Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
thepope1322

Proof Of God II: Electric Boogaloo

Recommended Posts

But even with all of this, is it certain that we have even found all of the laws of nature and the way the universe works? No, so until we do, we can't assume that there has to be something all-powerful that created the universe. And like Mano said, even if there is a God, what if he actually has no power at all. What if he simply watches from above and does not affect our lives. Why would that validate Christianity or any other religion?

 

I agree completely that we cannot posit an entity, whether omnipotent or not, that created the universe until we know exactly how our universe works and more. The typical conception of God (or gods) tend to err on the side of anthropomorphic which seems to be vastly erroneous to assert. God may be an entity that does not observe humanistic concepts such as creation, existence, freedom, goodness, etc. Instead, as was proposed by medieval theologian John Scotus Eriugena, what if God's qualities transcend those that are enacted in our reality? By that he meant what if God, instead of existing, super-exists—engages in a form of existence that is beyond that which is present in our own reality? What type of evidence would be necessary to prove that there indeed is a God in that case? Would this require that God is forever external to the bounds of human discovery?

 

We all tend to have a socialized notion of what God (or gods) is, but it really isn't too hard to think outside of the box. For all we know, God could be super-existent, super-non-existent, a super-creator, a destroyer. Even given proof that God (or gods) exists (or super-exists, or what have you), we may not know or even be presented with the qualities of God (or gods). Thus, it's very likely that proof of God (or gods) would never validate a religion that conceptualizes God with qualities beyond existence.

 

In short, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even with all of this, is it certain that we have even found all of the laws of nature and the way the universe works? No, so until we do, we can't assume that there has to be something all-powerful that created the universe. And like Mano said, even if there is a God, what if he actually has no power at all. What if he simply watches from above and does not affect our lives. Why would that validate Christianity or any other religion?

Whether or not the existence of a god validates any religion isn't the subject of the debate; it's about the proof of god. You are right, though, in saying that any kind of proof would probably not validate any religion.

 

Regardless, as said before, you can't prove the existence of a god. You can't. You can look for him, but that's an entirely subjective way of doing it. I can say that I see God in nature's beauty, but that has nothing to do with the proof of God. The thing is that religions tend to assume that God exists and go from there.

 

Besides that, it's also very futile to try and prove the existence of a god. Let's assume, for a moment, that the god we're discussing is omnipotent, which seems like a reasonable assumption since that tends to be one of the characteristics given to a god. If god is omnipotent, then how in the world can we prove that he exists? Omnipotence is not something we can wrap our minds around, so any proof would not be understandable to anybody. Does that make sense to anybody else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as simple as either believing in god or not believing in god there really is no proof other than what you believe is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in god.

 

I just don't believe that out of all these religions, somehow, you're lucky and your religion is the only correct one and all different views by every other religion are wrong and should submit to yours. I do go by the christian bible though. For that religion belongs to my family. :|

 

Most of my proof comes from personal experience so yeah.

Edited by C4Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are discussing demonstratively viable proof for or against the existence of God (or gods) in this topic. To dismiss the topic as a simple decision between belief and non-belief is irresponsible and possibly offensive to certain people. Many people arrive at their decisions to believe either for or against the existence of a God (or gods) by using faulty reasoning, or indeed, no reasoning at all. This is dangerous because people who do not use reason to inform their opinions either blindly follow a religion or merely disregard any disconfirming evidence/reasons to give up their beliefs.

 

This statement is just as viable as the one proposed by C4Kevin: Most of my proof for believing that God doesn't exist comes from my personal experience, so yeah.

 

@Clavius: I have watched a few episodes of that show. I like the discussions they have, and a lot of the callers are complete loons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the laws of nature that we know of and commonly accept, for something to exist, something must have happened prior to create it. Then, it can be reasonably inferred that something must have created the universe itself, unless you wish to argue that the universe doesn't exist.

 

It isn't a simple case of 'god did it' - it's 'that is the definition of god'.

Conservation of energy only applies when space and time are constant.

 

Relativity would like to have a word with you.

Even considering relativistic effects, the energy of a system may not be constant but it does change in a predictable manner (nonetheless, there is also an energy-momentum conservation in effect.) So that's hardly saying something can come from nothing.

 

Repeating the virtual particle thing, and also, if gravity has negative energy, the universe has zero energy, again, not violating conservation of energy.

There is so such thing as 'negative energy.' Gravity has an attractive force, and therefore we represent the gravitational potential as a negative scale, going to zero at an infinite distance (so now I assume you can see why we use negative potential). Negative is such an issue in physics that when it was first hypothesised it lead to a whole new branch of physics (anti-matter) because that explanation fixed all the negative energy issues.

 

I find the argument that the Universe needed a creator relatively weak, mainly because it doesn't say where this creator comes from. The usual response I get from that question is 'He was always here' or 'Different reality, different rules' which are both super flimsy. I don't know where the Universe came from, but I'll be damned if I just guess with no real evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the laws of nature that we know of and commonly accept, for something to exist, something must have happened prior to create it. Then, it can be reasonably inferred that something must have created the universe itself, unless you wish to argue that the universe doesn't exist.

 

It isn't a simple case of 'god did it' - it's 'that is the definition of god'.

Conservation of energy only applies when space and time are constant.

 

Relativity would like to have a word with you.

Even considering relativistic effects, the energy of a system may not be constant but it does change in a predictable manner (nonetheless, there is also an energy-momentum conservation in effect.) So that's hardly saying something can come from nothing.

 

Repeating the virtual particle thing, and also, if gravity has negative energy, the universe has zero energy, again, not violating conservation of energy.

There is so such thing as 'negative energy.' Gravity has an attractive force, and therefore we represent the gravitational potential as a negative scale, going to zero at an infinite distance (so now I assume you can see why we use negative potential). Negative is such an issue in physics that when it was first hypothesised it lead to a whole new branch of physics (anti-matter) because that explanation fixed all the negative energy issues.

 

I find the argument that the Universe needed a creator relatively weak, mainly because it doesn't say where this creator comes from. The usual response I get from that question is 'He was always here' or 'Different reality, different rules' which are both super flimsy. I don't know where the Universe came from, but I'll be damned if I just guess with no real evidence

 

The law of Cause and Effect states that everything must have a starting point and that something must have caused that event to happen. Which means, that we could not have a universe (or multiverse) without something existing before the start of time. This means that, unless you believe in an eternally oscillating universe, there must be some sort of supernatural being that has existed before the universe. As to the question, "Where did the Creator come from?" is null and void as the Creator is supernatural and thus not bound by the law of Cause and Effect. For example, if I create a video game, I am not bound to the rules of that game. I could edit and do whatever I want to the game, and I would still be exempt from all rules and laws in that game, because I was the creator.

 

For me, as a Christian, I believe that there is a Creator. The reason that I have chosen Christianity over Islam or Judaism is because Christianity is the only religion in which there is a LOVING God. As a general rule, all religions address that humanity has a problem. Each seperate religion has its own way to "fix" humanity's problems. I am a Christian because I believe that God LOVED us so much, he sent his Son as an atonement. That means that Jesus "fixed" humanity's problems through his death and resurrection.

 

I also find many of the posts here distasteful, wrong, and stupid. Religion itself does not hold back human developtment, scientific discovery, or cause wars. These are all fallacies. Religion and science go hand in hand. Science tells me how God created the universe. It tells me that God gave us the ability to adapt and "evolve" into different, more advanced beings (or sometimes, dumber ones.) I believe that religion explains what cannot be explained by science, I.E., why we were created, what happens in the after-life, and what caused the universe. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of Cause and Effect states that everything must have a starting point and that something must have caused that event to happen. Which means, that we could not have a universe (or multiverse) without something existing before the start of time. This means that, unless you believe in an eternally oscillating universe, there must be some sort of supernatural being that has existed before the universe. As to the question, "Where did the Creator come from?" is null and void as the Creator is supernatural and thus not bound by the law of Cause and Effect. For example, if I create a video game, I am not bound to the rules of that game. I could edit and do whatever I want to the game, and I would still be exempt from all rules and laws in that game, because I was the creator.

 

The law of cause and effect (assuming, of course, that we can accept this to be a law) may very well be satisfactorily present within our universe. However, you engage in the same faulty reasoning as Dimosthimise when you assert that the same must be true of the universe itself—namely, you engage in the fallacy of composition when you assert that a quality that is true for the parts of a whole is necessarily true for the whole as well. Even though we may observe the law of cause and effect within our universe, this does not imply that we can make a claim that the universe therefore must have been created. On the contrary, positing the existence of a creator of the universe is completely unfounded without evidence of such an entity's existence. And even then, why does this being have to be God? Also, how can you make a claim about whether God (or whatever creative entity) need not be created? We have already observed that your reasoning is erroneous when you try to claim that a quality that is true of the events in our universe must be true of universe itself. Therefore, you cannot make a claim about whether the same conception of cause and effect is employed even outside of our universe (if there even exists an outside to our universe).

 

Also, your video game analogy is faulty for the following reasons:

 

1) A video game creator is not omnipotent. There are certain restrictions in play when one decides to create a video game (with regard to time, coding, and the game engine to name a few complications). This quality of a video game creator fundamentally removes him or her from the typical conception of God (as an omnipotent being).

 

2) The difference between the quality of our universe and a video game's artificial reality is quite significant. If we can assume that our reality is true (and that we are not merely being deceived into thinking that our reality is true), then that reality is fundamentally more important to us, as sentient beings, than an artificial reality that is provided for non-sentient beings. After all, you wouldn't want to imply that God created an artificial reality for the people he/she/it loves, right?

 

3) The analogy illustrates the limits of human knowledge. If we hypothetically let ourselves be the people in the video game, for instance, there is absolutely no way for us, existing merely as characters in the video game, to conceive of the creator of said video game. Even if we exist in a video game right now, we would be unable to make a claim about the existence of a creator of that video game because we cannot make a claim about the video game itself based upon the qualities that are present merely within that video game. Thus, your analogy fails to remedy the problem set forth above.

 

There are more problems with the analogy that I would be happy to address, but I think these are sufficient to illustrate my problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If gods real then why is he a swell personhappy face.

 

Atheists: 1

Christians: 0

 

I very much want to slap you right now. Thanks for not even contributing, but making yourself look like an utter and hopeless moron.

 

 

@Lilshu and Anthem

 

If all parts of a whole are the same quality, does that not make the whole the same quality as the parts?

 

For example:

Object A has 3 sections.

Section 1 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Section 2 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Section 3 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Thus, Object A is made of 45% polyester, 35% cotton, assuming that all parts of the universe obey the laws of science. I may not be understanding what you are saying, however. If I'm not, can you explain it again, perhaps more vividly?

 

Also, I was falling under the conclusion that the same laws applied before the creation of the universe. If the laws that we know today did not exist before the universe became, then whatever caused the creation of the universe (or the universe creating itself, as you claim) would be considered supernatural. (This is assuming that there were no laws that however the universe was created had to obey)

 

@Anthem

 

1. This analogy is used to describe a human-God relationship. As a video game creator, I would be able to do whatever I wished to the video game, as long as I have the power to do so. However, an omnipotent being would have limitless power, and thus, could do anything that the Creator wanted.

 

2. As stated above, an omnipotent being would be able to create a reality that has the highest quality possible, as they are omnipotent. Again, I'm using a potent-omnipotent analogy to better understand how a divine being would be able to work. Because we are not capable of supernaturally creating a reality for sentients, (as we are not omnipotent,) the least a non-omnipotent being could do is create a reality for non-sentient.

 

3. My analogy was not that we are the people within the game, but the creators. If I could enter the game, then I would have complete knowledge of the game and I may have given myself the power to do anything (insisting that I had programmed the game to do so, as I am simply a mortal being) for example, when playing a game I had created, I start and play as my character, walking around doing what I want. When there's something I don't want, I pause, edit it, and continue. I am in complete power of the game.

 

I hope that clarifies some things.

 

Also, I am not saying that it is necissarily God who created the universe. I am saying that there is a supernatural force that created the universe, of which I believe is God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, as a Christian, I believe that there is a Creator. The reason that I have chosen Christianity over Islam or Judaism is because Christianity is the only religion in which there is a LOVING God. As a general rule, all religions address that humanity has a problem. Each seperate religion has its own way to "fix" humanity's problems. I am a Christian because I believe that God LOVED us so much, he sent his Son as an atonement. That means that Jesus "fixed" humanity's problems through his death and resurrection.

 

I also find many of the posts here distasteful, wrong, and stupid. Religion itself does not hold back human developtment, scientific discovery, or cause wars. These are all fallacies. Religion and science go hand in hand. Science tells me how God created the universe. It tells me that God gave us the ability to adapt and "evolve" into different, more advanced beings (or sometimes, dumber ones.) I believe that religion explains what cannot be explained by science, I.E., why we were created, what happens in the after-life, and what caused the universe. Just my 2 cents.

I am a Christian too, but I have to disagree with you. Christianity isn't the only religion with a loving God. By saying that Judaism doesn't have a loving God you're contradicting yourself because that God is one and the same as the God you and I worship. As for Islam, I'm not going to argue with this because I don't know the religion well enough. Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us.

 

And again, I must disagree with you; religion has caused bad things, a lot of them. However, I would say (and I know there are people here who disagree) that that is generally because someone twists the religion for their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lilshu and Anthem

 

If all parts of a whole are the same quality, does that not make the whole the same quality as the parts?

 

For example:

Object A has 3 sections.

Section 1 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Section 2 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Section 3 of Object A is 45% polyester, 35% cotton

Thus, Object A is made of 45% polyester, 35% cotton, assuming that all parts of the universe obey the laws of science. I may not be understanding what you are saying, however. If I'm not, can you explain it again, perhaps more vividly?

 

Also, I was falling under the conclusion that the same laws applied before the creation of the universe. If the laws that we know today did not exist before the universe became, then whatever caused the creation of the universe (or the universe creating itself, as you claim) would be considered supernatural. (This is assuming that there were no laws that however the universe was created had to obey)

 

@Anthem

 

1. This analogy is used to describe a human-God relationship. As a video game creator, I would be able to do whatever I wished to the video game, as long as I have the power to do so. However, an omnipotent being would have limitless power, and thus, could do anything that the Creator wanted.

 

2. As stated above, an omnipotent being would be able to create a reality that has the highest quality possible, as they are omnipotent. Again, I'm using a potent-omnipotent analogy to better understand how a divine being would be able to work. Because we are not capable of supernaturally creating a reality for sentients, (as we are not omnipotent,) the least a non-omnipotent being could do is create a reality for non-sentient.

 

3. My analogy was not that we are the people within the game, but the creators. If I could enter the game, then I would have complete knowledge of the game and I may have given myself the power to do anything (insisting that I had programmed the game to do so, as I am simply a mortal being) for example, when playing a game I had created, I start and play as my character, walking around doing what I want. When there's something I don't want, I pause, edit it, and continue. I am in complete power of the game.

 

I hope that clarifies some things.

 

Also, I am not saying that it is necissarily God who created the universe. I am saying that there is a supernatural force that created the universe, of which I believe is God.

 

Firstly, I wish to express my disappointment with Slenderrman for leaving such a rude and pointless comment. I am happy to engage anyone who wishes to partake in these topics, but senseless spam is frowned upon.

 

The example you used to refute the fallacy of composition does demonstrate an exception to this sort of fallacious reasoning. When predicating a quality to a subject there are two types of qualities that can be predicated: absolute and relative. An absolute quality is one that is static or fixed independently of the item in question (at least, one that avoids the fallacy of composition). Examples of these qualities are colors, materials (such as wood, marble, cotton, etc.), and fixed qualities such as poisonousness (we would say, for instance, that since the juice of fruit X is poisonous that fruit X itself is poisonous). The reason why your example does not demonstrate fallacious reasoning is due to its use of absolute qualities rather than relative qualities. A relative quality, on the other hand, is dependent on the items in question and results from a comparison to other items that have similar qualities. Examples of relative qualities are weight, price, and any other qualities that must refer to other things. The fact that something is created is necessarily a relative quality because we must compare creation to other acts of creation and destruction (or even the laws of conservation of matter and energy). Here is an example to illustrate my point:

 

1) Absolute qualities:

 

a) The chair is split into three sections.

b) Section 1 is white.

c) Section 2 is white.

d) Section 3 is white.

e) Therefore, the chair is white.

 

2) Relative qualities:

 

a) The chair is split into three sections.

b) Section 1 is cheap.

c) Section 2 is cheap.

d) Section 3 is cheap.

e) Therefore, the chair is cheap. (Even if it costs $3 to build the chair, the chair may cost $20).

 

From observing the examples above, it is obvious that while the first example is deductively valid, the second example is not. Example 1 is similar to your counterexample to my claim that your argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. Example 2 is similar to your argument. The reason why example 1, which uses absolute qualities, does not fail is because the qualities refer to the object itself -- not to a concept that must be compared independently. Example 2, which uses relative qualities, suffers because it refers to a concept independent of itself that requires comparison between other objects to which the quality has been predicated. Thus, when we speak of creation, we cannot merely claim that creation is in the essence of everything. No, it just happens to be a law in our reality that items are created (and thus, we compare object X with object Y, which was created, when we wish to determine whether object X was created).

 

Your initial argument attempts to predicate a quality that is relative, and it therefore suffers from this fallacy.

 

Reference 1

Reference 2

 

I also wish to explicate my denial of a comment you made. You say that I claim that reality created itself, but I do not claim this. I do, however, claim that because creation is merely a concept that is present within our reality and that it is possible, since we cannot observe outside of our reality, that creation is a concept that is not necessarily present outside of our reality. Therefore, it's possible that the reality in which we reside was not created because there is no such action as creation outside of our reality (that it is humanly constructed based on our observation of cause and effect).

 

With regard to your analogy:

 

An analogy is faulty when there is not enough in common between the subjects that are being compared.

 

You drew an analogy between a video game creator who has created a video game (an artificial reality) and a God who has created our reality. I will copy my objections to your analogy along with your objections to my objections below for ease of access and then address your objections afterward:

 

1) A video game creator is not omnipotent. There are certain restrictions in play when one decides to create a video game (with regard to time, coding, and the game engine to name a few complications). This quality of a video game creator fundamentally removes him or her from the typical conception of God (as an omnipotent being).

 

2) The difference between the quality of our universe and a video game's artificial reality is quite significant. If we can assume that our reality is true (and that we are not merely being deceived into thinking that our reality is true), then that reality is fundamentally more important to us, as sentient beings, than an artificial reality that is provided for non-sentient beings. After all, you wouldn't want to imply that God created an artificial reality for the people he/she/it loves, right?

 

3) The analogy illustrates the limits of human knowledge. If we hypothetically let ourselves be the people in the video game, for instance, there is absolutely no way for us, existing merely as characters in the video game, to conceive of the creator of said video game. Even if we exist in a video game right now, we would be unable to make a claim about the existence of a creator of that video game because we cannot make a claim about the video game itself based upon the qualities that are present merely within that video game. Thus, your analogy fails to remedy the problem set forth above.

 

1. This analogy is used to describe a human-God relationship. As a video game creator, I would be able to do whatever I wished to the video game, as long as I have the power to do so. However, an omnipotent being would have limitless power, and thus, could do anything that the Creator wanted.

 

2. As stated above, an omnipotent being would be able to create a reality that has the highest quality possible, as they are omnipotent. Again, I'm using a potent-omnipotent analogy to better understand how a divine being would be able to work. Because we are not capable of supernaturally creating a reality for sentients, (as we are not omnipotent,) the least a non-omnipotent being could do is create a reality for non-sentient.

 

3. My analogy was not that we are the people within the game, but the creators. If I could enter the game, then I would have complete knowledge of the game and I may have given myself the power to do anything (insisting that I had programmed the game to do so, as I am simply a mortal being) for example, when playing a game I had created, I start and play as my character, walking around doing what I want. When there's something I don't want, I pause, edit it, and continue. I am in complete power of the game.

 

Responses to your objections:

 

1) This analogy does not describe a human-God relationship. It is an analogy between a "creator" in our reality (a video game maker) creating a reality (a video game) and "the creator" (God) creating our own reality. The point of this objection was that the video game creator and God are not sufficiently comparable since the video game creator is much more restricted than God is (if it is omnipotent). By that I mean that a video game creator is forced to work within several boundaries that are not present for an omnipotent being. I stated that the limitations of coding and the engine upon which the video game creator is working are extremely restrictive. Likewise, human intelligence and imagination are also restricted while a God may create things that have never been present within our reality (in form or concept). This causes them to be too dissimilar to compare with regard to being creators.

 

2) Since the quality of the reality that is created by a video game creator (due to his or her limitations that were stated in (1)), the reality within a video game is not comparable to our reality that was supposedly created by an omnipotent God. My point was that the realities are merely too different to be compared.

 

3) I agree, your analogy is not that we are the people inside of the game. But the point of the analogy is to be able to compare example 1 to example 2. If example 2 states that God created our reality (which we inhabit) and example 1 states that a video game creator created an artificial reality (a video game), then we must be able to hypothesize an instance in which we inhabit the video game to compare that reality to the reality supposedly created by God. The point I was making here was that if we posit ourselves within the video game (as the characters of the video game similar to how we exist in the reality created by God), we could still never know anything about the creator of the video game (just like we can't know anything about our supposed creator, God). If we can say the examples within this analogy are similar (which, from my objections (1) and (2) I don't think we can), then the analogy still does not answer my objections.

 

The purpose of my objections were to show that your analogy is faulty. The analogy is faulty because it is rendered as too weak due to the numerous differences between the examples being compared.

 

Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to try to remedy your position by making further clarifications, and thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Edited by Anthem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents:

I dont condone many things about religion, the wars, the requests for money, the dedication of ones life to something they are uncertain the existance of. However i will say that its peace of mind, and the ideas of loving everyone and everything on "gods green earth" and great. While i say this i am a bit of a hypocrite as i practice many forms or buddism, not in a religious sense as much as a learning tool, for ones body and mind, Frankly i dont care what you believe as long as your not trying to shove it down my throat, or showing up at my door we are all cool :) my old man told me a story about a couple catholics who walked through our yard to ask him to convert, i was 5 and he pointed to me and said "i have a young son, why in the world would i subject him to a priest?" I take after my old man in more ways than i think :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of Cause and Effect states that everything must have a starting point and that something must have caused that event to happen. Which means, that we could not have a universe (or multiverse) without something existing before the start of time. This means that, unless you believe in an eternally oscillating universe, there must be some sort of supernatural being that has existed before the universe. As to the question, "Where did the Creator come from?" is null and void as the Creator is supernatural and thus not bound by the law of Cause and Effect. For example, if I create a video game, I am not bound to the rules of that game. I could edit and do whatever I want to the game, and I would still be exempt from all rules and laws in that game, because I was the creator.

There is some important distinction that you are missing about early Universe physics. The laws of physics we have, the ones that explain everything from the way galaxies gravitationally interact with each other to the way neutrinos oscillate between flavours doesn't hold for the first 10-35 seconds of the Universe. The reason being that the entire Universe was crammed into an astoninishingly small space. It is one of the few areas of physics where we have a very limited knowledge (we don't know everything, but in most places we at least have one solid theory).

 

We are learning more and more about the moment where physics changes and being able to make more educated guesses. The way reality behaves at the beginning is something we don't know about, so you position that cause and effect has to imply a creator not only ignores the difference in the behaviour of the Universe at the beginning, but also jumps to a conclusion that puts you in a magic place where we can't say anything. They're supernatural, so have always been there and don't follow our rules. That is a massive cop out and a completely crap answer to a truly fundamental question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of Cause and Effect states that everything must have a starting point and that something must have caused that event to happen. Which means, that we could not have a universe (or multiverse) without something existing before the start of time. This means that, unless you believe in an eternally oscillating universe, there must be some sort of supernatural being that has existed before the universe.

 

No, actually it doesn't. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that, because something must have existed before the universe, God must have been that something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

 

 

@Anthem

 

What part of my argument makes the universe relative? I was assuming that every part of the universe must follow the law of cause and effect, the universe itself must, too. This has the grounds as an absolute quality, does it not?

 

For the analogy, I see that it has not taken its desired premise. I was wishing to contrast the limited and the all-powerful in something that could be relative to our reality, but I was hoping that it could be abstract enough to be similar. I.E., a limited being has limited prowess whereas an all-powerful being has no limits.

 

@Doddsy

 

Just asking: if we don't know how physics behaves at the beginning, then why is assuming that all laws that are present before the first 10^-35 seconds are null and void? What I'm trying to say is: if we don't know the physics at the beginning of the universe, then why is my hypothesis, that states that the physics were the same at the same time the universe became, a massive cop out? It's a theory that explains what caused the creation of the universe and still follows universal laws.

 

As a further question, how do you think the universe was created? Where did the matter from which we know the universe come from? Why do you discount a Creator from theories of the creation of the universe if you have no further knowledge of the physics at the start of the universe?

 

@cash money95

 

What I said earlier, I believe, is that there must have been a supernatural force that has existed before time, in order to fulfill the conditions of cause and effect. I personally believe that that being is God, from personal experiences.

 

---

 

I hope I answered everyone's questions in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Doddsy

 

Just asking: if we don't know how physics behaves at the beginning, then why is assuming that all laws that are present before the first 10^-35 seconds are null and void? What I'm trying to say is: if we don't know the physics at the beginning of the universe, then why is my hypothesis, that states that the physics were the same at the same time the universe became, a massive cop out? It's a theory that explains what caused the creation of the universe and still follows universal laws.

 

As a further question, how do you think the universe was created? Where did the matter from which we know the universe come from? Why do you discount a Creator from theories of the creation of the universe if you have no further knowledge of the physics at the start of the universe?

 

Because it goes against the current available evidence. We know that the behaviour at the beginning was not consistent with how the Universe works now, due to the concept of inflation and the quantum fluctuations of the brane causing multigalactic ripples in the background microwave energy of the Universe.

 

How do I think it was created? Firstly that is a loaded question because you said created which implies a creator. The Universe began in a Big Bang event. A singularity of space-time rapidly expanded, stretching space-time at a phenomenal rate. Matter and energy are equivalent so all that is needed for all the mass is a lot of energy, we know this was the case in the early Universe as it was a quark-gluon plasma at the beginning, and the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force were coupled into one due to the extreme temperatures. Where did that energy come from. I'm not sure but there are a few theories that are going to become more verifiable in the next decade or two. The theory that interests me, because it aligns with my area of research is a higher dimension in which Universes form, whether through the Swiss cheese theory or the one I prefer which is that there are multiple Universes through which energy can flow (which explains the accelerating expansion of the Universe). They are more ideas out there and they all have evidence behind them but they currently lack the ability to experimentally test them (which is why we are building the James Webb, and larger radio relays). The idea of a creator has no evidence behind other than the existence of the Universe, which the other theories have, plus more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of my argument makes the universe relative? I was assuming that every part of the universe must follow the law of cause and effect, the universe itself must, too. This has the grounds as an absolute quality, does it not?

 

No, it doesn't. An easier way (not entirely correct as there are a few small exceptions to this that are irrelevant to our discussion) to distinguish these is by separating them based upon observability. If a quality is empirically observable, then it is absolute (i.e. the white chair example). If a quality is not empirically observable, then it is relative (i.e. the cheap chair example).

 

Again, asserting that a relative (unobservable in the object itself) quality that is true of the parts of the whole must be true of the whole is to engage in the fallacy of composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

 

What I was trying to say earlier is that the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity is different, despite the differences in behavior, as the God the Judaism seems less "loving."

 

"You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil."

 

Howso?

 

Also, my argument is that all religions state that humanity itself has a problem, and then they each have a different way of fixing that problem. However, I've encountered no religion that says their god/God loved the people of earth enough to save them.

 

What other religions have a loving God?

 

@Anthem

 

If we know that all parts of the universe follow the laws of physics, (by observation) then why is the universe itself not considered to follow the laws of physics? This may be going in circles, but I don't understand. For example, if the law of entropy is true for all parts of the universe, does the universe not follow the law of entropy? I'm asking this because the laws of physics are not quantitative (not measured by numbers), but measured by their qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

 

What I was trying to say earlier is that the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity is different, despite the differences in behavior, as the God the Judaism seems less "loving."

 

"You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil."

 

Howso?

 

Also, my argument is that all religions state that humanity itself has a problem, and then they each have a different way of fixing that problem. However, I've encountered no religion that says their god/God loved the people of earth enough to save them.

 

What other religions have a loving God?

 

@Anthem

 

If we know that all parts of the universe follow the laws of physics, (by observation) then why is the universe itself not considered to follow the laws of physics? This may be going in circles, but I don't understand. For example, if the law of entropy is true for all parts of the universe, does the universe not follow the law of entropy? I'm asking this because the laws of physics are not quantitative (not measured by numbers), but measured by their qualities.

And, like I said, the fact that God was perhaps more distant and strict in the old testament doesn't mean he was more loving. You can have a distant father who loves you very much, you may just not notice it. See what I'm saying?

As for arguments for God being evil (note that I don't agree with any of these, but they're examples of how you can argue that God is evil), here and here. Love and hate, good and evil, are incredibly subjective. You could say that while the consensus is that (Godwin's law!) Hitler is evil, but he may have perceived his acts as good. This also leads me to my next answer; yes, there are other religions with loving gods, since, as I just pointed out, love is very subjective. I think that you can argue that the Islamic god is loving to his people. You can argue the same for other religions, just as you can argue that the Christian God is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

 

What I was trying to say earlier is that the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity is different, despite the differences in behavior, as the God the Judaism seems less "loving."

 

"You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil."

 

Howso?

 

Also, my argument is that all religions state that humanity itself has a problem, and then they each have a different way of fixing that problem. However, I've encountered no religion that says their god/God loved the people of earth enough to save them.

 

What other religions have a loving God?

 

@Anthem

 

If we know that all parts of the universe follow the laws of physics, (by observation) then why is the universe itself not considered to follow the laws of physics? This may be going in circles, but I don't understand. For example, if the law of entropy is true for all parts of the universe, does the universe not follow the law of entropy? I'm asking this because the laws of physics are not quantitative (not measured by numbers), but measured by their qualities.

And, like I said, the fact that God was perhaps more distant and strict in the old testament doesn't mean he was more loving. You can have a distant father who loves you very much, you may just not notice it. See what I'm saying?

As for arguments for God being evil (note that I don't agree with any of these, but they're examples of how you can argue that God is evil), here and here. Love and hate, good and evil, are incredibly subjective. You could say that while the consensus is that (Godwin's law!) Hitler is evil, but he may have perceived his acts as good. This also leads me to my next answer; yes, there are other religions with loving gods, since, as I just pointed out, love is very subjective. I think that you can argue that the Islamic god is loving to his people. You can argue the same for other religions, just as you can argue that the Christian God is evil.

 

Boy 0.0 those sources were full of fallacies and gaps.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm saying that Christianity (Judaism) is the only religion where there is a loving relationship between God and man. In the Islam religion very few people actually have a relationship with Allah and are more centered around getting to heaven. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that is my knowledge of Islam and it is rather limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

 

What I was trying to say earlier is that the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity is different, despite the differences in behavior, as the God the Judaism seems less "loving."

 

"You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil."

 

Howso?

 

Also, my argument is that all religions state that humanity itself has a problem, and then they each have a different way of fixing that problem. However, I've encountered no religion that says their god/God loved the people of earth enough to save them.

 

What other religions have a loving God?

 

@Anthem

 

If we know that all parts of the universe follow the laws of physics, (by observation) then why is the universe itself not considered to follow the laws of physics? This may be going in circles, but I don't understand. For example, if the law of entropy is true for all parts of the universe, does the universe not follow the law of entropy? I'm asking this because the laws of physics are not quantitative (not measured by numbers), but measured by their qualities.

And, like I said, the fact that God was perhaps more distant and strict in the old testament doesn't mean he was more loving. You can have a distant father who loves you very much, you may just not notice it. See what I'm saying?

As for arguments for God being evil (note that I don't agree with any of these, but they're examples of how you can argue that God is evil), here and here. Love and hate, good and evil, are incredibly subjective. You could say that while the consensus is that (Godwin's law!) Hitler is evil, but he may have perceived his acts as good. This also leads me to my next answer; yes, there are other religions with loving gods, since, as I just pointed out, love is very subjective. I think that you can argue that the Islamic god is loving to his people. You can argue the same for other religions, just as you can argue that the Christian God is evil.

 

Boy 0.0 those sources were full of fallacies and gaps.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm saying that Christianity (Judaism) is the only religion where there is a loving relationship between God and man. In the Islam religion very few people actually have a relationship with Allah and are more centered around getting to heaven. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that is my knowledge of Islam and it is rather limited.

 

A Muslim's relationship with Allah is supposed to be quite strong. That's why they have the Five Pillars of Islam, including the apparently difficult Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj). Having said that, I don't think it's a very positive relationship; quite oppressive, actually (though one could argue that for any divine authority, as Hitchens did). I bought my self a copy of the Koran, and so far I have to say that I'm not at all struggling to see where extremists get their views from. In fact, to be a peaceful, "moderate" Muslim, you have to be dodging a lot of garbage that's in that "holy" book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reepicheep

 

Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, but the difference between them is that God is a Divine being that harshly judges those who disobey the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is that which Christians base their beliefs around, saying that God loved us enough that gave his Son so that we could be forgiven.

 

"Even besides the religions you mentioned, there are plenty of others with loving gods. Also, Jesus didn't fix our problems, he taught us what to do to be better people and he died on the cross to save us."

 

My point.

 

Also, what other major religions have a loving God to worship?

Yes, but, unless you belong to the minority (which would render this debate fairly useless but which I have nothing against), you probably believe that the God from the old testament is one and the same as the God from the new testament, which means that you suggest that the God that Jewish people is the same as the God you worship but also different. That is my issue with what you're saying there.

As for whether there are loving Gods in other religions, there are several problems with this. I would argue that there are, but love is not just one thing. You could argue that in the time of the old testament, God was not as close to His people as he is now, and that he had stricter laws, but that doesn't mean he is not loving. You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil. It is extremely subjective.

 

To be quite honest, I find it distasteful and wrong that you would suggest that Christianity is the only religion with a loving God, because it's simply true and very, very difficult to argue. I mean no offense by this, but you can't make sweeping statements like that unless you have some hard evidence (which in this case is hard to get given the very subjective nature of love) for said statement.

 

What I was trying to say earlier is that the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity is different, despite the differences in behavior, as the God the Judaism seems less "loving."

 

"You could probably also argue that the Christian God is evil."

 

Howso?

 

Also, my argument is that all religions state that humanity itself has a problem, and then they each have a different way of fixing that problem. However, I've encountered no religion that says their god/God loved the people of earth enough to save them.

 

What other religions have a loving God?

 

@Anthem

 

If we know that all parts of the universe follow the laws of physics, (by observation) then why is the universe itself not considered to follow the laws of physics? This may be going in circles, but I don't understand. For example, if the law of entropy is true for all parts of the universe, does the universe not follow the law of entropy? I'm asking this because the laws of physics are not quantitative (not measured by numbers), but measured by their qualities.

And, like I said, the fact that God was perhaps more distant and strict in the old testament doesn't mean he was more loving. You can have a distant father who loves you very much, you may just not notice it. See what I'm saying?

As for arguments for God being evil (note that I don't agree with any of these, but they're examples of how you can argue that God is evil), here and here. Love and hate, good and evil, are incredibly subjective. You could say that while the consensus is that (Godwin's law!) Hitler is evil, but he may have perceived his acts as good. This also leads me to my next answer; yes, there are other religions with loving gods, since, as I just pointed out, love is very subjective. I think that you can argue that the Islamic god is loving to his people. You can argue the same for other religions, just as you can argue that the Christian God is evil.

 

Boy 0.0 those sources were full of fallacies and gaps.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm saying that Christianity (Judaism) is the only religion where there is a loving relationship between God and man. In the Islam religion very few people actually have a relationship with Allah and are more centered around getting to heaven. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that is my knowledge of Islam and it is rather limited.

 

A Muslim's relationship with Allah is supposed to be quite strong. That's why they have the Five Pillars of Islam, including the apparently difficult Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj). Having said that, I don't think it's a very positive relationship; quite oppressive, actually (though one could argue that for any divine authority, as Hitchens did). I bought my self a copy of the Koran, and so far I have to say that I'm not at all struggling to see where extremists get their views from. In fact, to be a peaceful, "moderate" Muslim, you have to be dodging a lot of garbage that's in that "holy" book.

 

From what I've encountered, Muslims aren't really supposed to read the Koran. In my experience, it was similar to the corrupt Cathlic church: do as the religious leaders say and don't read the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.