Logical explanation for no God

[Muffled]

I have an interesting thought on a argument for God not existing.

Believers will say that the universe can not have created itself, there must be a creator. Well if you are admitting that something in existence must have been put into existence, you have to ask where did God come from. Wherever he came from, that entity or item must have also been created. So you can back track for eternity. This way you can come to the conclusion that it is impossible for there to be an original creator, if you submit to the fact that something in existence must be created. The universe is therefore eternal in and of itself

That was the argument of one Christian philsopher. I don't agree with the premise that everything has a cause. We firmly believe that God does not have a cause.

However I would agree that the universe could not have come into existence without a cause not because of the necessity for causation but because of the nature of creation. The universe exists with very explicit laws in a very logical way. That suggests intelligence. Chaos suggests a lack of intelligence.

For instance burn oxygen and hydrogen and the reullt is water. It doesn't need a cause to do that. It does it because it is its nature to do that. However it is not natural for something to come out of nothing, so a cause does pertain.

 

[9Westy9]

That was the argument of one Christian philsopher. I don't agree with the premise that everything has a cause. We firmly believe that God does not have a cause.

However I would agree that the universe could not have come into existence without a cause not because of the necessity for causation but because of the nature of creation. The universe exists with very explicit laws in a very logical way. That suggests intelligence. Chaos suggests a lack of intelligence.

For instance burn oxygen and hydrogen and the reullt is water. It doesn't need a cause to do that. It does it because it is its nature to do that. However it is not natural for something to come out of nothing, so a cause does pertain.

Why could the universe not have always just existed?

 

[PolyHedral]

The first cause remains unchanging. The cone is however not that.

So in what way is it changing? It's a mathematical cone, so it's not composed of anything.

Word play.

Pedanticism. There isn't such a thing as wordplay in maths.

As if singularity propounded is not the substratum of the sprouted universe.

The entire concept of the "first cause" argument relies on effects following from causes. This hasn't actually been proven, just assumed.

No point in showing to you. It has been shown umpteen times.

I'm currently sitting in the university computing lab, and someone behind me is running a virtual machine on his laptop. The entire concept of virtualisation, as demonstrated in The Matrix, and Inception, suggests you are wrong. The cause can be easily known from within the system, because simulating the system isn't distinguishable from the system itself.

Word play.

It's the opposite: I am directly telling you have failed to communicate. The concept you are trying to describe does not actually mean anything. Your idea cannot possibly be right, because you don't actually have an idea.

 

[Photonic]

So much head game...no thought.

For the singularity to be truly singular....a second point cannot be allowed.
With two points you can draw a line, and immediately an infinite number of points exist between the two of them.

Infinity is simultaneous and coincidental.

But at the 'point of creation' there is only the void.
No light, no dark...no sound, no echo,....nothing.

So....science can't go there.
No numbers, no equations...no movement, no time....nothing.

Cause and effect?.....yes, of course.

We are here.

God?...yes, of course.

Someone had to be the First.

How do you know something had to be first?

That is an unsupportable assertion as we all know quite well.

 

[atanu]

So in what way is it changing? It's a mathematical cone, so it's not composed of anything.

It is composed of thought.

Pedanticism. There isn't such a thing as wordplay in maths.

I was talking about your words.

The entire concept of the "first cause" argument relies on effects following from causes. This hasn't actually been proven, just assumed.

Very good. It applies to Big Bang as cause of universe.

I'm currently sitting in the university computing lab, and someone behind me is running a virtual machine on his laptop. The entire concept of virtualisation, as demonstrated in The Matrix, and Inception, suggests you are wrong. The cause can be easily known from within the system, because simulating the system isn't distinguishable from the system itself.

I knew you were a filmy guy. Matrix is a film and not the truth. And the virtual machine that you are seeing is a created one. It has a cause and a beginning. And the cause is distinct from the virtual thing that you misname as reality.

You understood nothing of Matrix.

It's the opposite: I am directly telling you have failed to communicate. The concept you are trying to describe does not actually mean anything. Your idea cannot possibly be right, because you don't actually have an idea.

Now you come to personal attack. Nevertheless, the answer is given above.

 

[atanu]

Matrix is about advaita. And what you are inferring is the exact opposite.

 

[outhouse]

I have an interesting thought on a argument for God not existing.

Believers will say that the universe can not have created itself, there must be a creator. Well if you are admitting that something in existence must have been put into existence, you have to ask where did God come from. Wherever he came from, that entity or item must have also been created. So you can back track for eternity. This way you can come to the conclusion that it is impossible for there to be an original creator, if you submit to the fact that something in existence must be created. The universe is therefore eternal in and of itself

I have a better one that is very simple

man has always created deities, after the ice age a nomadic people began to create civilizations with cities and governement, they alse created theology.



Almost Every theist will admit that all other gods they dont worship are man made.

yet theirs only because of the geographical location they were born is magically valid.





the creation MYTHS go all the way back to the beginning of writing and were wrote in a mythical nature. We dont even know if the ancient people believed these myths ot the context of the belief. We do know that people change their belief and understanding of religion as the cultures evolve, religion evolves.


now we are stuck in a stagnent pattern with no evolution in religion despite logic, reason and physical evidence that theology is not science or accurate valid history.

some religions have evolved to accept it, in some countries primitive beliefs are hard to let go as some cultures are pretty much brainwashed from a early age in dogma

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have an interesting thought on a argument for God not existing.

Believers will say that the universe can not have created itself, there must be a creator. Well if you are admitting that something in existence must have been put into existence, you have to ask where did God come from. Wherever he came from, that entity or item must have also been created. So you can back track for eternity. This way you can come to the conclusion that it is impossible for there to be an original creator, if you submit to the fact that something in existence must be created. The universe is therefore eternal in and of itself

A case can be made for the beginning of the universe. Make a case for there being a beginning for God and then we can discuss who made Him.

 

[atanu]

I have a better one that is very simple

man has always created deities,

Man has however not created the faculty with which he/she conceives Deity.

 

[outhouse]

Man has however not created the faculty with which he/she conceives Deity.

If man creates them, man understands them.

The only thing man cannot do is have the faculty to use his imagination to define a deity the same as the next worshipper of said deity.


Thats whay all religions have so many sects, because the religion mirrors the people who created said theology.

Its also exactly why there is not ONE worldwide deity

 

[outhouse]

the fact there is not one worldwide deity goes against the validity of all the different dieties

 

[atanu]

If man creates them, man understands them.

Man creates what and understands what?

the fact there is not one worldwide deity goes against the validity of all the different dieties

There are many varieties of life. That goes against the validity of life?

 

[Thief]

How do you know something had to be first?

That is an unsupportable assertion as we all know quite well.

So you don't believe in linear existence?...really?

 

[PolyHedral]

Math. It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff, in reality.

 

[`mud]

A smallish synopsis:
Everything is possible ?
~
In that case...can everything possibly be considered impossible ?
Or....can nothing possibly be considered impossible ?
For instance...are there only four dimensions, or possibly more ?
I can see, or sense, only two....energy and motion.
Time is only a result of the two entities, and their effect on each other.
Every other entity seems to be an effect from a cause.
~
Not neccessarly from any other created entity.
~
Were's my meds ?
`mud

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So now it comes to which came first?...spirit or substance.

If you say substance...
then you are the sum of your chemistry...and you are terminal.
No hope of a spiritual existence, as you are the result of your breathing.

If you say spirit first....
then I'm right...your wrong.

Substance of course, unless you can demonstrate the existence of spirit as an objective substance.

 

[Photonic]

Math. It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff, in reality.

Be that from Doctor Who?

 

[Photonic]

So you don't believe in linear existence?...really?

Linearity never really explained much.

 

[PolyHedral]

I can see, or sense, only two....energy and motion.

That isn't what a dimension means.

 

[`mud]

hey Poly,
I said that I need my meds.
But I said....."sense"...vision doesn't really count, does it ?
Not in this reality.
~
`mud