything by the same constant it will be the same.

No, I did not. I know what my argument is. I should do, it is MY argument. So I do not need you to tell me what it is, especially when what you are telling me resembles it not at all.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quoting from a dictionary does not show why I was wrong. It just shows what a dictionary says. As I said already, but I am happy to repeat, you did not give a “premise” you gave a wholesale assumption. Given your skills with a dictionary however, I will not waste time pasting the definition of assumption for you.

This is hilarious.

As I said, all we know for sure is that we have a universe with a number of constants and that universe is “stable”. This is all I know. This is all you know. This is all anyone so far in all the works of peer reviewed science knows.

We know the constants have to be in a certain ratio for planets to form. There are a few right ratios, but then they diverge of infinitely, creating an infinite number of wrong ratios

Computer simulations have been done to see how different universes form with different constants.

What we do NOT know therefore is whether this is the only set of such constants that are stable. It is the assumption that we CAN claim this however that the entire “fine tuning” argument is based on. However since the assumption itself is based on nothing, the “fine tuning” argument is based on nothing.

"If this constant was not within such and such, then planets would not have formed" The constants in question are relations between things. That's what the cosmological constant is, and what you are doing is not a response to it. There are responses, you just haven't heard them yet.

Quite literally all you are basing it on is you saying over and over “I mentioned the cosmological constant so there” as if merely mentioning it has proven something useful to anyone.

It proves you don't understand the argument anyway.

No, I did not. I know what my argument is. I should do, it is MY argument. So I do not need you to tell me what it is, especially when what you are telling me resembles it not at all.

You sure do like putting things in capitals. Don't get so offended.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Says pragmatism and common sense.

So you then? It is your subjective opinion that because God created us it is fair he can do what he likes with us.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you paint a painting. It is yours until it is sold. Indeed, if you found a nation, it is yours until you pass away, or change institutions and the like to allow broader leadership or indeed if someone usurps it.

I'm pretty sure if you found a nation and then nuke the nation and everyone in it and say "Well, it was mine" you aren't going to get much support.

Or for example create a baby and then drown it.

But then everyone else is wrong and you are right based on premise above?

nozzferrahhtoo

Rahh!

I am glad you are amused. You are at least getting something from this thread, having put nothing of use in.

You are now talking about ratios. First of all we do not know any such thing. There could be other ratios that would also result in stable structures of this sort. Just because we know that they are balanced now, and changing one of them would break it up, does not mean that it always has to be exactly this. Nor have you done, or produced, a single scrap of peer reviewed science to make it look like this is the case.

Secondly, even if this was the case, a ratio does not mean that all the constants have to be fixed at what they are now, it would just mean that all the possible balances of constants would have to fit into a certain ratio. If X must be of ration 10*Y for example, then there are still an infinite numbers of values of X which will result in an infinite amount of 10*Y results.

Saying therefore that there is a ratio, does NOT say that all constants have to be exactly as they are now it just says that if one changes, then to balance the system the others have to change by the given ratios.

So really, you still have nothing to stand on here.

However as I said I am open to any peer reviewed science you either want to do yourself, or cite, that says that because changing one constant breaks down the balanced equations, that you therefore can not change ANY of the constants. Have you anything to offer to show this is so.... aside of course from you saying over and over it is so, which of course does not help.

Finally please save yourself the time of ascribing emotions to me that I neither felt, nor are you capable of illiciting in me. No one on this side of the table is offended at anything you have to say, nor is it possible for you to offend me.... a comment about me not you by the way, as I know the basic requirements for me to be offended and they are simply not present here.

nozzferrahhtoo

A good analogy here for the Fine Tuners who think that because you can not change ONE constant you must therefore not change ANY constants.

Really what you are doing here is like someone being shown the structure of their first atom. They see how the protons perfectly balance the neutrons, and the charge on the electrons are perfectly balanced by the charge on the protons.

Having seen this wonderful structure then they declare “This atom is perfectly balanced and stable and if I remove or add one element, a proton, a neutron or an electron it would all fly apart, therefore all has to be as it is now and NO OTHER ATOMS BUT THIS ARE THEFORE POSSIBLE”.

raah!

Ok, well I don't care. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong when it's on a public forum like this. Look it up on wikipedia, look at the things being cited. Look for the article by Stenger onthe fine tuned universe, he offers real arguments against fine tuning because he understands what it is. Peer reviewed science has gone on much further than you think it has.

Also notice that your conclusions do not support your arguments. While it may turn out that fine tuning is completely wrong, your arguments will still be invalid.

And since you think I have nothing to offer there's no reason for me to post here anymore (at least with respect to showing you you're wrong). Because obviously it's impossible for theists to deliver arguments. There's no such thing as a theist argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Ok, well I don't care. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong when it's on a public forum like this.

If you have issues with admitting you are wrong then I hope you can work through them. It is not a nice issue to suffer with and I do not envy you. A good first step, if I can help you with this, is to realise that just because it is a “public forum” as you say, does not mean you have to at any point care what anyone else here thinks. I sure do not. In fact this is the main reason why I just said above “I know the basic requirements for me to be offended and they are simply not present here.“. I would first have to care what YOU think in order to be offended, and I do not.

I myself come on to forums such as this because I know I am wrong. How do I know?

Well no one is perfect we are all wrong about something. I am. You are. The mods are. Even Wikiknight is. The trick is finding out how and where we are wrong.

Forums such as this pit me against people who can show me I am wrong and in 20 years of asking for evidence of god, and challenging the evidence I have been given, I have admitted where I am wrong on many occasions… and trust me finding out you are wrong is a wonderful feeling as it gives you the two best things anyone on an intellectual pursuit can ever get 1) New information and 2) The removal of old bad information. If the brain can orgasm, realising where you have been wrong is probably the closest one can get to it.

The issue here is not with me failing to admit I am wrong, but with you failing to provide a single solid reason for me to think I am aside from the fact you really really think so which is convincing of nothing for anyone except you.

Your whole case is built on the assumption that because changing one constant breaks the balanced equation of our universe, that therefore ALL the constants have to be what they are now.

Quite literally, aside from saying it over and over again with gusto, you have given me no reason to think this assumption valid on any level. The best you did is mention “ratios” which is a very useful and valid thing to mention, but ratios do not mean the constants are fixed at what they are now. They simply mean that if you change one, you have to balance this by changing the others by those fixed ratios you mention.

This really is as far as you have gotten and I am afraid “Read wiki” is not presenting an argument.

raah! wrote: »

And since you think I have nothing to offer

Please keep your words out of my mouth. I have MORE than enough of my own and I said no such thing. Saying you HAVE not offered anything is NOT the same as saying you HAVE nothing to offer. I am sure you have much to offer, on many subjects. It just appears thus far, that this may not be one of them and "thus far" is all the evidence I have to comment with.

raah! wrote: »

Because obviously it's impossible for theists to deliver arguments.

I am sorry to hear you think so. I have never said anything of this sort myself and never would. It is disappointing to find someone who holds this opinion. I hope someone manages to convince you otherwise sometime soon. Xou might with to consider how much of our science has been presented by Theists in our past for example.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Forums such as this pit me against people who can show me I am wrong

Yes

And seriously, look up fine tuning. Look it up yourself. Don't change any of your arguments, reference the article, and then see for yourself if it's correct.

It's regrettable that our tone has lowered to this, and I certainly had a part in it, but just look up fine tuning. In some cases it is acceptable to say "look it up on wikipedia" and this is one such case. What you are arguing against isn't really the proper formulation of fine tuning.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Yes

Yes indeed, and one of these days I hope you can be one of them. It really is one of the best gifts you can give a person you know.

A Primal Nut

use logic please wrote: »

This thing which transcends time and space is God.

This is the bit I have issue with. Assuming something does transcend space and time how do you know its God? It could be:

1) Flying Spaghetti Monster
2) A giant Cat
3) God
4) A penis
4) The universe itself
5) We know there are many planets inside solar systems, billions of solar systems inside galaxies, and billions of galaxies inside the universe, so its not to hard to conceive that there is a system with billions of universes. This system maybe what exists outside of space and time in some way we can't comprehend.

If you are correct, and it is a God, he certainly doesn't look anything like a human and certainly doesn't give a damn about us.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

For 2010, my explanation of a "supernatural creator" is more complete than any other explanation anyone has.

So what exactly?

Imagine if you will a conversation that goes as follows:

Boy 1: Where do babies come from?
Boy 2: The stork brings them!
Boy 1: What makes you think that?
Boy 2: Well where do YOU think they come from?
Boy 1: I do not know and I have no idea.
Boy 2: Aha! The stork brings them!

I am sure you can see as clearly as I can that the fact both of these children have no idea where babies come from but one of them has AN explanation… in NO WAY lends any credence to his explanation nor does it mean either of them should be taking his explanation seriously.

Learn this rule: “An explanation is not useful if it is presented merely by virtue of being the only one on offer”

Now when you have contemplated why the conversation is ridiculous and why Boy 2’s words are entirely useless… go back and read your words that I just quoted and tell me how it is any different.

Niall Keane

As an architect I can vouch that not all design is necessarily intelligent. Some design exhibits extreme evidence of "other than intelligence" but jokes aside, many designs follow in a modular and efficient way the structure of an established successful response to external factors, the same design decisions are made again and again because they work, a slum can look amazingly complex, one can hardly guess at where it started. If we take the origin of life and matter....

All life on earth bears some DNA similarities of structure. This allows chemicals produced by plants say to have a direct effect on receptors in animals. Opium and “indigenous morphine” etc... We know through evolution that we share common ancestry. Now was the originator of life that mixture of amino etc. intelligent? Did ancient simple single-cellular organisms have a cognitive master plan for us all? Regarding an evolving DNA, yes, if you mean plans, sections and elevations, no, well they lacked the brain to consider such, yet from these gods come us. The brain came after the complexity not before it, it wasn't needed before it!

Now examine matter and the big bang, who is to say that the “god-particle” the “creator” isn’t simply some particle with all the thought processes of a lump of plutonium?

So maybe there was some extremely powerful creator, I expect there was, but I don’t think it amounted to more than an inanimate particle, and being the source of all, all that flowed from it should surely have similarly contained - constants and laws, sharing the same mitochondrial DNA so as to speak, the biology of helixes reflected in the physics of membranes?

Why would a creator / particle require awareness?

Zillah

Niall Keane wrote: »

So maybe there was some extremely powerful creator, I expect there was

With you except for this. It doesn't make sense, all you're doing is moving it back one step, the existence of any creator (even a particle) causes the same problems as the existence of the universe. Unless you say the creator doesn't need a creator, in which case it's both resorting to arbitrary magic and could be applied to the universe instead.

use logic please

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So what exactly?

Imagine if you will a conversation that goes as follows:

Boy 1: Where do babies come from?
Boy 2: The stork brings them!
Boy 1: What makes you think that?
Boy 2: Well where do YOU think they come from?
Boy 1: I do not know and I have no idea.
Boy 2: Aha! The stork brings them!

I am sure you can see as clearly as I can that the fact both of these children have no idea where babies come from but one of them has AN explanation… in NO WAY lends any credence to his explanation nor does it mean either of them should be taking his explanation seriously.

Learn this rule: “An explanation is not useful if it is presented merely by virtue of being the only one on offer”

Now when you have contemplated why the conversation is ridiculous and why Boy 2’s words are entirely useless… go back and read your words that I just quoted and tell me how it is any different.

I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

Regarding your analogy, you should have said:

Boy 1: How did it come to be that babies exist.
Boy 2: They were created by some being.
Boy 1: Yeah, that's a reasonable possibility.

You should have said this because it shows that Boy 2 has actually thought about it and did not say the first thing that came into his head. (Incidentally, if no prior information had been given to the boys, then my conversation is far more likely to have occurred than yours.)
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc would be like the stork, in your conversation. "Some creative being" would be like "Reproduction," in your conversation.

use logic please

use logic please wrote: »

Clearly you're not interested in a logical discussion. That is plainly obvious.

I shouldn't have said this. I apologise to you, MagicMarker.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

Regarding your analogy, you should have said:

Boy 1: How did it come to be that babies exist.
Boy 2: They were created by some being.
Boy 1: Yeah, that's a reasonable possibility.

You should have said this because it shows that Boy 2 has actually thought about it and did not say the first thing that came into his head. (Incidentally, if no prior information had been given to the boys, then my conversation is far more likely to have occurred than yours.)
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc would be like the stork, in your conversation. "Some creative being" would be like "Reproduction," in your conversation.

It is A possibility yes. It is an extremely unlikely possibility supported by no meaningful evidence.

robindch

use logic please wrote: »

I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion.

And what's wrong with my electric wombats plus yogurt Theory of the Universe?

This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion if you accept the possibility of an infinite number of wombats (electrical) and some yogurt (actually, lots of yogurt).

robindch

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

The yogurt, I need hardly add, is supernatural.

This is great. Sigged.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

Yeah but thankfully merely SAYING this does not make it magically take on that attribute. Merely saying it is reasonable does not mean it is, and if saying it is the best you have to offer I am not sure what you are doing on here.

Also it is pretty impolite to keep saying over and over "see post 270" to people, such as myself, who have already replied to that post but you ignored the reply. SOME decorum please.

Turtwig

Okays, the last time I visited this thread I was at page 14. So Um, is it worth me reading up the last 12 pages? Or will I just do the norm and read the last 15 posts before this one.

Ooh, Jesus and Mo! Love those guys.:D

demonspawn

If Xn (I like that name for God ) created itself, and there was nothing before Xn, what did it create itself with? Surely one cannot create something from nothing.

Also, if it took Xn six days to create the Earth and everything on it, then how long did it take him to create the billions upon billions of stars, planets, asteroids, comets, and all that other stuff floating around in space? Why aren't all those other countless galaxies not mentioned in the Bible?

According the followers of the Abrahamic religions, the Bible is the absolute word of God.

"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." Genesis 1:16

Now thanks to science, we know that the Moon is not a light as the Sun, but is a solid mass that simply reflects the light of the Sun back to Earth. Is God a liar? Are the writers of the Bible liars? Somebody's lying because that simple passage is just not true.

use logic please

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Anything I have ever been presented as “evidence” for god so far in 20 years of asking simply follows the 2 step process above and hence is NOT evidence.

I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be. "What we see around us" is not the basis of the argument I'm putting across to you here, I use "what we see around us" for my own belief, but that's not one of the parts of my belief I'm trying to convey in this thread.

Obni

I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.

Nemi

Obni wrote: »

I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.

Why the surprise? Christianity has lasted for a lot longer, using much the same argument.

Zillah

Obni wrote: »

I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.

We could power the earth by putting atheists on bikes and holding arguments for god in front of them on a fishing line.

demonspawn

robindch wrote: »

And what's wrong with my electric wombats plus yogurt Theory of the Universe?

This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion if you accept the possibility of an infinite number of wombats (electrical) and some yogurt (actually, lots of yogurt).

Hmm..would they be positively charged or negatively charged electrical wombats? If you say that they are negatively charged I would have to laugh at your ridiculous theory. Everyone and their granny knows negatively charged electrical wombats and yogurt just don't mix, unless it's strawberry yogurt of course.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be. "What we see around us" is not the basis of the argument I'm putting across to you here, I use "what we see around us" for my own belief, but that's not one of the parts of my belief I'm trying to convey in this thread.

And as I said „anything could therefore be evidence for anything“. There is an infinity of ideas that anything could be evidence for. I could tell you an invisible green imp is on your shoulder. The Automotive industry COULD BE evidence for this.

See how ridiculous this gets?

No one here is interested in what COULD be evidence, we are interested in discussing what might ACTUALLY BE evidence.

RandomName2

use logic please wrote: »

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.

An infinite amount of time passed.*
'I'm bored' I thought. 'I know - I will create the universe'

Really all I wanted to see was the big bang - the laws of physics and all the rest were just prerequisites. So I looked at the big bang for a while, but as it spread I lost interest in it (and the universe in general). In the plane of my own existence, where I am a failed pop diva, I attempted to revamp my career by entering the Extra-long series of I am A Celestial Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

The series lasted a bit longer than I anticipated (some nine billion years). I returned to take a look at the universe I had created and said
'You know, I think I should create the Earth'
So I created the Earth in a random place in a random galaxy, but wasn't terribly impressed. Took a nap for five billion years.

'Oh Christ (my unborn son/self) this place is boring.' I said after waking up, 'I ought to do... something with this planet'
I thought about this for another billion years. Yes, I know an omnipotent being such as myself is not supposed to have to think, as I instantly know everything: but nobody's perfect, you know!

'Life!' I said, and so I created life. Wasn't terribly impressed with my first couple of attempts so wiped the slate clean with numerous mass extinctions (which were kind of amusing). But after 3 and half billion years I finally settled onto something.

'Ah - humans. These people I will have some fun with. I will drop hints to them every so often about my existence, even perform a couple of possessions, perhaps even impregnate some woman with my offspring. I will never give enough information, or else there will be no grounds for them to have blind belief. Anybody who doesn't have blind belief in me will be thrown into the pits of hell when they die... or in other words they will move into my sphere of existence whereupon they will be forced to participate in I'm A Celestial Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.'






----

Look you can say that something called God created the universe but saying that this thing is conscious is silly in the extreme. Maybe dark matter has a personality?


* And yes, I know that time cannot pass without the existence of time, but to point that out would just be pedantic.

Zombrex

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be.

Then it isn't.

Cop 1 - Look someone robbed the bank?
Cop 2 - They dropped some gum!
Cop 1 - Bob eats gum!
Cop 2 - Bob must have done it
Cop 1 - Wait, Sally also eats gum!
Cop 2 - Darn, so close

Something that can be explained using a multitude of different hypothesis ends up not being evidence for any of them.

Langerland

Interesting. Looking forward to reading the book.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html

professore

simplistic2 wrote: »

It is illogical to assume that something came from nothing.

On the contrary, it happens at the quantum level all the time.

Dades

Langerland wrote: »

Interesting. Looking forward to reading the book.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html

Likewise!

Hardcovers are a pain for me though as I commute and hate carrying the bastard things around. I'd go for the audiobook option (not narrated by Hawking ) but I suspect one would be goosed without the diagrams etc.

RepublicanEagle

It would be interesting to see peoples input in a thread labeleld "This is why I think God does not exist".

As I am believer I won't post one, any volunteers?

MagicMarker

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

It would be interesting to see peoples input in a thread labeleld "This is why I think God does not exist".

As I am believer I won't post one, any volunteers?

''Because there is zero evidence for his existence''

It would be a short thread in fairness.

Zillah

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

It would be interesting to see peoples input in a thread labeleld "This is why I think God does not exist".

As I am believer I won't post one, any volunteers?

It would be the exact same as this thread. All we can do is point out all the flaws in the theistic argument. There are no arguments for the non-existence of God, only flawed arguments for the existence of God.

Also, such a thread would be somewhat indulging in the oft-used "shifting the burden of proof" trick some theists use. It is highly irrational to assume something is true until it is proven not to be true, especially considering that religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

Zillah

simplistic2 wrote: »

It is illogical to assume that something came from nothing.

Frankly we know nothing about "nothing". By definition, we have never been able to experiment on "nothing" as there has always been "something" as far as we know. For all we know, "nothing" could very well be impossible, or be prone to exploding into "something".

demonspawn

Zillah wrote: »

Frankly we know nothing about "nothing". By definition, we have never been able to experiment on "nothing" as there has always been "something" as far as we know. For all we know, "nothing" could very well be impossible, or be prone to exploding into "something".

I got "nothing" for my birthday last year, surely that's "something". My subsequent two weeks of depression came from nothing.

MagicMarker

Langerland wrote: »

Interesting. Looking forward to reading the book.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html

I like the first comment...

Having read this review, I can say in all certainty that I have absolutely no idea what Stephen is talking about.

Stephen

Dades wrote: »

Likewise!

Hardcovers are a pain for me though as I commute and hate carrying the bastard things around. I'd go for the audiobook option (not narrated by Hawking ) but I suspect one would be goosed without the diagrams etc.

This is why I ebooks. Haven't bought a printed book since I got an ebook reader over a year ago

Dades

Stephen wrote: »

This is why I ebooks. Haven't bought a printed book since I got an ebook reader over a year ago

I'm olde school when it comes to books. Don't think I could make the switch. And what would happen all those poor trees that didn't become books? :pac: