Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[MSizer]

I disagree, otherwise we would not be searching or even debating on a forum????Science can only come to logical conclusions but unfortunately the truth of reality extends past our logic and minds.

No. Science is our most powerful tool in discovering and understanding the world around us. Imagination is fun and we get to make up pretend beings, but that doesn't cure cancer nor track down rapists - science does. Of course if you'd rather spend your time praying than focusing on scientific methods, I'm sure the rapists will be happy with that. Keep your daughter locked in the house while you're at it I recommend.

 

[AK4]

I said "a universe", not "the universe". I was referring to the hypothetical universe you suggested in your argument.

Hypothetical universe? I was talking about this universe and not a hypothetical. I never even suggested a hypothetical universe.

That's because they don't make sense. They don't follow normal rules of logic. You commit logical fallacies and put forward claims without support, expecting us to accept them as true on your say-so. None of this makes for a valid argument.

This is so untrue. I put forth what philosophy says on it, what science has so far discovered, scriptures and just pure logic of nothing can come before an USP. This is not support?! Have I not cited some sources for all these? Yes I have yet somehow I put forward claims without support. You guys just dismiss or ignore all these because you cant disprove em.

No, I said that you could use anything in the Bible that you want... provided you can demonstrate that it's true.

What? You are saying the same thing. If I want to use anything in the bible and something else supports it or demonstrates it, you claim I cant use it. For example God spreading out the heavens meshes perfectly with the expanding universe of science. Yet I cant use this? I am putting forth claims without support?! The reality of it all is that yall cant refute what I present so you CLAIM that my claims don’t make sense or is unsupported.

If you don't want people pointing out your special pleading, then don't engage in special pleading.

I already exposed earlier that it is you guys who are asking for special pleading in saying that the universe is eternal or self existent because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a notion.

For the umpteenth time, here's how it works:

And again for the umpteenth time, just like stated above about the expanding universe and God stretching out the heavens. Here I will do it again.

- if you want us to accept your argument, you have to demonstrate that it's true.

Is it not agreed throughout the scientific community of an expanding universe? Yup---one truth
God said He was stretching out the heavens. Are the heavens expanding? Yup—two truths

- if any link in this chain is in doubt, then your whole argument is in doubt.

So because you doubt this is true my whole argument is invalid? So everyone elses opinions matter not? [now that I think of it, I could have sworn I mentioned something about opinions compared to facts]

- disputing an objection to your argument is not the same thing as actually supporting your argument.

If disputing an objection to my argument is not supporting my argument then what is it?

Now: to try and get off this sidetrack again and get back onto the OP's topic with a question for anyone: what is the definition of "God", and why is that definition correct?

I told you the definition of God is the placer. That means that a placer cannot be placed or that it cant have something that placed it. How is this definition correct? Because if all is out of Him that means He is the placer

 

[AK4]

Did I ever claim to disprove god?
What I have shown is that god is not necessary. There are viable and scientific alternatives.

But a God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent. And until this is proven there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But a God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent. And until this is proven there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

The Universe is likely NOT eternal, how does that necessitate God?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quantum events occur at the atomic level. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of cause/effect is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion.
Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
According to quantum physics, something that "just happens" need not violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account.

Nature actually has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
This does not disprove God, but it does show that God is not necessary.

 

[cottage]

But a God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent. And until this is proven there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

It is necessarily true that God cannot fail to be God, just as a bachelor cannot be a married woman and a triangle cannot have fewer than three sides. The sun rises in the morning because it is causally explained by something else happening in the universe, and that is the rotation of the earth on its axis. Yet the sun could rise in the morning without the rotation of the earth, or it might not rise at all! We are only informed of what has gone before, and so there is no logical demonstration that the future must be like the past. Now, a Supreme Being cannot logically be other than omnipotent, or it must be at least sufficiently powerful to sustain the existence of the universe. But there is nothing in the concept to inform us that such a being must be a Creator, because that would be the finding of an argument for a conclusion given in advance. However, the Supreme Being can be the universe without contradiction because no cause for its existence is necessary if it is eternal, and any internal causation is contingent upon the fact that it is the Supreme Being. But if a Supreme Being is the creator of the universe it must be utterly dependent upon cause and effect in order to bring that about a phenomenon that cannot be demonstrated to exist outside experience, and need not logically exist at all!

 

[AxisMundi]

No actually by asking this question I have simply shown that the Believer and non believer have the same footing. I always see people saying prove God, I say disprove Him.

One certainly canot prove or disprove the existance of the gods.

However, one can certainly disprove Jehovah as a demiurge, and also disprove the notion that said deity is the only one on the planet.

 

[AxisMundi]

The Universe is likely NOT eternal, how does that necessitate God?

The universe has as much chance of being eternal as not.

I happen to think that the Big Bang is a cyclic event, the "Spring" of the unversal seasons.

 

[Walkntune]

They shouldn't. Faith is irrational.

How is faith irrational? It goes hand in hand with our fight and flight response and our intuitive awareness. Without faith there would be no fear and vice versa.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hypothetical universe? I was talking about this universe and not a hypothetical. I never even suggested a hypothetical universe.

Until you demonstrate that what you suggest is true, it's hypothetical.

This is so untrue. I put forth what philosophy says on it, what science has so far discovered, scriptures and just pure logic of nothing can come before an USP. This is not support?!

No, it's not. Just saying "science!" while engaging in rhetorical hand-waving is not support.

Have I not cited some sources for all these?

No, you haven't. When you stated that all effects need causes, you said that this was supported by "science". When pressed about what this meant, you didn't give anything meaningful. You also did nothing to explain your implicit assertion that what "science" (or rather, what you consider to be science) says about how things work would still be applicable at the Big Bang.

In fact, at the quantum level, science suggests that some effects don't require causes, and science is silent on all events that happened before Planck Time, or the point a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang occurred.

Yes I have yet somehow I put forward claims without support. You guys just dismiss or ignore all these because you cant disprove em.

You're right. It's impossible to disprove a meaningless statement. For instance, there's no way I can disprove the idea that the land north of the north pole is warmer than the land south of the south pole, because neither one is a valid concept. The mere fact that I can't disprove this assertion doesn't make the assertion true or meaningful.

What? You are saying the same thing. If I want to use anything in the bible and something else supports it or demonstrates it, you claim I cant use it. For example God spreading out the heavens meshes perfectly with the expanding universe of science. Yet I cant use this? I am putting forth claims without support?!

It depends to what end. If your claim is just that the universe expanded, then fine - claim it. You can mention the Bible if you want, but you don't need to.

If your claim is that because the Bible is accurate in one area, we should trust it in some other area, then that's no more valid than me claiming that because the Wizard of Oz was right about the existence of Kansas, scarecrows really can sing and dance.

The reality of it all is that yall cant refute what I present so you CLAIM that my claims don’t make sense or is unsupported.

No, I think what's closer to the truth is that you deeply believe certain things to the point where they seem obvious to you and you can't understand why other people don't accept them.

And I'm not singling you out. I know it's something that anyone can be guilty of: a crappy argument for something we already accept as true can seem very convincing. We don't tend to see the holes in the reasoning when the conclusion is something we already accept.

I already exposed earlier that it is you guys who are asking for special pleading in saying that the universe is eternal or self existent because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a notion.

Except the problem with this argument is that it's another fallacy: argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine how something could be possible doesn't mean that it actually is impossible.

Also, you're still engaging in special pleading, because there's also absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the universe was created by an intelligent, personal entity. If you're going to use that as the basis to exclude the conclusion you don't like, it would be hypocritical of you to not also exclude the conclusion you do like that meets that basis just as much.

Is it not agreed throughout the scientific community of an expanding universe? Yup---one truth
God said He was stretching out the heavens. Are the heavens expanding? Yup—two truths

You don't know what it means to demonstrate something, do you?

So because you doubt this is true my whole argument is invalid? So everyone elses opinions matter not? [now that I think of it, I could have sworn I mentioned something about opinions compared to facts]

No, everyone is welcome to any opinion that agrees with the facts. But the whole point of an argument like yours is to limit the spectrum of valid opinions.

You believe the universe had an intelligent creator. I don't. Without further information, at this point we just agree to disagree. However, you took it upon yourself to prove that your opinion is the only correct one on this topic. Until you validly and conclusively answer every relevant objection to your argument, you have not established that your way is the only way. Until then, I can still be just as content in my belief that the universe didn't have an intelligent creator as you are in your belief that it did.

If disputing an objection to my argument is not supporting my argument then what is it?

It's disputing an objection to your argument.

Look at it this way: say you're building a house. You've poured the foundation and started to erect the walls when a demolition crew arrives. They try to knock down your wall... you stop them. They try to punch a hole in your foundation... you stop them again. Good job, but that just stops the half-built house from being torn down; the house still isn't built unless you actually build it.

I told you the definition of God is the placer. That means that a placer cannot be placed or that it cant have something that placed it. How is this definition correct? Because if all is out of Him that means He is the placer

When I asked why the definition was correct, I was getting at something else: for a definition of God to be necessary and complete, it must be sufficient: the set of attributes it contains must be one that can only be posessed by God.

You said that God is "the placer". Now... in my mis-spent youth, I worked for a while in a warehouse as an order picker. I would take products off the shelves and place them in boxes or on pallets for shipment. By the strict definition of the term, I am a "placer". Now... hopefully you will agree that I am not God. Therefore, defining God as "the placer" doesn't work, since that definition includes many non-God things.

Care to try again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But a God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent. And until this is proven there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

No. Here's the correct version:

But a "first cause", which may or may not be God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent. And until this is proven, it may be that there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

 

[Walkntune]

No. Science is our most powerful tool in discovering and understanding the world around us. Imagination is fun and we get to make up pretend beings, but that doesn't cure cancer nor track down rapists - science does. Of course if you'd rather spend your time praying than focusing on scientific methods, I'm sure the rapists will be happy with that. Keep your daughter locked in the house while you're at it I recommend.

Science is a powerful tool but too bad people limit themselves to the amount of tools they bring to the job to get it done.
Lets not get into medical science on this post.
If you get a cold, hey lets go by some drugs so we can suppress all of the symptoms of our body trying to rid itself of the germs and viruses. So be it all the way down the line through different diseases. While we are at it we can put soda and candy machines in every high school to help keep the immune system suppressed in our children. That way when they get add we can sell more drugs and make more profits.
I got it! Why not advertise that when someone has the blues, we can suggest through commercials that maybe they are depressed and should talk to a Doc about getting on drugs and once they believe it we will have them hooked for life and get them to believe they have a mental disorder.Some people may have a need(suicidal) for medicines but trying to take advantage of society and getting people's lives to spiral out of control when they feel a little down just to push medicines for profits is how sick and evil the human heart is all in the name of the almighty dollar.After all who wouldn't be stuck in depression after they believed they were.Don't get me wrong, drugs have there place but the human heart is evil and greedy and society is badly abused through medical science.

 

[AK4]

Quantum events occur at the atomic level. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of cause/effect is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion.
Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
According to quantum physics, something that "just happens" need not violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account.

Nature actually has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
This does not disprove God, but it does show that God is not necessary.

No what this explains is one of the ways or laws put into place by something else. It doesnt take away or answer what source all this stuff comes from. You are not looking deep enough. Besides Super Relativity Theory helps to try to fill in the gaps of understanding that quantum mechanics. Try reading this

Super Relativity - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

Even still none of this takes away from where it all came from.

 

[AK4]

It is necessarily true that God cannot fail to be God, just as a bachelor cannot be a married woman and a triangle cannot have fewer than three sides. The sun rises in the morning because it is causally explained by something else happening in the universe, and that is the rotation of the earth on its axis. Yet the sun could rise in the morning without the rotation of the earth, or it might not rise at all! We are only informed of what has gone before, and so there is no logical demonstration that the future must be like the past. Now, a Supreme Being cannot logically be other than omnipotent, or it must be at least sufficiently powerful to sustain the existence of the universe. But there is nothing in the concept to inform us that such a being must be a Creator, because that would be the finding of an argument for a conclusion given in advance. However, the Supreme Being can be the universe without contradiction because no cause for its existence is necessary if it is eternal, and any internal causation is contingent upon the fact that it is the Supreme Being. But if a Supreme Being is the creator of the universe it must be utterly dependent upon cause and effect in order to bring that about a phenomenon that cannot be demonstrated to exist outside experience, and need not logically exist at all!

See that is what quantum mechanic scientist are saying but in reality all this stuff still does happen even if we dont personally experience it. thats where SR theory comes in and fills the gap. It wont let me copy and paste so go to the EPR [the one with the dice and scroll down to quantum theory explanation

Super Relativity - Einstein Podolosky and Rosen - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

 

[tumbleweed41]

No what this explains is one of the ways or laws put into place by something else. It doesnt take away or answer what source all this stuff comes from. You are not looking deep enough. Besides Super Relativity Theory helps to try to fill in the gaps of understanding that quantum mechanics. Try reading this

Super Relativity - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

Even still none of this takes away from where it all came from.

Super Relativity, better know as the "Theory of Everything" has been abandoned by many great physicists as futile.

"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind"
Stephen Hawking

And is severely lacking in predictive results so far.

But even if Super Relativity is found to be substantive, it still does not necessitate God. In fact, Super Relativity, like other theories in physics, shows the impossibility of a being that could directly influence or manipulate matter or energy in our universe.

 

[Smoke]

But a God is necessary UNLESS the universe is eternal, always existed, self existent.

Why? It's entirely possible -- likely, even -- that the universe is not eternal and that God doesn't exist. What basis is there for concluding that either God or the universe must be eternal?

And until this is proven there is a neccesity of what was the source that brought the universe into existence.

Seems to me your standard of evidence gets a lot lower when you're talking about God. I don't agree that either God or the universe must be eternal, but even supposing that were true, why assume it's God? We know the universe exists, and we have no evidence that God exists, so if we're going to arbitrarily assume that one or the other is eternal, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that it's the universe?

 

[Smoke]

The universe has as much chance of being eternal as not.

I happen to think that the Big Bang is a cyclic event, the "Spring" of the unversal seasons.

That may well be true, but I think of the universe as the result of the Big Bang; I don't think of the singularity as the universe. Should I?

 

[tumbleweed41]

That may well be true, but I think of the universe as the result of the Big Bang; I don't think of the singularity as the universe. Should I?

Technically, since the "Big Bang" was the initiation of the rapid expansion of the singularity, and the Universe is contained within that singularity.
Then, yes, the singularity and the Universe are one and the same.

 

[Walkntune]

But even if Super Relativity is found to be substantive, it still does not necessitate God. In fact, Super Relativity, like other theories in physics, shows the impossibility of a being that could directly influence or manipulate matter or energy in our universe.

Unless you have an explanation I disagree with this statement.In fact I believe m-theory,particle entanglement and experiments like the double-split experiment support my belief in a creative force out there.When i understand these principles in physics and then I read scripture like God being light,Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of heaven like lightening. I ponder on the idea of only energy existing.

Luke 10:18
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." 17The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name."
18He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven
This is a quote from Nikola Tesla

What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?
Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.
Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? more still cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?
If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms.

Nikola was onto some great discoveries and I am extremely fascinated with the brilliance of his mind.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unless you have an explanation I disagree with this statement.In fact I believe m-theory,particle entanglement and experiments like the double-split experiment support my belief in a creative force out there.When i understand these principles in physics and then I read scripture like God being light,Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of heaven like lightening. I ponder on the idea of only energy existing.

Attempting to marry superstition with physics is an effort in futility.
Even Tesla failed in this.