Proof of 'God particle' found

Scioch

delad wrote: »

but how did the particles come into existence?

Dont know, they are interwoven into existence itself perhaps. So your possibly only asking how did existence come into existence. Which can be argued to have always existed seeing as if it didnt then existence wouldnt exist.

delad

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They just "popped" into existence from a random spark of energy. Thats one of theorys anyway. Nobody really knows. All we do know is that something cannot come from nothing.

why was there a spark of energy? what or who caused that?

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

Dont know, they are interwoven into existence itself perhaps. So your possibly only asking how did existence come into existence. Which can be argued to have always existed seeing as if it didnt then existence wouldnt exist.

my head hurts

Captain Chaos

LordSmeg wrote: »

Dont know, they are interwoven into existence itself perhaps. So your possibly only asking how did existence come into existence. Which can be argued to have always existed seeing as if it didnt then existence wouldnt exist.

It's harder for there to be nothing at all rather than something. It's like measuring a particle, because you want to or try to observe or measure it it has to exist somewhere, if you are not looking for it's position or trying to measure it, it can in theory be anywhere. I believe that's part of string theory or quantum physics.

delad

I find it odd that people like Michio Kaku scoff at the thought of a God, yet he believes in the multiverse. Surely one is just as believable as the other.

sink

delad wrote: »

I find it odd that people like Michio Kaku scoff at the thought of a God, yet he believes in the multiverse. Surely one is just as believable as the other.

Not really, we know at least one universe exists, we know no reason why there can't be more. We know of no god, and know of no reason for one.

delad

sink wrote: »

Not really, we know at least one universe exists, we know no reason why there can't be more.

Similarly, we know of no reason why our universe wasn't created by a God.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

my head hurts

Something cant come from nothing. So therefore something has always existed. Your trying to ask where did existence come from. It didnt come from anywhere, it can only be.

Also I think before the universe when whatever was there was in whatever state it probably existed in different dimensions. I'm not well up on string theory and whatnot but I believe I heard the number 12 thrown about. So that matter which had no mass may not have interacted with anything, may not have been subject to time or decay, or change, it could have existed in unimaginable ways across unimaginable planes of existence. Its not as simple as this came from that and that came from that I dont think.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

Similarly, we know of no reason why our universe wasn't created by a God.

We know of know reason why it was either. Outside of time and across other dimensions consciousness may not even be possible. We dont know does not make it a valid conclusion. We dont even have any reason to believe it might be the case seeing as everything we have observed in our universe and everything we have discovered doesnt point us in that direction. Far from it actually..

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

Something cant come from nothing. So therefore something has always existed. Your trying to ask where did existence come from. It didnt come from anywhere, it can only be.

Also I think before the universe when whatever was there was in whatever state it probably existed in different dimensions. I'm not well up on string theory and whatnot but I believe I heard the number 12 thrown about. So that matter which had no mass may not have interacted with anything, may not have been subject to time or decay, or change, it could have existed in unimaginable ways across unimaginable planes of existence. Its not as simple as this came from that and that came from that I dont think.

I can't get my head around all this. Something can't just exist. There has to be a start point.

If different dimensions and unimaginable planes of existence is possible, then why is the existence of a God so laughable to atheists?

sink

delad wrote: »

Similarly, we know of no reason why our universe wasn't created by a God.

And that's why I'm an agnostic atheist. However one is hypothetical supreme being that we have no knowledge with which is attributed many human traits by bronze age desert tribes and the other is a universe of which we know at least one exists.

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

We know of know reason why it was either. Outside of time and across other dimensions consciousness may not even be possible. We dont know does not make it a valid conclusion. We dont even have any reason to believe it might be the case seeing as everything we have observed in our universe and everything we have discovered doesnt point us in that direction. Far from it actually..

it doesn't point us in any direction, we don't know sh1t is what I'm basically saying

delad

sink wrote: »

and the other is a universe of which we know at least one exists.

We know it exists, but we don't know how or why, which puts us back at square one

Scioch

delad wrote: »

I can't get my head around all this. Something can't just exist. There has to be a start point.

If you are taking a starting point as an absolute then you are assuming nothing can exist. Why can nothing exist but something cant ?

If different dimensions and unimaginable planes of existence is possible, then why is the existence of a God so laughable to atheists?

Because its quite a big stretch from what we know and understand about our observable universe to a conscious intelligent being purposely creating a universe.

As sink said its farcical to attribute human traits to a being that would exist under those circumstances considering what we are and where we are in the grand scheme of things.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

it doesn't point us in any direction, we don't know sh1t is what I'm basically saying

We know plenty about it, look at the standard model, look at the laws and the patterns we have discovered, look at mathematics. We have accounted for the fundamental building blocks of matter and traced the universe back to its very creation all in contradiction of what we believed to be true about god.

Considering what our view of God was we have been moving increasingly away from that.

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

If you are taking a starting point as an absolute then you are assuming nothing can exist. Why can nothing exist but something cant ?

Everything in existence so far had an event which caused it to be in existence, therefore I don't believe the universe just existed. I'm not saying there was nothing before something, just that science so far suggests stuff just doesn't exist, it had to be created somehow.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

Everything in existence so far had an event which caused it to be in existence, therefore I don't believe the universe just existed. I'm not saying there was nothing before something, just that science so far suggests stuff just doesn't exist, it had to be created somehow.

The universe didnt just exist it came into existence we have discussed how this may have happened.

You then went on to talk about existence itself and how it all had to start somewhere. If it had to start somewhere then your saying before it started nothing existed. I'm saying there was no before because it makes zero sense to say there was. Its like saying after existence stops.

sink

delad wrote: »

I can't get my head around all this. Something can't just exist. There has to be a start point.

If different dimensions and unimaginable planes of existence is possible, then why is the existence of a God so laughable to atheists?

You're thinking of time as if it were fixed constant and unidirectional. However we know thanks to Einstein's general relativity that time fluctuates throughout the universe according to gravitation and relative velocity, time ticks more slowly for us standing on the surface of the earth than for orbiting satellites. We also know through the quantum mechanics that at the quantum level effects can precede causes.

You're also thinking of nothing as if it were truly nothing, however we know that even in a absolute vacuum without a single atom there is a lot of things happening. Virtual particles pop into existence in pairs for nano seconds before annihilating each other. Some people hypothesize the universe is similar and that all the energy in the actually adds up to zero and that it is just a quantum fluctuation

Another interesting hypothesis is that time as we experience it is just an effect of the second law of thermodynamics and the universe will eventually wind down like a clock until it has reached a maximum state of entropy at which stage there will be no movement of energy of any sort and time itself will cease to exist.

Halloran springs

delad wrote: »

I can't get my head around all this. Something can't just exist. There has to be a start point.

If different dimensions and unimaginable planes of existence is possible, then why is the existence of a God so laughable to atheists?

Not sure if I'm an atheist or agnostic, based on the varying definitions of them but the existence of a "God" or some incomprehensible creator is not "so laughable" to me, however the existence of "God" as described in the bible (and any other religion for that matter) and the fairytales contained within- is completely laughable to me.

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

The universe didnt just exist it came into existence we have discussed how this may have happened.

No, people have put forward theories not backed up by any evidence about how the universe may have come into existence. Its no different to the theory it was created by a God. Neither are backed up by any scientific evidence.

LordSmeg wrote: »

You then went on to talk about existence itself and how it all had to start somewhere. If it had to start somewhere then your saying before it started nothing existed. I'm saying there was no before because it makes zero sense to say there was. Its like saying after existence stops.

So if you think the universe always existed, without any cause/reason for it to exist, does that not contradict everything we know about science today. It seems like your changing the goalposts to suit your own beliefs.

delad

sink wrote: »

You're thinking of time as if it were fixed constant and unidirectional. However we know thanks to Einstein's general relativity that time fluctuates throughout the universe according to gravitation and relative velocity, time ticks more slowly for us standing on the surface of the earth than for orbiting satellites. We also know through the quantum mechanics that at the quantum level effects can precede causes.

You're also thinking of nothing as if it were truly nothing, however we know that even in a absolute vacuum without a single atom there is a lot of things happening. Virtual particles pop into existence in pairs for nano seconds before annihilating each other. Some people hypothesize the universe is similar and that all the energy in the actually adds up to zero and that it is just a quantum fluctuation

Another interesting hypothesis is that time as we experience it is just an effect of the second law of thermodynamics and the universe will eventually wind down like a clock until it has reached a maximum state of entropy at which stage there will be no movement of energy of any sort and time itself will cease to exist.

but all of that still doesn't explain anything

Scioch

delad wrote: »

No, people have put forward theories not backed up by any evidence about how the universe may have come into existence. Its no different to the theory it was created by a God. Neither are backed up by any scientific evidence.

We know from very early after the big bang how the universe and everything in it formed. No need for god there. We know how the stars and planets formed. No need for god. We know how life on earth formed and evolved. No need for god.

What started the big bang ? What possible reason could an intelligent human being have to conclude god created the universe given the knowledge and understanding of all we have ever known has shown nothing whatsoever to point towards the existence of a god ?

Any theories based on the knowledge we have of particle physics, how particle and matter may have acted in certain conditions as might have existed pre big bang is infinitely superior than a blind guess that a supreme being did it.

So if you think the universe always existed, without any cause/reason for it to exist, does that not contradict everything we know about science today. It seems like your changing the goalposts to suit your own beliefs.

Your confusing "universe" with "existence" We know for a fact our universe didnt always exist. We have just been discussing how it got started ffs.

If your saying that the concept of the infinite (or matter/energy being infinitely old or existence always existing) contradicts science then you couldnt be more wrong. The infinite is very much a part of our understanding of the universe. The universe itself is infinitely wide and will be infinitely old, it will never end. Numbers are infinite, start a count and you can never reach the end because there is no end. Go backwards and you will never find the start because there is no start.

There is no such thing as nothing, there never was and there never will be. All that there is is existence. This is not synonymous with motion or the laws of physics which apply to matter in our universe. Energy does not behave the same way under all conditions. Outside of time and space under different conditions in different dimension the effect may precede the cause. They may happen simultaneously.

Your error is in trying to apply the laws of this universe to matter and existence outside of it on all levels. It doesnt work like that.

sink

delad wrote: »

but all of that still doesn't explain anything

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine"

That quote sums up beautifully the trouble people have getting their head around this stuff, no one can intuitively comprehend it at our own level of experience. Our brains are a product of our evolution, they evolved to cope with hunting and gathering on the plains of Africa. There is nothing throughout the billions of years of evolution that could have prepared us for the strangeness of the universe.

The only way we can reveal the nature of the universe is through mathematics and experimentation, without a good comprehension of high level maths your have no chance of being able to grasp it. There is no law of nature that says it must be simple enough for slightly above average apes to comprehend.

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your confusing "universe" with "existence" We know for a fact our universe didnt always exist. We have just been discussing how it got started ffs.

lol sir you need to calm down. I obviously meant existence when I wrote universe. I'm tired and typed the wrong word. Sue me.

LordSmeg wrote: »

If your saying that the concept of the infinite (or matter/energy being infinitely old or existence always existing) contradicts science then you couldnt be more wrong. The infinite is very much a part of our understanding of the universe. The universe itself is infinitely wide and will be infinitely old, it will never end. Numbers are infinite, start a count and you can never reach the end because there is no end. Go backwards and you will never find the start because there is no start.

There is no such thing as nothing, there never was and there never will be. All that there is is existence. This is not synonymous with motion or the laws of physics which apply to matter in our universe. Energy does not behave the same way under all conditions. Outside of time and space under different conditions in different dimension the effect may precede the cause. They may happen simultaneously.

Your error is in trying to apply the laws of this universe to matter and existence outside of it on all levels. It doesnt work like that.

Infinite is just a word used by scientists to try to explain something which they can't explain. What evidence is there that the universe itself is infinitely wide, infinitely old and will never end?

delad

sink wrote: »

There is no law of nature that says it must be simple enough for slightly above average apes to comprehend.

thats a bit harsh :pac:

sink

Anyone who doubts the value of this type of public scientific research should really watch this wonderful lecture by Prof. Brian Cox. It may be an hour long but I can't think many better ways to spend an hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ87e4KIung

Scioch

delad wrote: »

lol sir you need to calm down. I obviously meant existence when I wrote universe. I'm tired and typed the wrong word. Sue me.

I am calm, its just the second time you said universe instead of existence so it didnt look like a mistake. But seems it was.

Infinite is just a word used by scientists to try to explain something which they can't explain. What evidence is there that the universe itself is infinitely wide, infinitely old and will never end?

I'm not a physicist or mathematician so cant prove all this for ya and I dont have the patience to go and find it for ya. But its there.

The bit I do know is that its been established that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This makes it infinite, the amount of matter in the universe and the fact that its speeding up means it will never stop, never contract, it will continue forever means it will never end.

Infinite is not a word used to describe something people cant understand its something used to describe something that has a mathematical value. Same as 1,2,3. We dont use numbers to describe something we dont understand we use them to describe a particular amount. Infinite is a term used to describe something that has no limit. Like I said start counting and you will never reach the end. Its understandable you just keep adding one, its not a mystery.

skelliser

Judgement Day wrote: »

Another intellectual Wiki reader. Nothing you have said has any bearing on the ' 'God Particle' and no need to be so ****ing offensive because somebody holds a different point of view.

wtf?

everything that has happened in CERN has came about from previous experiments.

You do realise CERN has been going for 60 odd years. Each new experiment and collider has been built on the results and engineering from the
previous research.

And no i didnt read wiki. I actually studied this stuff and tried to apply for a job in the IT dept at CERN but was turned down because this poxy country isnt a member country.

I would actually go further and say the CERN should be held up as a beacon and shining light to showcase what we as a species can achieve.

The funding imo should be increased.

and there is no such thing as a "god particle" invented by the media

prinz

sink wrote: »

It may be an hour long but I can't think many better ways to spend an hour.

Perhaps listening to 'Things Can Only Get Better' on repeat 16 times.

skelliser

delad wrote: »

Infinite is just a word used by scientists to try to explain something which they can't explain. What evidence is there that the universe itself is infinitely wide, infinitely old and will never end?

ah no infinity is not a word used to explain the unexplained :eek:

Its actually a number and it predates science.

the greeks used it.

Blowfish

delad wrote: »

So what was there before the big bang? What existed before the universe existed?

You are making a massive assumption that time itself isn't a property that came into existence at the big bang.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

So what was there before the big bang? What existed before the universe existed?

Once we get to grips with detecting Gravitational Waves we could well see back to the start, that shouldn't be too long now.

delad wrote: »

If different dimensions and unimaginable planes of existence is possible, then why is the existence of a God so laughable to atheists?

Because it's stupid.
Which god for a start? There are quite a few to choose from and by the nature of different religions having different stories and explanations for the Universe all religions except one MUST be wrong, so which one does one choose?
Which particular god did the creating? Was it a once off as the Abrahamic traditions have or a continuous cycle of creation and destruction as the Hindus have?

Until the deluded* religious masses get to grips and come to some sort of consensus about how things began and which deity/s is/are out there, then those of us who put gods into the same bracket as Fairys and Goblins will continue to consider your ideas amusing but quite illogical.

*Because of the variety of religions, the numbers of adherents to each, and because all cannot be correct, The majority of people on the planet ARE deluded. Fact.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

No, people have put forward theories not backed up by any evidence about how the universe may have come into existence. Its no different to the theory it was created by a God. Neither are backed up by any scientific evidence.

If you actually think this about modern cosmology then may I suggest you learn at least a little about the subject before commenting on it.
Just because you don't know or understand the physics surrounding the Big Bang doesn't mean there are none, quite the contrary.

delad wrote: »

Infinite is just a word used by scientists to try to explain something which they can't explain. What evidence is there that the universe itself is infinitely wide, infinitely old and will never end?

Why are you making comments about something you know absolutely nothing, it would be like me commenting on a thread about soccer that the game is stupid because the engines of the helicopters they use are too powerful.
From here.

The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). If the density of the universe is less than the critical density, then the geometry of space is open (infinite), and negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent.

The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper.

MEASUREMENTS FROM WMAP

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

Pushtrak

Update: Press conference.

philologos

delad: For the record, I think you're asking some valid questions. Throwing these up in the air and saying they are stupid without providing much other alternative seems a little off to me.

It's really not that stupid to say that finite entity X, must have a cause Y.

I think what happens a lot of times is we like to interpret things in such a way that fits into our assumptions. I think this is what a lot of atheists happen to do with science. Science says X, let's add our opinion to X to make it look like X precludes divine creation.

The reality is that nothing that science has put forward is radically difficult to accept if you believe in a Creator God.

The idea that there is an intelligent cause to the universe is not stupid. Claiming it is stupid is just a convenient way of ignoring it.

Scioch

Right so they have found a Higgs Boson just not sure if its the standard model higgs boson.

If it turns out not to be the Standard Model Higgs then what is it ? A new boson in a new category of higgs bosons ? Or that the standard model higgs may be made up of different higgs bosons ?

Scioch

philologos wrote: »

delad: For the record, I think you're asking some valid questions. Throwing these up in the air and saying they are stupid without providing much other alternative seems a little off to me.

It's really not that stupid to say that finite entity X, must have a cause Y.

I think what happens a lot of times is we like to interpret things in such a way that fits into our assumptions. I think this is what a lot of atheists happen to do with science. Science says X, let's add our opinion to X to make it look like X precludes divine creation.

The reality is that nothing that science has put forward is radically difficult to accept if you believe in a Creator God.

The idea that there is an intelligent cause to the universe is not stupid. Claiming it is stupid is just a convenient way of ignoring it.

The stupidity comes into play when nothing known to man other than mans own past errors and myths supports belief in a creator god.

You really have no business accusing atheists or the scientific community of interpreting things in a way to suit their own belief when their belief is based on known facts and logical conclusions when your own belief is based on nothing but the musing of deluded individuals that have time and again been shown to be wrong.

Yet rather than accept it as the nonsense it is you refuse to accept fact, knowledge, logic and reason in favor of interpreting it all in whatever way you can so as not to disrupt your illogical, irrational, deluded belief that the answer to a question that has no actual reason to be asked validates man made works of fiction.

philologos

LordSmeg wrote: »

The stupidity comes into play when nothing known to man other than mans own past errors and myths supports belief in a creator god.

The very idea that we are even in existence can lend itself to a Creator God. Intrinsically without any form of divine revelation, one could still realistically believe in a Creator God. It is because finite things generally don't come out of nowhere, that I can justifiably believe in God.

Even the very workings of how morality works in practice can point to a Moral Law giver. People believe in objective morality, even if they claim to be moral subjectivists. People often claim to the other when they are wronged, "you should know better". Why should they know better unless there is a standard between both parties suggesting what is right from what is wrong? If this suggests an inherent moral standard. Then we have another question. What basis is there for this inherent moral standard. Reasonably one can conclude that there is a moral law giver.

As for whether or not God revealed Himself. I would say unequivocally say yes as a Christian, but it isn't a necessity of believing in a Creator.

It's a bit lazy to presume that these things are "mans past errors" without any good or sound reason for claiming such.

It is reasonable to see how people could come to the idea that there is a Creator God that brought all things into being. If you can't see that, then I would question how honest you are willing to be on this issue considering that a large body of philosophers, and a large body of people in general are able to see this, and are able to present arguments on this.

Are all those people really idiots? I heavily doubt it. I think if someone is proclaiming that most people in the world are idiots that there is something up. There's something incredibly suspect going on.

LordSmeg wrote: »

You really have no business accusing atheists or the scientific community of interpreting things in a way to suit their own belief when their belief is based on known facts and logical conclusions when your own belief is based on nothing but the musing of deluded individuals that have time and again been shown to be wrong.

I don't believe atheism is based on "facts" or "logical conclusions". I don't think we have any good objective basis for assuming that much.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Yet rather than accept it as the nonsense it is you refuse to accept fact, knowledge, logic and reason in favor of interpreting it all in whatever way you can so as not to disrupt your illogical, irrational, deluded belief that the answer to a question that has no actual reason to be asked validates man made works of fiction.

There's not a single fact that would refute the idea of the existence of a Creator God.

This is just new-atheist polemics.

delad is asking some very good questions, and rather than just saying that it is stupid I'd really like to see a real answer other than meaningless rhetoric.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that nothing that science has put forward is radically difficult to accept if you believe in a Creator UNICORN.

The idea that there is an intelligent cause to the universe is not stupid. Claiming it is stupid is just a convenient way of ignoring it.

FYP

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

FYP

Firstly, it doesn't refute any of the previous arguments that I've made for a Creator.

Secondly, the only reason why suggesting unicorn after Creator is that there is no sound reason to believe that the Creator was a unicorn. There is good reason to believe that there is a Creator however.

Thirdly, it's entirely reasonable that if people make subsequent claims about the Creator that they too need to be discussed in depth as to their validity. That does not nullify the good reason that exists for there being a Creator.

Fourthly, if there is any subsequent relation other than God being a Creator, then I would encourage you to look into it and scrutinise it.

This isn't a good argument.

Scioch

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe atheism is based on "facts" or "logical conclusions". I don't think we have any good objective basis for assuming that much.

You dont believe it because if you did you'd have to conclude you are wrong. Thats not going to happen because you adopted a belief that cannot allow that to happen.

There's not a single fact that would refute the idea of the existence of a Creator God.

There are plenty. Such as the fact that the "word of god" from all known religions is not the word of god. Its the fictitious work of mankind. It all stemmed from mistruths, superstition and unfounded knowledge. From cave man musings to pagan rituals to Christianity it all stems from ignorance.

Until I have a valid reason to believe there is a creator god then I cannot believe it or even take it seriously. Your previous argument about morals is simply pathetic. The morals we have have developed from social interaction with other members of our species. There is no reason to infer the existence of god from that unless you already believe in the existence of god.

Thats the thing with belief in god. Unless you first learn about it through fairy tales, and stories that have no grounding in reality there is no reason for it to enter the debate. "We dont know" is not a valid reason to propose anything that pops into your head.

This is just new-atheist polemics.

delad is asking some very good questions, and rather than just saying that it is stupid. I'd really like to see a real answer other than meaningless rhetoric.

I and others have addressed delads questions and given real answers, we did not call him or his questions stupid. Yet that is never good enough for people who have already make their minds up. Who's sole argument rests on the fact that we cannot know for sure, therefore any old nonsense can be believed. No it cant, you can propose any old nonsense you like but to believe it is absolutely ridiculous.

philologos

LordSmeg wrote: »

You dont believe it because if you did you'd have to conclude you are wrong. Thats not going to happen because you adopted a belief that cannot allow that to happen.

Let me know if you're going to present any argument rather than present rhetoric.

LordSmeg wrote: »

There are plenty. Such as the fact that the "word of god" from all known religions is not the word of god. Its the fictitious work of mankind. It all stemmed from mistruths, superstition and unfounded knowledge. From cave man musings to pagan rituals to Christianity it all stems from ignorance.

How is that a fact? - That sounds like a faith statement to be honest, but each to their own.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Until I have a valid reason to believe there is a creator god then I cannot believe it or even take it seriously. Your previous argument about morals is simply pathetic. The morals we have have developed from social interaction with other members of our species. There is no reason to infer the existence of god from that unless you already believe in the existence of god.

There are valid reasons already. Such as the two I've already discussed with you.

The social argument is poor. You're saying that the majority determine what is good or evil by social agreement. Do you really believe that if the majority of a society advocated rape that that would be acceptable? Or is it that something else tells you that it is wrong?

LordSmeg wrote: »

Thats the thing with belief in god. Unless you first learn about it through fairy tales, and stories that have no grounding in reality there is no reason for it to enter the debate. "We dont know" is not a valid reason to propose anything that pops into your head.

That's not true. There is grounding for it. Insofar as finite things don't generally come from nothing. That's a valid reason as delad brought up.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I and others have addressed delads questions and given real answers. Yet that is never good enough for people who have already make their minds up. Who's sole argument rests on the fact that we cannot know for sure, therefore any old nonsense can be believed. No it cant, you can propose any old nonsense you like but to believe it is absolutely ridiculous.

Not in a reasonable fashion.

For the record, I was an agnostic prior to becoming a Christian. I was convinced that God exists, for a number of reasons. Atheists like claiming that Christians have no reason for believing what they do, but that's simply not true by any standard.

In your post, however, you've just repeated assumptions without any form of logic. That's not a discussion, that's soapboxing which is generally frowned upon on many fora on boards.ie.

Blowfish

Philologos wrote:

That's not true. There is grounding for it. Insofar as finite things don't generally come from nothing. That's a valid reason as delad brought up.

'Things don't normally come from nothing, therefore God.'

Yeah, that's anything but valid reasoning.

philologos

Blowfish wrote: »

'Things don't normally come from nothing, therefore God.'

Yeah, that's anything but valid reasoning.

That's not true. There is grounding for it. Insofar as finite things don't generally come from nothing. That's a valid reason as delad brought up.

Read the quote again. I've dealt with this objection in more depth on boards before.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

People believe in objective morality, even if they claim to be moral subjectivists. People often claim to the other when they are wronged, "you should know better". Why should they know better unless there is a standard between both parties suggesting what is right from what is wrong?

Actually, people generally say when discussing people they'd know "you should have known better" or "I expected better of you" as there is a standard by which you know a person and the person has failed that standard. As an opposite of this "What did you expect of that person? They are always like that."

Do all social animals have an objective morality? Is killing objectively wrong?

If this suggests an inherent moral standard. Then we have another question. What basis is there for this inherent moral standard. Reasonably one can conclude that there is a moral law giver.

Are you familiar with mirror neurons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

I and others have addressed delads questions and given real answers, we did not call him or his questions stupid. Yet that is never good enough for people who have already make their minds up. Who's sole argument rests on the fact that we cannot know for sure, therefore any old nonsense can be believed. No it cant, you can propose any old nonsense you like but to believe it is absolutely ridiculous.

Hang on, don't try and make it sound like you gave a definitive correct answer to my questions about before the universe existed.

Some guesses were put forward, some of them could be described as "any old nonsense" as well.

brimal

This whole 'something can't come from nothing' is nonsense. Finite or infinite.

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics proves this.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

Hang on, don't try and make it sound like you gave a definitive correct answer to my questions about before the universe existed.

Some guesses were put forward, some of them could be described as "any old nonsense" as well.

I cant give a definitive correct answer on it nobody can. I gave you some theories which were put forward by theoretical physicists who were basing them on what was likely given what we know about the universe, its development and the known properties of matter. Of which we know a great deal.

Thats not any old nonsense.

philologos

delad wrote: »

Hang on, don't try and make it sound like you gave a definitive correct answer to my questions about before the universe existed.

Some guesses were put forward, some of them could be described as "any old nonsense" as well.

Some think it is enough just to claim that it is stupid. However, the answers as to why Creation is stupid aren't forthcoming. I'm happy to have atheists claim that I'm an idiot or that I'm stupid, firstly because it looks ridiculous, and secondly because I'd rather be an idiot and believe in God, than be a genius and come before God in judgement.

It's one of the reasons why I find the new-atheism not to be convincing, it's one of the reasons why I'm glad that I stopped being an agnostic. There are sound reasons to believe in God and trust what He says.

The simple answer seems to be that people just aren't very keen on the idea that there is a God, and that they might just have to listen to Him.

Pushtrak: When I'm talking about objectively binding morality, I'm talking about humanity.

You're also confusing absolute morality and objective morality.

Absolute morality - something is right or wrong in every situation.
Objective morality - In every situation something is right, and something is wrong.

Can you see how those positions are different? - I don't believe in absolute morality, I believe in objective morality.

I'll watch your video in a bit.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

Read the quote again. I've dealt with this objection in more depth on boards before.

That doesn't change or counter the argument at all. Saying 'x doesn't normally happen, therefore it must have been god' is a completely ridiculous argument, regardless of what x actually is or is not.