The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[blü 2]

What is your definition of a real thing/being?

Objective reality, often shortened to 'reality', is the world external to the self, also called nature, also called the realm of the physical sciences. Things and beings that exist as such in nature are real.

 

[blü 2]

Right. That's a key part of it all, and the remainder is that we (Christians) are not to love say most neighbors, except for a few rejects, but (for clarity) even those that seem for a time as if 'enemies'. The point being that no matter our preferences or comfort, that we really ought to love not just the good 8 or 9 of the 10 neighbors, for instance, but all. Sometimes easy, sometimes not at all easy, for some cases. (not only the ones easy to love (most), but all of the ones)

I support that ─ indeed I don't see any useful alternative to it. It's a part of problem-solving.

(But in truth my wife was better at doing it than I ever was.)

 

[night912]

Sure, so-called 'multiverses' can spring out of our space-time fabric. But here's
the kicker - none of this explains how the FIRST universe came to be. Something
outside of space and time and physics caused the universe to spring into life.
You can't argue with that.

The most obvious objection to that would be, what is the reason for the "cause" having the requirement of something outside the universe. It must be demonstrated that the "cause" must and can only come from the outside. So this counterargument has no effect on the multiverse suggestion.

 

[PruePhillip]

The most obvious objection to that would be, what is the reason for the "cause" having the requirement of something outside the universe. It must be demonstrated that the "cause" must and can only come from the outside. So this counterargument has no effect on the multiverse suggestion.

Think about it - how can the universe create itself when it didn't exist?

 

[PruePhillip]

Just like the argument in the OP, it fails miserably. And just like the op, it does not address the existence of god. The argument is disguised to appear as if it did addressed god if one takes a quick glance, but when look at it more carefully, it says nothing about the existence of god. In fact, it's only an assertion. It is also committing a false dichotomy fallacy.

No, my argument is an argument against the religiosity of the
"Believe that eventually scientists will figure this one out."
I don't think science CAN figure how something ultimately came
from nothing - it declares it didn't happen and there's no reason
for us being here - like something a high priest would say without
evidence.

The bible states you believe in faith, and prove God for yourself.
If you haven't proven God in your life then you don't understand.
This is a different kind of proof to science - I call it the private
proof over the corporate proof. Each has its place.

 

[night912]

Think about it - how can the universe create itself when it didn't exist?

The universe didn't create itself, the previous universe did. So the multiverse suggestion still work here. Of one can go further and make it infinite.

 

[night912]

No, my argument is an argument against the religiosity of the
"Believe that eventually scientists will figure this one out."
I don't think science CAN figure how something ultimately came
from nothing - it declares it didn't happen and there's no reason
for us being here - like something a high priest would say without
evidence.

The bible states you believe in faith, and prove God for yourself.
If you haven't proven God in your life then you don't understand.
This is a different kind of proof to science - I call it the private
proof over the corporate proof. Each has its place.

And that still says nothing to what I said in my point.

 

[PruePhillip]

And that still says nothing to what I said in my point.

Okay, so I am lost in the endless points and counter-points that individuals pose.
What exactly haven't I answered?

 

[night912]

Okay, so I am lost in the endless points and counter-points that individuals pose.
What exactly haven't I answered?

As with the OP, both of the arguments didn't addressed the non/existence of god. So neither of them are good arguments for the non/existence of god.

 

[PruePhillip]

The universe didn't create itself, the previous universe did. So the multiverse suggestion still work here. Of one can go further and make it infinite.

Multiverses are supposed to spring out of an existing universe.
One idea is that a "virtual pair" of particles can be torn apart and
this will lead to another universe ballooning out into another
dimension. But virtual particles, which pop in and out of existence,
are part of the fabric of space.
There's ideas about alternate universes appearing in unbelievable
numbers from quantum effects. But again, quantum is a part of the
fabric of space.
My point is the FIRST EVENT, whatever it might be, cannot be
explained with science.

 

[PruePhillip]

As with the OP, both of the arguments didn't addressed the non/existence of god. So neither of them are good arguments for the non/existence of god.

How can you address the existence or non-existence of God if God lies
outside of the universe?
You can neither prove nor disprove such things. But what you can ask
are three questions:
1 - why am I here?
2 - how did it all begin when there was nothing, not even physics?
3 - why are some people so sure they have the answers?

 

[night912]

Multiverses are supposed to spring out of an existing universe.
One idea is that a "virtual pair" of particles can be torn apart and
this will lead to another universe ballooning out into another
dimension. But virtual particles, which pop in and out of existence,
are part of the fabric of space.
There's ideas about alternate universes appearing in unbelievable
numbers from quantum effects. But again, quantum is a part of the
fabric of space.
My point is the FIRST EVENT, whatever it might be, cannot be
explained with science.

Agreed. It would then fall to using philosophy as an explanation. And we all know which direction that discussion will be going.

 

[night912]

How can you address the existence or non-existence of God if God lies
outside of the universe?
You can neither prove nor disprove such things. But what you can ask
are three questions:
1 - why am I here?
2 - how did it all begin when there was nothing, not even physics?
3 - why are some people so sure they have the answers?

And that's my point. If it doesn't address the non/existence of god, then no matter how fancy it looks or sound, there no point in using it because it won't go anywhere except for the back and forth of irrelevant things. So when it comes to similar issues like this, regardless of the topic, all one need to do is point directly to the issue and dismiss the argument. That way the discussion can move forward.

 

[blü 2]

But it did have a beginning. That much is settled in Cosmology.
And now it's settled that the universe will have an end because
we know its not going back to its initial state again.

The universe, as we presently understand the evidence, indeed had a beginning.

But if, as I postulate, mass-energy pre-existed the universe, and properties and effects of mass-energy caused the Big Bang, then the universe exists because mass-energy exists.

And if, as I further postulate, time and the dimensions are properties or effects of mass-energy, then time and the dimensions exist because mass-energy exists (ie mass-energy does not exist because time and the dimensions exist) and therefore the problem of beginnings is removed.

 

[PruePhillip]

The universe, as we presently understand the evidence, indeed had a beginning.

But if, as I postulate, mass-energy pre-existed the universe, and properties and effects of mass-energy caused the Big Bang, then the universe exists because mass-energy exists.

And if, as I further postulate, time and the dimensions are properties or effects of mass-energy, then time and the dimensions exist because mass-energy exists (ie mass-energy does not exist because time and the dimensions exist) and therefore the problem of beginnings is removed.

Quote - "...mass-energy pre-existed the universe..."
You need to define "universe"
It is supposed that NOTHING pre-existed the first universe. It is considered
a nonsensical question to science - like the north of the north pole argument.

Science states ("official" or otherwise I cannot tell) that
1 - the first universe came from nothing
2 - there's no meaning to life.

Both statements border on the religious.

 

[blü 2]

Quote - "...mass-energy pre-existed the universe..."
You need to define "universe"

The universe, in this context, is the contents of the Big Bang expressed in the forms of external reality we see about us.

It is supposed that NOTHING pre-existed the first universe.

No, that's NOT what's supposed. What's supposed is what I told you ─ that if, as we think, the Big Bang was as close to a pure singularity as physics allows, that fact will cut us off from any information about what, if anything, existed previously.

It seems plain as the proverbial that nothing can come from nothing, since there'd be neither a time nor a place where it could do so, let alone a reason.

It is considered a nonsensical question to science - like the north of the north pole argument.

That is purely and simply not correct. The situation is as I've stated it above.

Science states [...] that
1 - the first universe came from nothing

What 'first universe'?

And HOW does 'science state' it came from nothing?

I'm not aware of science making such a claim. It makes no sense, for a start.

2 - there's no meaning to life.

Of course there's meaning to life. 'Meaning' is only found in particular brains, but our kind of brain is one of them. So we as humans can see meanings in life. We'll tend to agree on the evolved ones ─ survive long enough to breed, for example ─ and go our respective ways on many others.

 

[PruePhillip]

The universe, in this context, is the contents of the Big Bang expressed in the forms of external reality we see about us.
No, that's NOT what's supposed. What's supposed is what I told you ─ that if, as we think, the Big Bang was as close to a pure singularity as physics allows, that fact will cut us off from any information about what, if anything, existed previously.

It seems plain as the proverbial that nothing can come from nothing, since there'd be neither a time nor a place where it could do so, let alone a reason.
That is purely and simply not correct. The situation is as I've stated it above.
What 'first universe'?

And HOW does 'science state' it came from nothing?

I'm not aware of science making such a claim. It makes no sense, for a start.
Of course there's meaning to life. 'Meaning' is only found in particular brains, but our kind of brain is one of them. So we as humans can see meanings in life. We'll tend to agree on the evolved ones ─ survive long enough to breed, for example ─ and go our respective ways on many others.

We both agree - something cannot come from ultimate nothingness.
Saying we evolve is true, but it doesn't answer why evolution, like
everything else, is here in the first place.
If our "reason" for living is evolution then a man is correct in his
behavior if he can kill off as many men as he can and father kids
to the remaining women.

 

[atanu]

Objective reality, often shortened to 'reality', is the world external to the self, also called nature, also called the realm of the physical sciences. Things and beings that exist as such in nature are real.

Yeah. No. I will make three points.

1. What could be more real than the awareness within which all objective reality is experienced?

2. If we assume that all that we know is mediated by the electrochemical mechanism, then we can never know the actual world out there. There is something out there and the brain shows you some pixelated3 D model. How do we ever know what is out there?

2. Quantum Mechanics has shown us that so-called measurements are all contextual. I cite below five papers published in Nature, with links to full papers, that indicate that the so-called realism is not tenable.

a) The mental Universe
The author says "The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things."

In other words, the author points to the fact that the universe is our observation, but we forget the observation part and ascribe primacy to the 'observed'.

b) An experimental test of non-local realism | Nature
The authors conclude that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.

In other words, the authors indicate that 'locality' and 'realism', the two axioms of Physicalsitic worldview, are untenable in light of results of their experiments.

c) Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system | Nature

The authors conclude "Our results illustrate a deep incompatibility between quantum mechanics and classical physics that cannot in any way result from entanglement."

Physicalists usually explain away the startling results of quantum mechanics by resorting to entanglement. This paper indicates that no non-contextual theory can be tenable -- there can be no a priori truth apart from the observation. All quantum theories are contextual and we surely constitute the most important context.

d) https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3343.pdf?proof=true

Manning et al., conclude "Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place."

Wheeler’s supposition that a choice affects the ‘past history’ (of the photon) has been shown to be correct in past experiments using photon paths. In this paper, authors re-demonstrate with slow-moving massive helium atom what was already known for massless fast-moving photons that a future event (the method of detection) causes the photon (or the helium atom) to decide its past.

e) Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice

The paper recommends abandoning the ‘Realism’ worldview altogether, as no realistic picture is compatible with its results which hinge causally on disconnected choice.

...

So, I will reiterate that science does not endorse your philosophical stand that there is an objective reality 'out there'.

 

[blü 2]

We both agree - something cannot come from ultimate nothingness.

That's why I like the idea that time exists because mass-energy does. It removes the problem of beginnings.

Saying we evolve is true, but it doesn't answer why evolution, like everything else, is here in the first place.

Evolution is the name of a completely natural process observed in self-replicating cells. If the replication differs from the original, and if the difference is beneficial to surviving and breeding in the particular circumstances of the case, then there will likely be more of the different kind in the future population as a result of that benefit. The difference can, of course, also be neutral, or negative, and if negative, will not thrive comparatively. (And there are various other factors at play.)

If our "reason" for living is evolution then a man is correct in his behavior if he can kill off as many men as he can and father kids to the remaining women.

We know that our monkey kin have patterns like that (though arbitrary killing of males of the same tribe is not standard) ─ an alpha male whose claim is control of the females (though subversion of the role is also usually observed) and in human history versions of that have occurred, sometimes symbolically, like Solomon's 'thousand wives', or the hareems of the Sublime Porte, and sometimes practically, as with Muslim or Mormon polygamy; but we also know that it's not the general model, likely because the human infant is not at all independent till about age five, or useful till about age seven, and therefore survival of the child is significantly aided by the bonding and role-adoption of two parents (as nurturer and as provider / protector) rather than one. (The biochemistry of human and animal bonding has been much studied, as you doubtless know.)

 

[PruePhillip]

That's why I like the idea that time exists because mass-energy does. It removes the problem of beginnings.
Evolution is the name of a completely natural process observed in self-replicating cells. If the replication differs from the original, and if the difference is beneficial to surviving and breeding in the particular circumstances of the case, then there will likely be more of the different kind in the future population as a result of that benefit. The difference can, of course, also be neutral, or negative, and if negative, will not thrive comparatively. (And there are various other factors at play.)
We know that our monkey kin have patterns like that (though arbitrary killing of males of the same tribe is not standard) ─ an alpha male whose claim is control of the females (though subversion of the role is also usually observed) and in human history versions of that have occurred, sometimes symbolically, like Solomon's 'thousand wives', or the hareems of the Sublime Porte, and sometimes practically, as with Muslim or Mormon polygamy; but we also know that it's not the general model, likely because the human infant is not at all independent till about age five, or useful till about age seven, and therefore survival of the child is significantly aided by the bonding and role-adoption of two parents (as nurturer and as provider / protector) rather than one. (The biochemistry of human and animal bonding has been much studied, as you doubtless know.)

This idea that before there's time there can be nothing is a bit of a dodge.
We don't even know what time was.
And if it didn't exist then nothing can "happen" in our understanding - but
something did happen, the universe began.
And if evolution is all there is then it's fine to murder, cheat and steal - you
are the important one. I suspect a lot of Western nihilism comes from this.