I lack belief that the universe is without gods

[1137]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

 

[Skwim]

I defer to Occam's Razor.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

That depends; what do you mean when you say "god(s)"?

 

[1137]

I defer to Occam's Razor.
.

That's not really an argument or evidence in itself. You'd also gave to prove that the simplest explanation is always right.

That depends; what do you mean when you say "god(s)"?

Gods, deities, higher beings, really anything worthy of the title.

 

[Nakosis]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

People create Gods.
Kind of like asking if an inch exists. Man creates a concept and finds it useful. Up to you want you want to call God. Just a concept of a superior being that may or may not exist.

Do beings exist superior to man? Probably, if/when you meet them are you going to call them God? Up to you.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

What makes you believe the universe needs gods to exist?

 

[Iti oj]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

I see the exact opposite no reason to consider God's besides the words of men.

 

[1137]

People create Gods.
Kind of like asking if an inch exists. Man creates a concept and finds it useful. Up to you want you want to call God. Just a concept of a superior being that may or may not exist.

Do beings exist superior to man? Probably, if/when you meet them are you going to call them God? Up to you.

Are you saying that "inches" dont describe any real amount of space?

What makes you believe the universe needs gods to exist?

Some of the arguments and evidence I've seen.

I see the exact opposite no reason to consider God's besides the words of men.

Ok, but for any reasons?

 

[Skwim]

That's not really an argument or evidence in itself.

Sure it is. It argues that god is superfluous. In other words, the "burden of proof" is on those who assert he is not superfluous, but needed. You stated that: "I lack belief that the universe is without gods.," So it isn't up to us to show your belief is wrong, but up to you to show us you're belief right. Show us why (god)s is needed.

FYI:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
source
.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you saying that "inches" dont describe any real amount of space?

What I'm saying is the amount of space is arbitrary. Pick any length, call it whatever you want.

The unit derives from the Old English ince, or ynce, which in turn came from the Latin unit uncia, which was “one-twelfth” of a Roman foot, or pes. (The Latin word uncia was the source of the name of another English unit, the ounce.) The old English ynce was defined by King David I of Scotland about 1150 as the breadth of a man’s thumb at the base of the nail. To help maintain consistency of the unit, the measure was usually achieved by adding the thumb breadth of three men—one small, one medium, and one large—and then dividing the figure by three. During the reign of King Edward II, in the early 14th century, the inch was defined as “three grains of barley, dry and round, placed end to end lengthwise.” At various times the inch has also been defined as the combined lengths of 12 poppyseeds. Since 1959 the inch has been defined officially as 2.54 cm.

inch | unit of measurement

 

[QuestioningMind]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

How about sharing what you consider to be the valid arguments and evidence that the universe required a God(s) to exist? It is the very lack of such evidence that leads me to believe that a God(s) are not involved.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Are you saying that "inches" dont describe any real amount of space?

Sure it does, but only so far as we agree on what amount of space an inch constitutes. We have created the inch because we have created the concept. Our understanding of space, likewise, is a construct of our collective agreement that space exists, and can be measured.

Let go of your disdain for materialists for a minute and think about it...

The same is true of God(s), which is why you are going to have a hard time Universally defining it. "God" means many different things to many different people.

Do you see cars as speeding by in Kph or Mph? Why not Feet per minute? Why not miles per second? You can calculate those things, objectively, based on our created definitions of them - but they are really nothing at all. Just ideas supplanted onto concepts.

So you can't see a Universe without Gods... That's great. I can't see a Universe with Gods. Which is the correct understanding of the Universe? How do you know? Who cares?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Some of the arguments and evidence I've seen.

You inability to clearly define a need is not convincing that there is a need. You thread is nothing but a feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Yerda]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

No. I'm not convinced that the statement, "the universe cannot exist without god(s)" makes any sense. Trying to make an argument for its negation looks like an exercise in gibberish to me. Maybe you can clarify, what would constitute evidence or argument that the universe could exist without god(s)?

 

[Iti oj]

Are you saying that "inches" dont describe any real amount of space?



Some of the arguments and evidence I've seen.



Ok, but for any reasons?

Yes, the lack of reasons besides the words of men to consider the idea of God's. Sorry really don't know what you expect .

 

[icehorse]

That's not really an argument or evidence in itself. You'd also gave to prove that the simplest explanation is always right.

Gods, deities, higher beings, really anything worthy of the title.

That's not precise enough for me. Could a race with sufficiently advanced technology be considered gods? let's say this race is nearly immortal, has harnessed an energy source like fusion, and can travel FTL. Would they be "gods"?

 

[1137]

Sure it is. It argues that god is superfluous. In other words, the "burden of proof" is on those who assert he is not superfluous, but needed. You stated that: "I lack belief that the universe is without gods.," So it isn't up to us to show your belief is wrong, but up to you to show us you're belief right. Show us why (god)s is needed.

FYI:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
source
.

You seem to think I'm claiming gods exist. I'm not, I simply don't see reason to believe the universe is godless. Occams razor is about the least assumptions, right? So we have "all events follow cause and effect so there's a first cause" vs "all events follow causer and effect, except the start of the universe because science will one day maybe explain that away." Remember, logical deduction/inference is not an assumption.

What I'm saying is the amount of space is arbitrary. Pick any length, call it whatever you want.


inch | unit of measurement

So I have a pencil two inches long. You do not believe this pencil will take up the same physical space if we use a different measurement?

The argument proposed by monotheists is that the universe cannot exist without god.

Why does god exist then? Are they so powerful that they made themselves?

Very interesting, I never took to monotheism. Kinda of topic though.

How about sharing what you consider to be the valid arguments and evidence that the universe required a God(s) to exist? It is the very lack of such evidence that leads me to believe that a God(s) are not involved.

I didn't share my beliefs.

Sure it does, but only so far as we agree on what amount of space an inch constitutes. We have created the inch because we have created the concept. Our understanding of space, likewise, is a construct of our collective agreement that space exists, and can be measured.

Let go of your disdain for materialists for a minute and think about it...

The same is true of God(s), which is why you are going to have a hard time Universally defining it. "God" means many different things to many different people.

Do you see cars as speeding by in Kph or Mph? Why not Feet per minute? Why not miles per second? You can calculate those things, objectively, based on our created definitions of them - but they are really nothing at all. Just ideas supplanted onto concepts.

So you can't see a Universe without Gods... That's great. I can't see a Universe with Gods. Which is the correct understanding of the Universe? How do you know? Who cares?

How can you be a materialist but believe physical objects and their sizes are entirely subjective?

You inability to clearly define a need is not convincing that there is a need. You thread is nothing but a feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof.

What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position? I just haven't seen explanations for how the universe could be as it is without some type of gods.

No. I'm not convinced that the statement, "the universe cannot exist without god(s)" makes any sense. Trying to make an argument for its negation looks like an exercise in gibberish to me. Maybe you can clarify, what would constitute evidence or argument that the universe could exist without god(s)?

For example, if we took a common argument like the first cause, and showed me how we could bring a universe from nothing without god, that would be a point in favor.

Yes, the lack of reasons besides the words of men to consider the idea of God's. Sorry really don't know what you expect .

I'm expecting, or at least hoping for, reasons to believe there are no gods.

That's not precise enough for me. Could a race with sufficiently advanced technology be considered gods? let's say this race is nearly immortal, has harnessed an energy source like fusion, and can travel FTL. Would they be "gods"?

Hmm that's interesting. I'm not sure how gods should be defined here, I'll leave it to those with nonbelief to explain what they reject.

 

[Stevicus]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

I haven't really seen any convincing arguments or evidence either way, which sort of leaves the whole discussion at a dead end before it even starts.

Come to think of it, I don't think I could explain how the universe "could exist" at all, with or without god(s). All I can do is make the observation that it does exist, but how it came about or who/what started it all - that's the mystery.

Either the universe started up by itself (or perhaps it was always in motion), or "someone" or "something" set it off, whether by intention or by accident. What may exist in higher dimensions is also difficult to fathom.

It also may not have any relevance to our existence, as humans here on Earth.

Our universe, and our entire existence could be nothing more than an accident or some kind of side effect. Perhaps some 8th dimensional creature took a dump somewhere, and our "universe" is somehow the result of that. It doesn't mean that there's any intelligent design or that there's some "god" out there watching over us, that loves us and has a plan for us.

The mere idea of a higher level being somehow setting the "universe" into motion doesn't necessarily imply anything about the nature of whatever "something" might have set it off. Nor does it mean that there's anything that we, as humans, should do about it. There's nothing really can do about the universe at the moment anyway. It seems to moving along at its own pace, and we're stuck moving along with it on this ball of mud. With nothing else to work with, we just have to go with what we've got.

Maybe there was a "god" billions of years ago, created the universe, and then died. That would still leave us with a universe with no god(s).

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You seem to think I'm claiming gods exist. I'm not, I simply don't see reason to believe the universe is godless. Occams razor is about the least assumptions, right? So we have "all events follow cause and effect so there's a first cause" vs "all events follow causer and effect, except the start of the universe because science will one day maybe explain that away." Remember, logical deduction/inference is not an assumption.



So I have a pencil two inches long. You do not believe this pencil will take up the same physical space if we use a different measurement?



Very interesting, I never took to monotheism. Kinda of topic though.



I didn't share my beliefs.



How can you be a materialist but believe physical objects and their sizes are entirely subjective?



What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position? I just haven't seen explanations for how the universe could be as it is without some type of gods.



For example, if we took a common argument like the first cause, and showed me how we could bring a universe from nothing without god, that would be a point in favor.



I'm expecting, or at least hoping for, reasons to believe there are no gods.



Hmm that's interesting. I'm not sure how gods should be defined here, I'll leave it to those with nonbelief to explain what they reject.

"What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position?"

Ah the playing dumb gambit, yes that one is very popular around here.

"I just haven't seen explanations for how the universe could be as it is without some type of gods."

Maybe because unlike you some people don't pretend to know how the universe came to be, or even if it came to be, or what it needs to be.

Maybe you have not heard another explanation because some are humble enough to admit when they don't know something.

 

[1137]

"What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position?"

Ah the playing dumb gambit, yes that one is very popular around here.

"I just haven't seen explanations for how the universe could be as it is without some type of gods."

Maybe because unlike you some people don't pretend to know how the universe came to be, or even if it came to be, or what it needs to be.

Maybe you have not heard another explanation because some are humble enough to admit when they don't know something.

I haven't presented an explanation for how things are. It's implied that if one thinks the universe can be explained without gods, they will either believe on faith or have explanations of how things work without gods.