Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If your gopher has infinite being and will.

Let's say it doesn't. Why wouldn't it be able to be the cause of the universe?

How does, say, an infinite gopher with will meet some requirement that an infinite gopher without will wouldn't?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Let's say it doesn't. Why wouldn't it be able to be the cause of the universe?

How does, say, an infinite gopher with will meet some requirement that an infinite gopher without will wouldn't?

Because if it isn't infinite, then it would have to have been created from something else.
It must also have will to start cause and effect. A stack of dominoes stays standing until one tips.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because if it isn't infinite, then it would have to have been created from something else.

How do you figure?

I can sorta see an argument that an infinite object couldn't be created from something else, but I don't see how you jump from that to two premises that I think you need:

- an infinite object can exist uncaused
- no finite objects can exist uncaused

It must also have will to start cause and effect. A stack of dominoes stays standing until one tips.

So in a stack of dominoes, the first one has will?

You differentiated between "will" and "cause and effect"; would an unintelligent "first cause" fit your definition of "will"?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

How do you figure?

I can sorta see an argument that an infinite object couldn't be created from something else, but I don't see how you jump from that to two premises that I think you need:

- an infinite object can exist uncaused
- no finite objects can exist uncaused


So in a stack of dominoes, the first one has will?

You differentiated between "will" and "cause and effect"; would an unintelligent "first cause" fit your definition of "will"?

The first domino cannot fall without cause. In this case, there is no cause other than it willed itself to act.
All will is comprised of is desire. Will and logic do not necessarily parallel. A plant has will, and yet no logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first domino cannot fall without cause. In this case, there is no cause other than it willed itself to act.
All will is comprised of is desire. Will and logic do not necessarily parallel. A plant has will, and yet no logic.

Okay... so when you say "will", you don't necessarily imply consciousness or intelligence?

BTW - it sounds like you're saying that plants have "desire". Is this correct?

 

[waitasec]

opcorn:

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Okay... so when you say "will", you don't necessarily imply consciousness or intelligence?

BTW - it sounds like you're saying that plants have "desire". Is this correct?

Plants act on stimulus and have no logic or necessarily 'will' as we imagine it.
But you see, a plant will grow regardless as long as conditions enable it. In the sense of it having will, it simply acts on it's own accord in a suitable environment.

This is not intended to parallel with a fundamental creator, but rather to bring on the aspect of will at it's roots. A plant grows because of cause and effect, a creator of reality does not.

Therefore, a creator must have 'will' as we imagine it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, also, very important point: the dominoes aren't necessarily in a line. They can be in any configuration that fits experimental evidence, even loops.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Oh, also, very important point: the dominoes aren't necessarily in a line. They can be in any configuration that fits experimental evidence, even loops.

They could be a zig-zag, oval, wave, figure 8., doesn't really matter. It's about what started them toppling each other.

 

[outhouse]

It's about what started them toppling each other.

and there is 0 evidence that a deity did so.


the bible sates a deity created the earth 6000 years ago ,,,,, we know that didnt happen.

So why would you back a philosophy that has already been proven unreliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Plants act on stimulus and have no logic or necessarily 'will' as we imagine it.
But you see, a plant will grow regardless as long as conditions enable it. In the sense of it having will, it simply acts on it's own accord in a suitable environment.

But a plant's "will" just comes down to natural biological and chemical processes. It's entirely physical.

This is not intended to parallel with a fundamental creator, but rather to bring on the aspect of will at it's roots. A plant grows because of cause and effect, a creator of reality does not.

Therefore, a creator must have 'will' as we imagine it.

But if this "creator", "first cause" or what-have-you lies "beyond the plane of reality", who are you to say what it must have? Exactly what do you know about how things work "beyond reality"?

 

[PolyHedral]

They could be a zig-zag, oval, wave, figure 8., doesn't really matter. It's about what started them toppling each other.

And in the event they're in a loop, they topple themselves.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

and there is 0 evidence that a deity did so.


the bible sates a deity created the earth 6000 years ago ,,,,, we know that didnt happen.

So why would you back a philosophy that has already been proven unreliable.

I never said it was the Abrahamic God. I stated that it had to be something that exists infinitely and with will.

But either way, there is no way you can disprove the latter either. Science is subject to it's hypothesis'. This subject is a perfect example why that is so.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

But a plant's "will" just comes down to natural biological and chemical processes. It's entirely physical.


But if this "creator", "first cause" or what-have-you lies "beyond the plane of reality", who are you to say what it must have? Exactly what do you know about how things work "beyond reality"?

I explained this in another thread, or perhaps maybe this one, that cause and will are a duality. If the original cause is brought on by will, then everything else is the effect. But within the effect, and object hits another, and now that object has a cause and is therefore acting on it's own accord with nothing else affecting it until it hits something else.
See, will is relative to everything else, moving in unison with cause. By definition, cause and will are closely related anyways, except that that they are subject to two different ideas semantically.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

But either way, there is no way you can disprove the latter either. Science is subject to it's hypothesis'. This subject is a perfect example why that is so.

If you people had any actual evidence, you wouldn'y keep trotting out the pathetic line. You do realise that right?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If you people had any actual evidence, you wouldn'y keep trotting out the pathetic line. You do realise that right?

Proof, proof, proof. It just cannot be the entire absence of contrary proof, it just has to be there for all eyes to see. Like life beginning on Earth isn't a miracle enough, or that reality 'becoming' isn't satisfiable, or that the connections in holy texts surpass mere coincidence.
Jesus had an aggravation for these sort of people to, which all they only talked about was 'proof'.

Science only 'proves' it's own hypothesis' through relative evidence, which is entirely blown out of proportion by most atheists. It is all entirely subject to it's own ordeals. Up it's own ***, to be short. Science figures out the workings of the world, it doesn't figure out it's conception. We can see what a proton does, but we cannot know what a proton is. Among everything else, but truth does not have to be subject to science, nor can it really in all technicality. Science assumes the initial condition of everything, which keeps it from being any more than observation.

 

[Willamena]

This is a prominent question that is yet to be answered convincingly by atheists. I mean the world can't have come from nothing, can it?

Sure it can. In fact, it does every moment.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You all just don't $%#@%% get it.
Whatever. The reality came from nothing, I suppose. That is the only other explanation.
But wait, you all have admitted that something cannto come from nothing.

Religious bias my ***. How about logic.
I have seen none of you be able to prescribe anything except insults.

I have officially proven, after all this time, the biased thought behind so called 'rationalists'.

Really?
Describe "nothing" in physics.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Really?
Describe "nothing" in physics.

'Zero'. Physics has a hard time labeling 'nothing', as well they should.

And this isn't Jeopardy. If all you can do is ask me the same stupid questions over and over, and by extension being rude, then you will be ignored.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Proof, proof, proof. It just cannot be the entire absence of contrary proof, it just has to be there for all eyes to see. Like life beginning on Earth isn't a miracle enough, or that reality 'becoming' isn't satisfiable, or that the connections in holy texts surpass mere coincidence.
Jesus had an aggravation for these sort of people to, which all they only talked about was 'proof'.

Science only 'proves' it's own hypothesis' through relative evidence, which is entirely blown out of proportion by most atheists. It is all entirely subject to it's own ordeals. Up it's own ***, to be short. Science figures out the workings of the world, it doesn't figure out it's conception. We can see what a proton does, but we cannot know what a proton is. Among everything else, but truth does not have to be subject to science, nor can it really in all technicality. Science assumes the initial condition of everything, which keeps it from being any more than observation.

Why is it you always attack Atheists? Do the creationists that believe in science get off the hook from your overinflated rants?