Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad · 16-04-2014 9:52pm

robp wrote: »

Mostly that is a very interesting and reasonable post.

Though just to hit on one point

I hate to use the word impossible for anything but there is good reasons against it, principally that it ultimately breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To explain an eternal universe you need a whole new set of (100% hypothetical) laws of physics. Of course believing such laws could have existed requires quite a leap of faith.

Except that that is exactly what hypothesising a God is, effectively claiming a whole new set of laws of physics.
Of course it all depends on how you define eternal, timeless state or unending time state. Lets tell the truth, before the BB and after heat death, all bets are off. We don't have any idea what might or might not have happened.

marienbad · 16-04-2014 10:09pm

robp wrote: »

Mostly that is a very interesting and reasonable post.

Though just to hit on one point

I hate to use the word impossible for anything but there is good reasons against it, principally that it ultimately breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To explain an eternal universe you need a whole new set of (100% hypothetical) laws of physics. Of course believing such laws could have existed requires quite a leap of faith.

But all of this is just avoiding my question robp .

robp · 16-04-2014 10:46pm

marienbad wrote: »

But all of this is just avoiding my question robp .

Marien,I think you have asked me 2 or 3 questions at this stage and each one less universalizing then the one before. I have already given examples where unexplained phenomena cannot be readily explained by the march of science. However these phenomena are pretty unimportant for me personally as its a negative. The whole argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

The irony is the God of the Gaps theory was proposed by Christian preachers.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Except that that is exactly what hypothesising a God is, effectively claiming a whole new set of laws of physics.
Of course it all depends on how you define eternal, timeless state or unending time state. Lets tell the truth, before the BB and after heat death, all bets are off. We don't have any idea what might or might not have happened.

Tommy, its a case of going for parsimony. I think theism has parsimony covered.

marienbad · 16-04-2014 11:08pm

robp wrote: »

Marien,I think you have asked me 2 or 3 questions at this stage and each one less universalizing then the one before. I have already given examples where unexplained phenomena cannot be readily explained by the march of science. However these phenomena are pretty unimportant for me personally as its a negative. The whole argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

The irony is the God of the Gaps theory was proposed by Christian preachers.

Tommy, its a case of going for parsimony. I think theism has parsimony covered.

No robp I am just asking the same question over and over again . To be honest I only understand about 5% of all the scientific stuff posted by you and nagiracc etc on here . But sometimes the simplicity of things can be lost in complexity (imho) and it is in that vein I am posing my question .

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God turned out to be just our own ignorance, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

Penny 4 Thoughts · 17-04-2014 3:28pm

robp wrote: »

The nothingness you refer to is a quantum state. Its a low energy field with dimensions subject to constants. Its very little but it is unequivocally incorrect to claim its nothing. Nothing has to be the default as the universe cannot have existed for ever.

Hi Robp,

Excuse my ignorance, physics isn't my thing, but can you explain what you mean by "nothing has to be the default"? Would that not rule out the existence of God? I assume you don't include God when you say "nothing"?

Penny

robp · 18-04-2014 4:22pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Robp,

Excuse my ignorance, physics isn't my thing, but can you explain what you mean by "nothing has to be the default"? Would that not rule out the existence of God? I assume you don't include God when you say "nothing"?

Penny

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

marienbad wrote: »

No robp I am just asking the same question over and over again . To be honest I only understand about 5% of all the scientific stuff posted by you and nagiracc etc on here . But sometimes the simplicity of things can be lost in complexity (imho) and it is in that vein I am posing my question .

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God turned out to be just our own ignorance, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

See you are identifying a trend which just is not a trend at all. I really do not think that people in the past explained everything by blaming God. people invoked all sorts of causes. One very common one in early societies is witchcraft and curses. Instead of a trend its actually binary i.e. reasoned belief vs unreasoned belief.

marienbad · 18-04-2014 4:46pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

See you are identifying a trend which just is not a trend at all. I really do not think that people in the past explained everything by blaming God. people invoked all sorts of causes. One very common one in early societies is witchcraft and curses. Instead of a trend its actually binary i.e. reasoned belief vs unreasoned belief.

Sorry robp, | am not blaming anybody, but the point you are making here is just exactly what I am asking you.

Witchcraft, curses god, gods , whatever you wish to add,the same applies.

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God,gods witchcraft,curses, spells ,whatever, turned out to be just our own ignorance waiting for our knowledge to catch up, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

Turtwig · 18-04-2014 6:02pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not alway.

None of this explains why nothing has to be the default.

What is "outside" the universe (or multiverses) is that something or is that nothing? If it's nothing, how does something expand into it?

Also if we assume time and the universe are part of the same then the universe always existed. But, I digress.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 18-04-2014 6:24pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

Thanks for reply Robp. I think I understand what you mean with the two options, what I wasn't following is why if the universe didn't always exist that must mean there was nothing. I appreciate that there wasn't a universe, but could there could have been other non-universe things, such as God or the multiverse or a proto-universe? I'm not suggesting there was these things, but they aren't ruled out by science?

Brian Shanahan · 18-04-2014 8:07pm

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Ever hear of the Casimir effect?

tommy2bad · 18-04-2014 9:47pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Ever hear of the Casimir effect?

Yes Brian, but for it to happen you need an electro magnetic field or something to produce a quantum state. Some thing being the operative word.
It dose negate the need for a directed creation once something exists though, and supports my theory that once creation starts God can enjoy His Kitkat.
The whole thing will unfold itself without direction, guidance or micromanagment.
I think we overestimate the need for a God of the gaps, if their is a God He didn't leave gaps when He created the universe, we just haven't figured out how it works.

nagirrac · 18-04-2014 11:22pm

The "nothing" that theoretical physicists talk about is not nothing as in "the absence of anything". We have no example in the physically observable universe of the absence of anything, it is a mathematical or logical construct of the human mind. The problem with this type of discussion is it is another example of applying macro world logic or even science to the subatomic world, when we know that what has been mathematically predicted and experimentally demonstrated in the subatomic world in many cases completely contradicts science from a macro world perspective. If the laws governing the subatomic world were applicable to our macro world we would walk through walls (or on water) at ease. Physicists just live with this, or at least those that are only doing science rather than arguing philosophy, and continue effects to try and reconcile the subatomic, our macro world, and the larger scale universe.

The following comment from Sean Carroll sums the situation up fairly well I think: "The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't indicate a beginning to our universe, only an end to our theoretical comprehension".

This is the point that makes discussions between theoretical physicists and theologians / philosophers largely meaningless imo, to the point that I rarely bother following them any longer. They essentially involve speculation on the nature of God, which is my opinion is outside our comprehension, arguing against speculation on the origin of the universe which is also outside our comprehension. The physicists should leave God to the theologians and the theologians should leave physics to the physicists. My idea of hell is listening to William Lane Craig debate Lawrence Krauss forever

Turtwig · 18-04-2014 11:39pm

I lolled at your idea of hell.

nagirrac · 18-04-2014 11:53pm

Turtwig wrote: »

I lolled at your idea of hell.

Not as loudly as I lolled when I misread your new username as turdwig

. Now that would be quite an interesting pokemon.

Turtwig · 19-04-2014 12:01am

Turtwig is awesome!

Brian Shanahan · 19-04-2014 5:36pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes Brian, but for it to happen you need an electro magnetic field or something to produce a quantum state. Some thing being the operative word.

No all you need is two metal plates very close together, and the presence of vacuum energy, which as far as we can measure is everywhere. So there is no problem with matter being created from nothing naturally.

It dose negate the need for a directed creation once something exists though, and supports my theory that once creation starts God can enjoy His Kitkat.

The fact that we know that matter is being created from nothing right now shows that we don't need to posit an outside agent for the big bang (or any other hypothesis about the creation of the universe) to work. Unless our understanding of physics radically changes, we can confidently state that there is no need for a god in order that the universe exists.

The whole thing will unfold itself without direction, guidance or micromanagment.

Yes, without a need for a god, there is probably going to be no god, no magician hiding behind the veil of the universe.

I think we overestimate the need for a God of the gaps, if their is a God He didn't leave gaps when He created the universe, we just haven't figured out how it works.

I think you misunderstand the idea of the "god of the gaps" hypothesis. The reason why there is an idea of a god of the gaps has nothing to do with how he created the universe, but everything to do with the rearguard action that religion has been fighting ever since the start of the scientific revolution. You see ever since the likes of Newton, Boyle and Gallileo began looking systematically looking at the universe there has been less and less space in which god could realistically exist, especially as a creator. Therefore the god of the gaps idea, every time something new was found to be natural, the religious mind turned to some other, as yet unexplained phenomenon, and loudly proclaimed "look at this, rationalists. Your science can't explain this. Therefore god must have done it. QED!" Of course the problem with this kind of thinking is a) just proclaiming x is the cause of y isn't sufficient to assume that x actually causes y, you have to prove it using evidence and testing, and b) just because we don't know what causes y doesn't mean that the alternative has any validity (as is shown by the fact that every Earthly phenomenon previously attributed to god's actions has been shown to have a natural and explainable cause).

tommy2bad · 19-04-2014 7:03pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No all you need is two metal plates very close together, and the presence of vacuum energy, which as far as we can measure is everywhere. So there is no problem with matter being created from nothing naturally.

:rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The fact that we know that matter is being created from nothing right now shows that we don't need to posit an outside agent for the big bang (or any other hypothesis about the creation of the universe) to work. Unless our understanding of physics radically changes, we can confidently state that there is no need for a god in order that the universe exists.

See above

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes, without a need for a god, there is probably going to be no god, no magician hiding behind the veil of the universe.

I think you misunderstand the idea of the "god of the gaps" hypothesis. The reason why there is an idea of a god of the gaps has nothing to do with how he created the universe, but everything to do with the rearguard action that religion has been fighting ever since the start of the scientific revolution. You see ever since the likes of Newton, Boyle and Gallileo began looking systematically looking at the universe there has been less and less space in which god could realistically exist, especially as a creator. Therefore the god of the gaps idea, every time something new was found to be natural, the religious mind turned to some other, as yet unexplained phenomenon, and loudly proclaimed "look at this, rationalists. Your science can't explain this. Therefore god must have done it. QED!" Of course the problem with this kind of thinking is a) just proclaiming x is the cause of y isn't sufficient to assume that x actually causes y, you have to prove it using evidence and testing, and b) just because we don't know what causes y doesn't mean that the alternative has any validity (as is shown by the fact that every Earthly phenomenon previously attributed to god's actions has been shown to have a natural and explainable cause).

Good man Brian, keep up the good fight. Just to be clear I would think it more accurate to rephrase the last bit to; every Earthly phenomenon previously attributed to supernatural actions, just for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings.

Safehands · 21-04-2014 10:30pm

It always amuses me to read so many of the creationists arguing that there is no proof that the universe came from the big bang or that there is no real evidence for evolution, while they offer zero proof or evidence for creation or the existence of God.
Some of the arguments for the beginnings of the Universe on this thread, based on physics, are excellent. I'd love to see some similar factual arguments from the creationists, rather than just knocking the scientific position.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-04-2014 9:01am

robp wrote: »

The nothingness you refer to is a quantum state. Its a low energy field with dimensions subject to constants. Its very little but it is unequivocally incorrect to claim its nothing. Nothing has to be the default as the universe cannot have existed for ever.

You appear to have backed up your assertion with little more than further assertion. Why can it not have? Because you say so? Or because you typed the word "Quantum"?

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-04-2014 9:09am

nagirrac wrote: »

All the scientific evidence we have supports the view that our observed space time universe had a beginning.

Untrue. Our evidence suggests that the current state and form of the universe had a beginning. What it was "before" that, if "before" even has a meaning given it is a temporal word, could have existed forever for all we know. You are, as usual, commenting on things we simply know nothing about.

nagirrac wrote: »

Science is based on observation and experiment, and as we have neither for eternal universes, multiverses, etc. they should be correctly viewed as speculation.

As is the opposite therefore. You are acting like one is speculation and the other is a default we must therefore return to. Trying to stack the deck much? The fact is BOTH are speculation at this time.

Matthew 5.11 · 23-04-2014 2:43pm

im posting on this thread because it was the most appropiate i could find,
i was very religious when i was younger and things happened in my life to make me lose my faith,i used to speak out a lot about being an athiest and not believing in god,i have posted on boards about this,with a different username,
i have now rediscovered my faith and i will never lose it again,i have had lots of spirital experiences that leave me with no doubt about god being real,even thinkin about heaven fills me with a happiness that cannot be explained,i also want to apologise to anyone that may have been offended by my other posts,especially god.

nagirrac · 23-04-2014 4:00pm

Just to clarify on the question of "did the universe have a beginning", as for some reason there continues to be confusion on this point, and a tendency for certain posters to quote mine in an effort to modify the point being made:

The following is the full opening quote form my previous post on the subject: "All the scientific evidence we have supports the view that our observed space time universe had a beginning. That is not to say that an eternal universe is "impossible", it is entirely possible as Sean Carroll has proposed, however there is no scientific evidence to support it."

Our "observed space time universe" is the physical universe that we observe and can measure. It does not include multiverses, cyclic universes, or anything else we cannot observe. According to the science (observation and experiment), our universe had a beginning. However, this is deeply unsatisfactory for many cosmologists as it suggests something from nothing, and hence we have many speculative attempts to try and come up with an eternal universe model. So far, these have failed.

The current state of cosmology on this question is well described by Vileken in the attached paper. His conclusion is that the answer to the question "did the universe have a beginning" is "probably yes". This is based on all known models for eternal universes failing, and until someone comes up with an eternal universe model that actually holds up, then the universe having a beginning is the default scientific position. The Penrose and Hawking theorems which state that the singularity cannot be avoided still holds up as, barring speculation, there has been nothing shown scientifically to refute them. Interestingly both Vilenkin and Guth, who were the two foremost proponents of eternal universe models, have in recent lectures accepted that our universe having a beginning is the default position and what the evidence suggests.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

Brian Shanahan · 23-04-2014 5:10pm

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

i have had lots of spirital experiences that leave me with no doubt about god being real,

Like what?

Matthew 5.11 · 23-04-2014 6:24pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Like what?

i think im better off not goin into details because people might think im crazy and tell me to go talk to a doctor,i know im not crazy,far from it,
i have talked about them to a family member and i will talk about them in the future,for now i'll keep them to myself,what i will say is god walks among us as a real person.

Brian Shanahan · 23-04-2014 10:54pm

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

i think im better off not goin into details because people might think im crazy and tell me to go talk to a doctor,i know im not crazy,far from it,
i have talked about them to a family member and i will talk about them in the future,for now i'll keep them to myself,what i will say is god walks among us as a real person.

Fine then you've no actual evidence, just a "feeling". So I can safely say based on your experience that we've still got bupkus evidence for god.

Thanks for being honest if not exactly concise.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-04-2014 7:57am

nagirrac wrote: »

Just to clarify on the question of "did the universe have a beginning", as for some reason there continues to be confusion on this point

Yes, there is. And that confusion is entirely yours. Once again: The fact that the universes current state appears to have a beginning does not substantiate the claim that the universe itself had a beginning. At all. This is simply something we do not know.

You and your theist cohort wish to pretend otherwise, and assert from nothing that not only did the universe have a beginning.... but that beginning had to be a personal, intelligent, intentional, internationalist entity that you call "god".

That cohort also wishes to act like the "god" explanation and "first cause" explanation is the default one. That is: Anyone who fails to substantiate any other assertion therefore has to accept the default one. Not happening. No thanks. No way. No how. The only "default" I will subscribe to is that currently we appear to exist in a universe and we currently have no explanation for this.

I have asked you on a number of occasions what basis you have for such assertions and so far have been offered nothing but a totally off topic, comically failed attempt to derail the conversation into an attempt to prove the existence of reincarnation.

So I can only repeat once again: Have you any arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning to offer... at all.... even a little.... to suggest the existence of a non human intentional agent that is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe?

It really is a yes/no question.

nagirrac wrote: »

a tendency for certain posters to quote mine

Given I am the only one who substantively replied to your post, you literally can only mean me here. Which is comical for two reasons.

1) I did no such thing, so you are simply making this up.
2) You have claimed to have my account on ignore, so interesting how you appear to be reading my posts.

smacl · 24-04-2014 8:44am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine then you've no actual evidence, just a "feeling". So I can safely say based on your experience that we've still got bupkus evidence for god.

I suspect many people don't differentiate sufficiently between subjective reality, i.e. what is true to them, and objective reality, i.e. what is demonstrably provable to anyone. While the potential veracity of the mythology held within the bible gets increasingly eroded over time with new scientific discovery, the subjective beliefs often still hold firm.

I don't think you'll ever find any acceptable evidence, on the basis that the failure of any to show up after millenniums searching strongly suggests it simply doesn't exist.

tommy2bad · 24-04-2014 9:33am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, there is. And that confusion is entirely yours. Once again: The fact that the universes current state appears to have a beginning does not substantiate the claim that the universe itself had a beginning. At all. This is simply something we do not know.

Well that makes it a little clearer, but referring to the universe we now exist in as having a begining is exactly the point believers are making, It's you who are claiming that this is false by moving the goalposts to some timesapce we can know nothing about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You and your theist cohort wish to pretend otherwise, and assert from nothing that not only did the universe have a beginning.... but that beginning had to be a personal, intelligent, intentional, internationalist entity that you call "god".

Exept I never claimed it had to have a deity all I ever stated is that this current state of the universe has a deity. It dosn't necessary have to have one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-04-2014 9:37am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well that makes it a little clearer, but referring to the universe we now exist in as having a begining is exactly the point believers are making

And I am pointing out that the point they are making is flawed. Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not "Moving goalposts". The fact is that all we currently know is that the current state of the universe appears to have had a beginning. More than this we simply do not know. The theist cohort want to declare that this "beginning" was the beginning of absolutely everything, that "something came from nothing" and so forth. Again: We simply do not know this to be true. At all.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Exept I never claimed it had to have a deity

My post was not a reply to you. So you are pulling words back out of your mouth that I never actually put there.

tommy2bad wrote: »

all I ever stated is that this current state of the universe has a deity.

Any basis for this assertion at all?

tommy2bad · 24-04-2014 9:42am

You and your theist cohort wish to pretend otherwise,

I would consider myself among the theist cohort.

The theist cohort want to declare that this "beginning" was the beginning of absolutely everything, that "something came from nothing" and so forth

Casting a wide net their. Not all thiests claim this begining was the begining of everything. In fact it's not even claimed in Jewish theology. Remember the torah starts with "in a beginning"
Good morning Naz, in a rush so sorry for the lack of credited quotes.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments