No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably God)

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?

Ooo, Ooo!! I know their answer for this one:

Because it's "GOD". It exists outside "natural laws". :lol:

In other words, because it's the only way their belief can work. It's kind of like the ole standby answer, "The lord works in mysterious ways."

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

No, it's lack of evidence, but believing something without having evidence that it's actually true is irrational.

You made the claim that there's a God, I don't have to prove you wrong, you, as the positive claimant, have to prove yourself right. If you fail to do so, I have no reason to take your claim seriously. The same goes if someone runs up to me and claims a giant green lizard is trashing downtown Tokyo. Do they have evidence for their claim? No? I reject the claim as unsupported until evidence comes to light. I do the same with your God. You are solely responsible for defending your own claims. No evidence = no logical credibility.

Besides, the first law of thermodynamics, along with all the other physical laws of our universe, came into existence with the Big Bang. It has no bearing whatsoever prior to that. You cannot apply rules to a situation where they may or may not apply.

Matter had to come from somewhere. And you can't say that there are no arguments when you didn't even look up my link to the quinque viae.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?

Because God would be above the laws of nature, while everything in nature is applicable to those laws. Since we matter cannot come from nowhere, then we would need someone who is above nature to create it.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Ooo, Ooo!! I know their answer for this one:

Because it's "GOD". It exists outside "natural laws". :lol:

In other words, because it's the only way their belief can work. It's kind of like the ole standby answer, "The lord works in mysterious ways."

Then how do natural laws explain the phenomenon of existence if you can't get something from nothing?

 

[Ikari]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Matter had to come from somewhere. And you can't say that there are no arguments when you didn't even look up my link to the quinque viae.

Random vacuum fluctuations (quantum fluctuations). It's the creation of a matter/anti-matter pair that exist for a short period of time. They have a measurable effect, most notably the Lamb shift and the effective charge of the electron.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Then how do natural laws explain the phenomenon of existence if you can't get something from nothing?

You assume we know all there is to know. I know better. Secondly, we can and have created matter from nothing.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Matter had to come from somewhere. And you can't say that there are no arguments when you didn't even look up my link to the quinque viae.

If matter had to come from somewhere, god had to come from somewhere. If god can have always been, matter (or energy as it were) can have always been. The unmoved mover is not a good argument.

Personally, though, I doubt that the question "where did matter come from" has any meaning. Quantum physics has repeatedly shown that your mammalian-hunter-gatherer-evolved brains are incapable of truly understanding the universe. The state of the universe before the big bang probably has no analog in the discrete, physical world we perceive.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Random vacuum fluctuations (quantum fluctuations). It's the creation of a matter/anti-matter pair that exist for a short period of time. They have a measurable effect, most notably the Lamb shift and the effective charge of the electron.

But this still has the problem of time and space. Where did these things come from?

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

If matter had to come from somewhere, god had to come from somewhere.

This applies to nature, not things that are above nature.

 

[liblady]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

You assume we know all there is to know. I know better. Secondly, we can and have created matter from nothing.

we have? when?

 

[Ikari]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

But this still has the problem of time and space. Where did these things come from?

Where indeed. The inflation model, which is theory but quantum fluctuations can help explain part of it, explains time-space as the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang. Though that too has problems associated with the theory. In the end, it's not known. And there's your answer. So at this point we have a choice. We can say that either there is some natural cause that we just don't know at this point. Or we can say it was magic. Gods are magical answers. Maybe it was magic, but I see no evidence of it in our current incarnation of the universe. I'm more apt to say that it is well more probable that there is a natural cause of which we do not yet know.

There is nothing we've observed yet which would necessitate a god.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

This applies to nature, not things that are above nature.

Then the unmoved mover isn't an argument at all. It lays down premises that must be true, then answers the question with an answer that violates all of the premises. It's exactly equivalent to saying "we don't know where matter came from, therefore god exists." That is not an argument for the existence of god

 

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

we have? when?

Over a decade ago. Out Of Pure Light, Physicists Create Particles Of Matter

 

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Where indeed. The inflation model, which is theory but quantum fluctuations can help explain part of it, explains time-space as the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang. Though that too has problems associated with the theory. In the end, it's not known. And there's your answer. So at this point we have a choice. We can say that either there is some natural cause that we just don't know at this point. Or we can say it was magic. Gods are magical answers. Maybe it was magic, but I see no evidence of it in our current incarnation of the universe. I'm more apt to say that it is well more probable that there is a natural cause of which we do not yet know.

There is nothing we've observed yet which would necessitate a god.

I think this is the core issue with many "believers". They are not able to accept 'not knowing' and must attribute an answer to *something*, even if they just make it up. This has been going on since the dawn of mankind. Many of us are perfectly okay saying "I/We don't know yet." It would seem few "believers" are as comfortable saying that.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Then the unmoved mover isn't an argument at all. It lays down premises that must be true, then answers the question with an answer that violates all of the premises. It's exactly equivalent to saying "we don't know where matter came from, therefore god exists." That is not an argument for the existence of god

How is it not? It is the only possible explanation. If you have a state where you had nothing, and you now have something, then something had to come from above nature because nature cannot make itself. As for quantum fluctuations, I can't understand that so I'm not even going to try; I'll wait for the problems to be figured out by people smarter than me. That said, I pointed out 5 arguments and that would only deal with 1.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Where indeed. The inflation model, which is theory but quantum fluctuations can help explain part of it, explains time-space as the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang. Though that too has problems associated with the theory. In the end, it's not known. And there's your answer. So at this point we have a choice. We can say that either there is some natural cause that we just don't know at this point. Or we can say it was magic. Gods are magical answers. Maybe it was magic, but I see no evidence of it in our current incarnation of the universe. I'm more apt to say that it is well more probable that there is a natural cause of which we do not yet know.

There is nothing we've observed yet which would necessitate a god.

Rational thought is evolved?

And I realize it's a weak argument, but where's the Higgs boson? I mean if we are going to point out things that none of us can understand, then I can point out arguments that no one understands that supports my position.

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

OK, I did not want to have my response front and center potentially tainting and or inadvertently adding bias or skewing the poll somehow at the onset - I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in first.

I consider myself an atheist albeit an agnostic one (I do not believe there is a god, but there is no way of knowing); however there is a possibility that there is a god/higher power. I put more stock in the higher power option as being a possibility, while I think that the myriad of anthropomorphized entities that are the common source of human worship/devotion are so ridiculous, self centered and similar that they are all almost definitively of human construct - yet even still there is that "almost", the agnosticism and skepticism which is a component of my lack of belief in a god/higher power is the very same that does not allow me to definitively say that there is not.

 

[liblady]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Over a decade ago. Out Of Pure Light, Physicists Create Particles Of Matter

isn't light a form of energy? it's not nothing.......

 

[Ikari]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Rational thought is evolved?

And I realize it's a weak argument, but where's the Higgs boson? I mean if we are going to point out things that none of us can understand, then I can point out arguments that no one understands that supports my position.

Your position is scientifically unsupportable. I don't know where the Higgs is. If I did, I'd have a Nobel Prize. I don't know how to quantize gravity either. But what does any of this have to do with a god? These are mechanics that we haven't figured out yet. I think it would be pretty presumptuous to state that mankind knows everything there is to know right now. And rather boring, as there would no longer be any challenges left.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Your position is scientifically unsupportable. I don't know where the Higgs is. If I did, I'd have a Nobel Prize. I don't know how to quantize gravity either. But what does any of this have to do with a god? These are mechanics that we haven't figured out yet. I think it would be pretty presumptuous to state that mankind knows everything there is to know right now. And rather boring, as there would no longer be any challenges left.

But the whole something from nothing argument isn't completely figured out either. Like I said, we're both talking above our heads so why don't we just leave this issue alone? I'll concede that it's possible that something could come from nothing, though still not proven. Let's move on to the other 4 arguments, plus my argument about the evolution of rational thought.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

isn't light a form of energy? it's not nothing.......

Hey, ask the scientists who said they created something from nothing. The 'nothing' was an empty vacuum. Then there was matter there.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

How is it not? It is the only possible explanation. If you have a state where you had nothing, and you now have something, then something had to come from above nature because nature cannot make itself. As for quantum fluctuations, I can't understand that so I'm not even going to try; I'll wait for the problems to be figured out by people smarter than me. That said, I pointed out 5 arguments and that would only deal with 1.

I think you just answered your own question

 

[Ikari]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

But the whole something from nothing argument isn't completely figured out either. Like I said, we're both talking above our heads so why don't we just leave this issue alone? I'll concede that it's possible that something could come from nothing, though still not proven. Let's move on to the other 4 arguments, plus my argument about the evolution of rational thought.

I'm not talking over my head. I understand quantum fluctuations well. Physics is something I am very well acquainted with. Considering I'm a PhD experimental physicist. You want to drop it because you can't beat it. Quantum fluctuations comes out of gauge theory and is predicted in quantum field theory. Furthermore, it would have a measurable effect which HAS BEEN MEASURED. The Lamb Shift and the effective electron charge are both examples of this. Energy conservation can be and is violated on short time scales. This too is a quantum effect lending itself for the uncertainty rule. You're thinking well to classically about this, and while there is nothing wrong with classical mechanics; it is not how the fundamental of the universe works. Quantum mechanics is well more apt at describing the fundamental behavior.

And the use of thermodynamics under conditions such as a singularity (which existed before the Big Bang) is not proper as the physics of a singularity is not well understood. Furthermore, the laws of thermodynamics are not proven from first principle. They are based off observation in our current universe. And the rules of thermodynamics have never been observed to have been broken; which is why they became laws.

And why could rational thought not evolve?

 

[liblady]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Hey, ask the scientists who said they created something from nothing. The 'nothing' was an empty vacuum. Then there was matter there.

yeah....but light contains photons........so it's not really nothing. what a great site, though! thanks!

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist, but I'm also not agnostic as I do not believe it is impossible to know of the existence/non-existence of God.

I'm an unbeliever because I do not feel that theism and atheism are supported by strong enough evidence for me to have a belief in either of them.