Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[ChristineM]

What needs to have created God? I think the energy argument is getting very circular and tautological. And ultimately undefined. All the same characteristics that people use to discredit the God proposal.

If energy is a force that does work, what is generating that force? If nothing, then it’s clearly magic. And what is it’s physical content? If it has none, then how does it exist? And what determines what work it can and can’t do? Because whatever that is, it clearly transcends energy as the basis of existence.

There is evidence for energy, what evidence is there for a god?

The word 'clearly" usually means the user has no idea, its a whitewash word an excuse word.

The universe is energy.

 

[PureX]

There is evidence for energy, what evidence is there for a god?

Of course.

The word 'clearly" usually means the user has no idea, its a whitewash word an excuse word.

by definition, it becomes magic. Until you can offer some other explanation.

The universe is energy.

It’s also an idea.

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said:

One of the things I find to be the greatness of Judaism is the concept of trusting in God without questioning or reasoning/judging the relevance of the faith.​

Really? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It's antithetical to skepticism, which is probably the best idea man has had. It's the one that ushered in modernity and elevated the human condition.

The great skeptic Karl Popper showed why we should be skeptical of skepticism if we're true skeptics. When he became skeptical of skepticism is when he began to veer dangerously close to justifying theological faith. It's quite remarkable and sad how little anyone has understood or remarked on Popper's inadvertent justification of theological faith and revelation as found in his Conjectures and Refutations.

Have you ever practiced true skepticism by being skeptical of skepticism?



John

 

[ChristineM]

Of course.

by definition, it becomes magic. Until you can offer some other explanation.

It’s also an idea.

Your idea, not the idea of science

 

[dybmh]

I don't need an argument against the existence of any gods to be an atheist. I need a compelling argument for a god to not be one.

Then for you it would be hypothetical

But it works well with that elaboration. To exist means to exist in space and time and to interact with other things that exist. Everything that can do this is part of physical reality, and nothing that it is said can't do that can be called real. Can this deity interact with physical reality at various times and places? If so, it is part of physical reality. If not, why even think about it?

The topic of the thread is the best argument against not, the best argument for ambivalence.

 

[John D. Brey]

In a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form of energy to another.

it appears that the universe is a closed system

. . . There's a fly flying around in the ointment of the three laws. The first law says in a closed system (like the universe) energy is a constant (as you point out). It can't be created or destroyed, only changed from one entropic state to another. Then the second law is passed that tells us entropy always rises (disorder, the lessening of the ability to do work, rises inevitably and absolutely). But then the third law starts buzzing around in our ear like a fly purposely trying to annoy us. The third law tells us that although entropy always and absolutely rises in a close system, it can never reach absolute thermodynamic equilibrium in a finite number of steps. It says that although the energy in the universe is winding down, it can never get wound all the way down in a finite number of steps.

Do you suppose there's a wormhole in the universe where the third law can find the infinite stair case descending down to thermodynamic equilibrium? If there is such a hole, I'd like to take an atom shooter like they use to cause a thermonuclear reaction and put the damned fly in the ointment and my ear into it and shoot the pest into that wormhole so he'll experience a crystaline absolute zero Kelvin where he can't so much as lift a finger to flap his pesky wings.

. . . Which is all just a set up to the one question I have before I call Airmen Rodriguez and O' Mally? If energy always careens toward entropic-equilibrium, as the laws say it does, why does it never get there in a finite number of steps? Where and when does it take a break and never restart the descent? Perhaps at the Omega Point?

John

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you ever practiced true skepticism by being skeptical of skepticism?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?

But maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Creationists frequently use the word to mean that they reject an idea. That's not skepticism in the sense the critical thinker means.

The topic of the thread is the best argument against not, the best argument for ambivalence.

Mine was not an argument for ambivalence about "God" or anything else. It was a response to your comment, "the "only physical things exist" argument against God doesn't work without further elaboration." I provided that elaboration.

 

[ChristineM]

. . . There's a fly flying around in the ointment of the three laws. The first law says in a closed system (like the universe) energy is a constant (as you point out). It can't be created or destroyed, only changed from one entropic state to another. Then the second law is passed that tells us entropy always rises (disorder, the lessening of the ability to do work, rises inevitably and absolutely). But then the third law starts buzzing around in our ear like a fly purposely trying to annoy us. The third law tells us that although entropy always and absolutely rises in a close system, it can never reach absolute thermodynamic equilibrium in a finite number of steps. It says that although the energy in the universe is winding down, it can never get wound all the way down in a finite number of steps.

Do you suppose there's a wormhole in the universe where the third law can find the infinite stair case descending down to thermodynamic equilibrium? If there is such a hole, I'd like to take an atom shooter like they use to cause a thermonuclear reaction and put the damned fly in the ointment and my ear into it and shoot the pest into that wormhole so he'll experience a crystaline absolute zero Kelvin where he can't so much as lift a finger to flap his pesky wings.

. . . Which is all just a set up to the one question I have before I call Airmen Rodriguez and O' Mally? If energy always careens toward entropic-equilibrium, as the laws say it does, why does it never get there in a finite number of steps? Where and when does it take a break and never restart the descent? Perhaps at the Omega Point?




John

The universe is expanding

 

[Subduction Zone]

Against its existence as described in the bible.

There are so many reasons that it is hard to choose. But to start with we could site the many failures of the Bible. It has many events that did not happen and would void any reason for worshipping the Abrahamic God if true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your idea, not the idea of science

Correct, science is an idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . There's a fly flying around in the ointment of the three laws. The first law says in a closed system (like the universe) energy is a constant (as you point out). It can't be created or destroyed, only changed from one entropic state to another. Then the second law is passed that tells us entropy always rises (disorder, the lessening of the ability to do work, rises inevitably and absolutely). But then the third law starts buzzing around in our ear like a fly purposely trying to annoy us. The third law tells us that although entropy always and absolutely rises in a close system, it can never reach absolute thermodynamic equilibrium in a finite number of steps. It says that although the energy in the universe is winding down, it can never get wound all the way down in a finite number of steps.

Do you suppose there's a wormhole in the universe where the third law can find the infinite stair case descending down to thermodynamic equilibrium? If there is such a hole, I'd like to take an atom shooter like they use to cause a thermonuclear reaction and put the damned fly in the ointment and my ear into it and shoot the pest into that wormhole so he'll experience a crystaline absolute zero Kelvin where he can't so much as lift a finger to flap his pesky wings.

. . . Which is all just a set up to the one question I have before I call Airmen Rodriguez and O' Mally? If energy always careens toward entropic-equilibrium, as the laws say it does, why does it never get there in a finite number of steps? Where and when does it take a break and never restart the descent? Perhaps at the Omega Point?




John

You perhaps should be asking a physicist. But the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. It is always winding down, so to speak. That does not mean that the energy goes to zero. It cannot do that. It is the energy available for work that is always decreasing.

Why do you think that is a problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are so many reasons that it is hard to choose. But to start with we could site the many failures of the Bible. It has many events that did not happen and would void any reason for worshipping the Abrahamic God if true.

No, not really. You can just state you believe in Jesus, the idea of love and that you believe you will go to Heaven. That is the folk culture version of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not really. You can just state you believe in Jesus, the idea of love and that you believe you will go to Heaven. That is the folk culture version of it.

The OP specified that the debate was about the Abrahamic God of the Bible. I was not trying to refute a generic god or even a generic Jesus. That would be a far more difficult task.

 

[John D. Brey]

The universe is expanding

John

 

[John D. Brey]

You perhaps should be asking a physicist. But the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. It is always winding down, so to speak. That does not mean that the energy goes to zero. It cannot do that. It is the energy available for work that is always decreasing.

Why do you think that is a problem?

Col. Jessup said: "Is there another kind of danger?"

Is there another kind of energy that once it's wound down and unable to do work just keeps on trucking?

John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Col. Jessup said: "Is there another kind of danger?"

Is there another kind of energy that once it's wound down and unable to do work just keeps on trucking?

View attachment 77920


John

There does not appear to be any. I am not too worried since it would be quite a few billion years in the future. I will probably not be here.

 

[John D. Brey]

There are so many reasons that it is hard to choose. But to start with we could site the many failures of the Bible. It has many events that did not happen and would void any reason for worshipping the Abrahamic God if true.

. . . Which is the perfect place for me to issue a challenge. Give me one place the Bible states something that's not true and if you can I will throw it away as useless, smoke and mirrors, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. But if you can't, you must read it from cover to cover and give us a book report at the end.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . Which is the perfect place for me to issue a challenge. Give me one place the Bible states something that's not true and if you can I will throw it away as useless, smoke and mirrors, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. But if you can't, you must read it from cover to cover and give us a book report at the end.



John

There was no Adam and Eve, there was no Noah's Ark, there are countless failed prophecies. An inability to understand these facts does not negate them, If you take the Bible literally it is self refuting.

 

[John D. Brey]

There does not appear to be any. I am not too worried since it would be quite a few billion years in the future. I will probably not be here.

Are you aware that Einstein taught that space and time are the same thing and not different things as it might appear to us in our mammalian relationship to space and time? If space and time are the same thing, and if, as Einstein further stated the case, past and future are stubborn illusions, then some persons in this forum might be too comfortable with the mammalian brain's childish perception of the world to step out into the reality Einstein propounded, a reality that justifies everything Jesus and Paul said long before Einstein co-opted it for fleeting scientific fame and fortune rather than everlasting glory.

The world will be around forever. And you'll be around to observe it. The only question being the prism through which you get to see it? From the mammal mind it will be hell. From the human mind heaven.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

There was no Adam and Eve, there was no Noah's Ark, there are countless failed prophecies. An inability to understand these facts does not negate them, If you take the Bible literally it is self refuting.

I take the Bible literally. And I take the scientific-method as serious as a heart attack. Using the scientific-method, there's no proof that there was no Adam and or Eve. And no proof that there was no Noah's ark. So I'd like a book report on the first chapter of Genesis before I sit down to watch Boston defeat Miami in game seven of the series.

The old scientific ideal of episteme - of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge - has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be "absolutely certain."​

​

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 280.​

John