The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[blü 2]

This idea that before there's time there can be nothing is a bit of a dodge.

That's not what I'm saying. Instead I'm saying mass-energy exists, and AS A RESULT time exists.

We don't even know what time was.

Or is ─ it's a perplexing phenomenon.

And if it didn't exist then nothing can "happen" in our understanding - but something did happen, the universe began.

Like I said ─ ex hypothesi mass-energy existed thus time existed thus things can happen. There's no 'In the beginning' ─ who knows how many temporal dimensions might be possible in this case, or in what directions time might be able to run, not just forward and/or back?

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.

You can tell that's wrong because we're here not murdering each other. Those creatures that set out to kill their fellow creatures indiscriminately ─ especially their own tribesfolk ─ have very largely failed in evolutionary terms ─ whereas were you correct they'd be the norm everywhere.

Instead, we humans are primates who've put a particular emphasis on the primate gregarious tendency, so that we're born with respect for authority and loyalty to the group, as well as a liking for fairness and reciprocity and a dislike of the one who harms. Our tribes have risen and fallen by their ability to cooperate on both small and large scales. We get our success by using each other.

Ants and bees and termites are other versions of evolved cooperation rather than feeding-on-one's-kind. The whole of evolution is out there in nature, just waiting for your enquiring mind to come along and understand it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. Mistakes does not equal imagination/superstition

Well it's either one or the other, isn't?
Either the writings were inspired by this god or they weren't.

And for the record, I don't think at all that it is a "big leap of my imagination" to assume that they weren't and that these writings were just the musings of HUMANS - just like EVERY OTHER written text ever.

The leap of imagination is on the side of those who like to believe that these texts were dictated / inspired by an invisible, undetectable, supernatural and magical being that only communicates through telepathy or dreams or visions or whatever.

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that; just don't believe blind, use common sense + discrimination

My common sense tells me that the writings of humans are the musings of humans and what is inside their heads. My common sense tells me that it's not the result of an invisible, undetectable, supernatural and magical being who "communicates" these musings through telepathy or dreams or visions or whatever.

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. I never said that the Bible is the only source to learn about God

Indeed. In fact, you said quite the opposite... that MEN wrote it and that they merely CLAIMED it came from god (in whatever way you wish). To me, that reads as if you agree with me that these writings are just the musings of men - and thus not a place to learn about god, but rather a place to learn about what's inside those people's heads.

Which would put it on par with every other text written by humans ever.

That is a big .. big leap of your imagination. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. I said "God did not write it, hence don't blame mistakes on God". So, that is not the issue here.

[/quote]

How do you distinguish the mistakes from the parts that supposedly come from god?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That could be solved easily though, if they are "open enough" to accept a broader conception of G-d.

I don't care for definitions if there is nothing independend to back them up.

You can define your god till you are blue in the face. If you cannot support your definition with some type of independend evidence, then what use is your definition?

 

[stvdv]

Well it's either one or the other, isn't?
Either the writings were inspired by this god or they weren't.

I agree with that of course. But that was not what it was about in my original reply

And for the record, I don't think at all that it is a "big leap of my imagination" to assume that they weren't and that these writings were just the musings of HUMANS - just like EVERY OTHER written text ever.

The imagination was about you reading something else in my words then was actually written.
The writings were the musings of humans.

just like EVERY OTHER written text ever.

You can't mean that, I think.
Do you equate the musings of Einstein (E=mc2 etc) to "just any other text ever written"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, people are free to reject truth, I think it is good thing that people are free. I think it should be that way, even though some will reject truth.

Good job completely ignoring the point being made.

That point being: the "best way", is what produces "the best results".
Clearly, thousands upon thousands of different denominations of christianity alone, adding a couple thousands more for the other religions, is anything but "the best" way.

It is in fact a horrible result.

As a comparision, relativity isn't understood or interpreted in thousands of such different ways. Not even dozens. So clearly relativity is communicated in far better ways.

And as I also said: if by "best way" you don't mean that which produces the "best" results, then I have no clue what you mean by "best".

I think it is. The problem is not the way the message is delivered

Clearly it is.... as while they all ready the same book, thousands of different denominations / understandings exist.

In contrast, everybody who studies the literature concerning relativity, understands relativity in the same way.

, it is that people just don’t want to hear/understand it

Yeah, yeah...
So the problem isn't the way it is communicated, it's just that you don't want to hear / understanding the truth about Odin and Whalhalla.

Interesting thing is that they don’t really seem to have anything meaningful to say

You just say that, because you don't want to hear about it.

Or what say you, what is the main message from Thor for example?

That you should live and die with honor, for one thing.

But what does it matter what the contents of the message is?
The authenticity of a message isn't determined by, or dependend, on what it says.

What you say here smells an awfull lot like determining if something is authentic or not based on if you "like" what it says. Which ironically, actually fits your accusation of "not wanting to hear or understand it".
So ironically, that applies to you and not to me - since for me it doesn't matter if I "like it" or not when it comes to determining if it is authentic.

So really, you are simply sidestepping and dodging the point being made.

So, you do require a “big brother” to tell you what is right and wrong?

That makes no sense at all as a reply to that quote, as that quote wasn't about how to determine morals in any way. It was about how to disinguish the superstitious / imaginary musings of mere humans as opposed to communication for a non-human being (gods or otherwise).

Sounds like you are turning dodging into a sport.

I think those are matters of understanding and should not depend on that it is said directly by God.

I agree. But the quote you are replying to wasn't about that at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientists say asking what lies outside of the universe, or before the universe began
is as pointless as asking what is north of the north pole. Whatever lies outside of the
universe does not operate with our physical laws, or notions of space or time. It is
considered a nonsensical question.
So asking "who made God" is itself a nonsensical question - we have utterly no
comprehension.

Then proposing a god would also be a nonsensical proposition, for the exact same reasons.

The bible tells us we must prove God for ourselves.

The bible says a lot of things that make no sense.

Furthermore, if we just believe without any personal proof in our life then we don't understand.

There's no such thing as "personal" proof.

 

[stvdv]

The leap of imagination is on the side of those who like to believe that these texts were dictated / inspired by an invisible, undetectable, supernatural and magical being that only communicates through telepathy or dreams or visions or whatever.

Again, the imagination I mentioned was about you misreading my reply

You do not have genuine personal spiritual experiences otherwise you would not call it imagination
But it makes no sense to impose your limited view about spirituality on others; it's not even smart
In spirituality, as it's in science, the knowledge and wisdom grow with the number of hours you put in
The more you practise the spiritual disciplines prescribed the more you will know about spirituality

The biggest imagination is when another person claims to know that musings of others are imaginations.

Best to stick to ourselves. Why bother about other's imaginations? Unless they impose them on you, which I don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It seems you misunderstand what the multi-verse is. If a multi-verse exists, then our universe was born from it -not the other way round.

Second, your use of the word "caused" is inappropriate, as causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena (and not even a universal one... it gets very fishy at the quantum level for example).

And sure, it doesn't explain "the first" universe. And one could argue that one simply moves the question to "how did the multi-verse come about?". Sure.

And the only correct answer is "we don't know".

Not "god dun it".

There is no reason at all to even propose a god as an option. None whatsoever.

 

[stvdv]

1: My common sense tells me that the writings of humans are the musings of humans and what is inside their heads.
2: My common sense tells me that it's not the result of an invisible, undetectable, supernatural and magical being who "communicates" these musings through telepathy or dreams or visions or whatever.

1: I agree
2: I agree not, but I see no problem that you have a different "common sense", as we have both different experiences

My common sense tells me that people having different experiences will believe differently and even their common sense will differ

Indeed. In fact, you said quite the opposite... that MEN wrote it and that they merely CLAIMED it came from god (in whatever way you wish). To me, that reads as if you agree with me that these writings are just the musings of men - and thus not a place to learn about god, but rather a place to learn about what's inside those people's heads.

I agree that it is the musings of men, that is how I also see it
I am fine that you see it as "just the musings of men", but I would omit "just", as it can be easily interpreted as "belittling".
I agree that it is a place to learn about what's inside those people's heads
I agree not with "thus not a place to learn about God" ... for me "musings" are a way to start learning about God

 

[stvdv]

Which would put it on par with every other text written by humans ever.

I strongly disagree with this. And I can't even understand that someone would claim such a thing
Not all scientific texts can be "put on par with every other text written by humans ever".
And the same applies to spiritual texts.

Your words only indicates that you do not value spirituality nor take it serious
People who don't take others serious block any real communication
And that is fine with me, but then why start replying

If people do not take spirituality serious then I see no point in replying to them, as they are the ones blocking communication to start with

 

[stvdv]

How do you distinguish the mistakes from the parts that supposedly come from god?

That is a very important question IMO.
If God is defined as Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent then at least we can say the mistakes probably don't come from God
Also, knowing that humans are not all these Omnis and are known for making errors it makes sense to attribute the errors to humans
Of course God could put in errors on purpose (I would do if I were God) just to test humans if they believe blind or use their common sense

So, to filter out the mistakes in the scriptures we need to have a sharp buddhi (intellect, common sense, brain etc)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True. It's now a matter of history. The Jews are returning to their homeland.

It's called self-fullfilling prophecy.
Such is a thing that human activity determines and has control over.

As for the part about droughts etc... Well, those things happen all the time and if you are vague enough about it, it will always come "true".

Now, if the bible would have said for example something like:

The day after christmass in the year of our lord 2005, I will shake up the earth and have a wall of water travel the seas which will hit the island of sumatry and more then 200.000 will perish.

Now, THAT would have been impressive. No human can control that. At best, they could evacuate the island and prevent 200.000 deaths. But the earthquake would still happen, including the tusnami that follows.

But curiously, "prophecy" never is that exact. It's always vague. So vague that it could apply to almost anything. Or it is such that humans can "force" it to come true.

Like Matt Dilahunty said once: if I order a steak at a restaurant and the waiter brings it to me... that's not prophecy.

 

[stvdv]

I don't care for definitions if there is nothing independend to back them up.

You can define your god till you are blue in the face.
If you cannot support your definition with some type of independend evidence, then what use is your definition?

Spirituality is about personal improvement.
Asking others to prove things has nothing to do with Spirituality
You have to study and practise yourself, to achieve anything, whether in Science or in Spirituality

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it did have a beginning. That much is settled in Cosmology.

OUR universe had a beginning. You are talking about the "first universe". By which you actually mean the hypothetical multi-verse from which universes originate.

In inflation theory (which predicts a multi-verse), the multi-verse is eternal. Or at least: it could be eternal... Which is to say, there's nothing in the math that restricts it to not being eternal.

Also.... I'ld like to point out that OUR universe indeed DID always exist.

Always = a period of time. ALL of time, to be exact.
Time = an inherent part of the fabric of space-time. A property of our universe.

At any point in time, the universe exist.
There is no point in history where the universe existed, but time did not.
There is no point history where time existed, but the universe did not.

Essentially, time and the universe are the exact same thing. The universe = the space-time continuum.

So for all intents and purposes, the universe always existed.
You can not point me to any point in time where the universe did not exist.

Whenever time was flowing, the universe existed.

So yeah, the universe exists for all of time. ie, always.

And now it's settled that the universe will have an end because
we know its not going back to its initial state again.

That is not clear at all.
It will eventually suffer heat-death. But the space-time continuum won't evaporate. Space will continue toe expand and time will continue to flow.

For that to stop, the very fabric of the universe would have to evaporate / break down / whatever you wish to call it.

The combination of space and time IS the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree, that's a good argument against the existance of God.

But at the end of the day it's just an argument of, "I personally would like/expect God to do X...... God didn't do X therefore God doesn't exist.


+ Consider that the Bible is full of examples where God made his existance obvious, and people ended up haiting God more than before .... So. Perhaps if God makes his existance more obvious people will end up rejecting him

One must first acknowledge the existance of X before one can hate X.
So your argument makes no sense.

It's one thing to be convinced that X exists. It is quite another to then love or hate / accept or reject X.


At this point, we are only discussing wheter X exists or not and if there is good evidence to think one or the other. Only once we establish / agree that X exists, can we start exploring wheter or not that entity is worthy of being respected / loved / followed / whatever. And then we get into the teritorry of personal opinion and judgement calls.

But the existance of X is not a matter of personal opinion.

 

[PruePhillip]

OUR universe had a beginning. You are talking about the "first universe". By which you actually mean the hypothetical multi-verse from which universes originate.

In inflation theory (which predicts a multi-verse), the multi-verse is eternal. Or at least: it could be eternal... Which is to say, there's nothing in the math that restricts it to not being eternal.

Also.... I'ld like to point out that OUR universe indeed DID always exist.

Always = a period of time. ALL of time, to be exact.
Time = an inherent part of the fabric of space-time. A property of our universe.

At any point in time, the universe exist.
There is no point in history where the universe existed, but time did not.
There is no point history where time existed, but the universe did not.

Essentially, time and the universe are the exact same thing. The universe = the space-time continuum.

So for all intents and purposes, the universe always existed.
You can not point me to any point in time where the universe did not exist.

Whenever time was flowing, the universe existed.

So yeah, the universe exists for all of time. ie, always.



That is not clear at all.
It will eventually suffer heat-death. But the space-time continuum won't evaporate. Space will continue toe expand and time will continue to flow.

For that to stop, the very fabric of the universe would have to evaporate / break down / whatever you wish to call it.

The combination of space and time IS the universe.

The argument about "what happened before" can be:
1 - disingenuous
2 - rely upon ignorance about what time actually is.

So, WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE TIME BEGAN?
We can't answer that. If "time is a measure of things happening" then sure, the
universe and time are one in a deeper sense than Einstein's "space time."
But is this right? What processes led to the creation of that "first event" in
the universe, whether it's a "singularity" or M-theory hyper-space membranes,
whatever. That first event, or chain of events, clearly began before time began
to create time in the first place.

 

[rational experiences]

The human aware Universe, is its own heavenly gas mass.

The mind says as awareness....the stone upon which I stand was obviously formed in out of space.....so my mind vision gives the idea of O a stone planet just sitting in out of space the Universal space.

That body is the body that moves around the Sun without light.

What the mind first says as I am conscious and I am thinking.

Then when a human who says, okay I am conscious only due to gas heavens and light existing, so I will argue what is relative.

The other science self says....no I am discussing what is relative to both space and also time....being a cycle of movement only....a cycle of 12 months...which is counting using Numbers. What that information is relevant to the type of argument about what is relative first and original.

Then the conscious believer of life and light says, no space time whatsoever for the Earth owns stone gases historically and they were cold first. Otherwise when they were set alight by hot Sun ufo radiation, they would have all burnt out......obviously.

So the science community agreed. God O the stone planet in its history owned pre burning gases with light, that evolved and became cold in space.

So then taught RELATIVITY is that evolution belongs only to natural....and not GOD....another science argument about who is correct, God scientists or natural scientists.

When you get attacked as a I am not any scientist, never believed in religion or any of your occultism, and then get forced to hear AI and all of your fake beliefs....I would be the only form of human consciousness in awareness to tell any natural truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The argument about "what happened before" can be:
1 - disingenuous
2 - rely upon ignorance about what time actually is.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

So, WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE TIME BEGAN?

Who lives north of the north pole?

The fact of the matter is, that it might not be a sensible question. Given what we know today about space-time, it actually isn't a sensible question and it is rather analogous to asking about what you'll find north of the north pole.

I'm not going to pretend that my puny human mind can comprehend how it's not a sensible question. Or what it means for time to "not exist". I can't for the life of me fathom such atemporal conditions.

But the fact remains.... "before" is a temporal concept. A concept that necessarily doesn't make sense in atemporal context.

We can't answer that. If "time is a measure of things happening" then sure, the
universe and time are one in a deeper sense than Einstein's "space time."
But is this right?

All data we currently have, suggests it is.
Time is an inherent part of the space-time fabric, which is the universe.

What processes led to the creation of that "first event" in
the universe, whether it's a "singularity" or M-theory hyper-space membranes,
whatever. That first event, or chain of events, clearly began before time began
to create time in the first place.

If you say so. Fact remains that it's a nonsesical notion.
You would have to assume a larger, secondary or external, space-time which brings forward our space-time for this notion to make sense.

We human beings have brains that didn't evolve to comprehend atemporal conditions. Us beings who live in the scope of classical physics where we only have to deal with medium masses traveling at medium speeds within a space-time continuum, have evolved to avoid being eaten by lions, not to comprehend quantum mechanics - to borrow from something Laurence Krauss likes to say.


This stuff simply doesn't "feel right" to us. These are conditions that are completely alien to us. Even our language is entirely geared towards living in a space-time at that classical level of physics. This is why even physicists will talk about "before the universe" - eventhough they don't necessarily mean an actual temporal "before". It's just that even our language isn't capable of talking about such conditions without using temporal terms. That's how deeply engrained this stuff is in our minds.


I like the example that Brian Green once made in some even concerning this kind of stuff. It was about the counter intuitiveness of quantum physics, but it's the same principle me thinks...

He was talking about how he would love that quantum physics came as natural to us as classical physics... And he gave the example of throwing a small bottle of water at someone from a couple of meters away.
The person to which it is being thrown can very naturally figure out in a split second where his hand needs to be to catch said bottle. Truelly in a split second. In the blink of an eye, that person can intuitively figure out where the bottle is going to end up based on the speed at wich it travels, an estimation of the weight of the bottle and figure out the trajectory it will follow.

If you would want to calculate it with math, it will take you far far longer then a split second to figure it out. In fact, most people won't even be able to do that math and wouldn't have a clue on how to calculate the exact trajectory the bottle will take. Yet, our brains intuitively figure it out in the blink of an eye.

Imagine if you could do the same with quantum particles. Ever seen the quantum physics math to try and figure out where a certain particle is at any given time? Imagine if you could figure that out as intuitively as you can with that thrown bottle.....

The fact is that we don't live on the level of the quantum world. Our brains didn't evolve to comprehend that world.

The same goes for the flow of time. This is also why it took an Einstein to figure out relativity. Because as far as our brain is concerned, the intuitive flow of time is that it is a constant and the same everywhere for everyone at all times.

All this together... it seems quite safe to conclude that however the universe originated, and whatever processes make that happen... it is bound to be something incredibly weird, strange and counter-intuitive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't mean that, I think.
Do you equate the musings of Einstein (E=mc2 etc) to "just any other text ever written"

In the context that I wrote that: yes.

Einstein's theories are entirely brought forward from Einstein's brain (and other humans that came before him, or were contemporay with him).

As in: there was no non-human third party that put those ideas in his brain.
His theories are the result of human minds working, thinking, reasoning.

There was no non-human third party that "planted" those ideas in their heads.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do not have genuine personal spiritual experiences otherwise you would not call it imagination

You're going to have to define "personal spiritual experiences" in this case, because if you ask me if I have those, my answer would be "yes".