Egor's Proof of God

[Whitney]

From the other thread: 

Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.

Do you disagree?

I disagree on the grounds that there is no logical reason to assume that:

1) That if a first cause is needed that it must be an intelligent being.
2) That the universe can't be eternal but some other arbitrary being can be eternal.

Did you expect me to agree for some reason? 

Other responses:

I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.

Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it. Of course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator". Of course, I might have misunderstood that, but hopefully someone can correct me in that case...

Second of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?

Also, have you ever heard about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

Your claims seemed a lot like the same thing...

[Egor]

I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.

Agreed. Arguments for the existence of God only shift the weight of evidence toward the existence of "a" God; they do not prove that Jesus Christ is the appropriate revelation of God. The Holy Spirit does that.

Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it.

Then what does it mean? You don't think you're just going to get to doubt with me and win, do you? You're going to have to work for this.

Of course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator".

Who says there is no pre-existing creator affecting the world of quantum mechanics? When a quark or something just pops into existence, the same argument applies to it. It didn't just do so for no reason. Nothing exists for no reason. Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument. For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity. We could be wrong about it, but belief in God is not magical thinking. Belief in something from nothing and for no reason is. Therefore, it is more logical to believe in God.

Second of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?

God, if He exists, exists in an eternal present moment outside of time. He would have to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause of God. There is no creator of God. God simply is. By the way, this predicts that we will never be able to say how old the universe is. The physical universe will always appear as eternal and yet in time together as a kind of paradox, because it was created by a being who is eternal, so we can get very close to the start of the universe, but with physical methods, we will never be able to state when it actually happened (the big bang).

This is why God is considered the Prime Mover. He has no creator. He has no motivator. And in order to avoid magical thinking, He is the only one of his kind. There cannot be others. Also, magical thinking is not applicable to God because of the impossibility of atheism. In other words, it may seem magical to presuppose a God, except that it is impossible to do otherwise; therefore it's not magical. To do otherwise is magical thinking.

And paradoxically, this is the limit of our knowledge. For God is both obvious and necessary and yet impossible to comprehend. The only way we could know God is to be God. That's why we have to rely on revelations of God in order to understand Him.

[Egor]

I disagree on the grounds that there is no logical reason to assume that:

1) That if a first cause is needed that it must be an intelligent being.
2) That the universe can't be eternal but some other arbitrary being can be eternal.

Did you expect me to agree for some reason? 

It doesn’t matter if you agree. Your atheism doesn’t end the existence of God. Nevertheless, lets take your first point:

In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence. Either it would be a mechanism programmed by something with intelligence or it would itself have to have intelligence. The order in the universe implies intelligence. If you claim there is no order in the universe, you are simply pointing at the sky and saying it’s not blue. There’s no way to argue that point. There is macrocosmic order and there is microcosmic order. I realize atheists like to deny that, but to do so is absurd.

Second, the universe is paradoxically eternal and temporal at the same time. If you try to go back to the very beginning of the universe, you can’t, because it was made by an eternal being outside of time, so you won’t find a “moment” when the Big Bang happened. You can come close, but that is all. I don’t know if this has been proven scientifically or not, but if ever one looks into it, they will come to that conclusion.

And when it comes to the “cause” of God or the “start” of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.

[Stevil]

In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence.

So many assumptions, so little intelligence in your thinking in order for you not to see your own assumptions.

[history_geek]

Then what does it mean? You don't think you're just going to get to doubt with me and win, do you? You're going to have to work for this.

Why does it have to mean anything? If something exists, it exists. We have pieces of a puzzle to answer the more specific questions, but there is still much more to be learned, which I find to be a possitive thing. It would be boring to live with absolute knowledge, instead of actaually living and finding out about those things that are still a mystery

And I am not expecting a "victory" nor a "defeat" since thinking in such a way would be a little silly to me. Instead I intend to have a conversation or a debate and give you my own views on things as well as explain why I think so and what I base it on, while taking in your point of view and if nesseccary correct you, if you make a serious mistake, something that I encourage you and all the other to do as well. It is only through usch actions that we can learn

Who says there is no pre-existing creator affecting the world of quantum mechanics? When a quark or something just pops into existence, the same argument applies to it. It didn't just do so for no reason. Nothing exists for no reason. Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument. For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity. We could be wrong about it, but belief in God is not magical thinking. Belief in something from nothing and for no reason is. Therefore, it is more logical to believe in God.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to indicate that there is someone medelling with the quantum mechanics to create the things that we have observed and people have hypothesised.

Now, I'm going to need someone confirm this, if anyone can, but as I've understood it there is no reason for cahos not to able to create something without a reason. After all, we call it chaos, not order, which would imply that it is following some kind of pre-determined order or rules. Also, your calim that there is a reason for everything works both ways, because it can equally be that there is no reason for anything. There are actions, and consequences for them in our natural world, but there is no reason for me to believe or be convinsed that there is something "greater" at work or that there is some predetermined fate for everything. You can believe so if you want, but I preffer free will.

Actaully, you do realize that "god". if we use the Genesis account, created everything out of nothing? But, perhaps more importantly, what prevents the matter that expanded into our galaxy and universe to have existed eternally? These are things that people have debated since they have been comprahended and will be debated untill we find enough evidence to prove one of the main hypothesis or any of the other ones that have been propesed through out the times: if there was a creator that created everything ex nihilo, or something else or indeed nothing caused the mater to be created ex nihilo. Was there a creator that made the matter and dissapeared or is that creator still with us. Is our universe just one amongst many, does it have egdes, what is beyond, are we living in just one dimension while connected to many others, etc....

You base your point of view on belief of absolute knowledge in a book written a few thousand years ago. I can honestly say that I d o not know what is the correct answer because we do not have enough information or evidence to point to a definitive answer, so all possibilities are still open to critique.

God, if He exists, exists in an eternal present moment outside of time. He would have to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause of God. There is no creator of God. God simply is. By the way, this predicts that we will never be able to say how old the universe is. The physical universe will always appear as eternal and yet in time together as a kind of paradox, because it was created by a being who is eternal, so we can get very close to the start of the universe, but with physical methods, we will never be able to state when it actually happened (the big bang).

This is why God is considered the Prime Mover. He has no creator. He has no motivator. And in order to avoid magical thinking, He is the only one of his kind. There cannot be others. Also, magical thinking is not applicable to God because of the impossibility of atheism. In other words, it may seem magical to presuppose a God, except that it is impossible to do otherwise; therefore it's not magical. To do otherwise is magical thinking.

And paradoxically, this is the limit of our knowledge. For God is both obvious and necessary and yet impossible to comprehend. The only way we could know God is to be God. That's why we have to rely on revelations of God in order to understand Him.

Well my first question would be how did he get to that eternal present moment outside of time? He still would need a reason on how he arrived there, unless we assume that everything, time included, is eternal. That's what my head says.

And that is only a paradox if we assume that there is something eternal, but even then we can still say how old our natural universe is (by "natural" I mean the universe we can see, measure and experiance through natural means).

And those are at best philosophical assumptions that you can base on nothing but your assumed knowldge through belief. And again, you fall for mispresentation about what in your mind equals "atheism". It is not "athesim" that says that something came out of nothing, it simply one of the possibilities for the existance of our universe, as I noted before. And really, that is no more otr less "magical" then your assumption that a creator that came out of nothing created out of nothing. There is nothing to suggest that there is a creator, and it is an illogical leap to assume that that such a creator would be a "god" of any human made religion.

And assuming that "god" is a nessaccity is still not logical, because there is nothing to suggest the existance of such a being or its interaction with our universe.

Although I have to admit, that if we assume that there is a being trappeed in an eternal present moment, the inconsistance makes a lot more sense, since that poor bugger is bored out of it's mind....and another proof of this is that it made itself known to a species like ours...

And when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.

Well, that is your definition of "god"...

I remember giving you a list of defentions for the word "god" back in your "Are you really an atheist?" thread:

Definition of GOD

1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Also, I gave number of other examples when you asked me what I though a "typical christian idea of "god"" was:

It varries from sect to sect, pastor to pastor, and even individual person to person. For some "god" is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnisentient, Immaterial and eternal or non-caused being that is also timeless. To others it is the Jesus of the New Testament, others the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. To some "god" is a personal (as I think Escrub demonstrated when he said "For the record, my God....", post #86 in this thread). So really, what is a "typical Christian idea of "god"? I really have no clue.

"And when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are not necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist."

And now that makes a bit more sense, but only so much

[xSilverPhinx]

Two points I'd like to make:

Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument.

Chaos produced where the universe is now in time. It hasn't been as ordered since the singularity.

For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity.

The universe popping into existence out of 'nothing' is magical thinking, therefore propose the existence of a magical being. I like that. 

[yepimonfire]

Two points I'd like to make:

Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument.

Chaos produced where the universe is now in time. It hasn't been as ordered since the singularity.

For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity.

The universe popping into existence out of 'nothing' is magical thinking, therefore propose the existence of a magical being. I like that. 

who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed? who knows, none of us were there, but we can without a doubt say the creation story is bullshit.  brb creating plants before the sun. brb creating earth before the sun. brb there was liquid water with no sun. brb the sun was created before the rest of the stars, yet it is younger then many visible stars. brb the sky is made out of water. brb making the stars twice. brb the moon gives off its own light. brb creating a tree, telling people not to eat from it, too stupid to put a barbed wire fence around it. brb ribs evolve into women.

the "big bang" is just a theory, it certainly has plenty of evidence behind it to support it. personally i think the universe as we know it more then likely did begin with a "big bang" but i doubt this is the first cycle its been through like this. everything in the universe is expanding, but every galaxy can and does exert gravity on its surrounding galaxies. depending on which force proves greater, the force of expansion may be enough to escape that "central" gravitational pull, in that case, the universe will continue to expand forever and ever provided there is no boundary, unless something (such as some unknown of yet) boundary is there. if it is not enough to escape it, eventually the universe will slowly but surely pull all of itself together and collapse in on itself, at this point we may yet again have another "small point" in which yet another "big bang" occurs starting this whole process again.

as far as god goes, do i beleive there is some angry entity sitting in a chair ready to blast us with fire if we misbehave? no. i don't. number one an all powerful god would not and cannot create something with the capability to misbehave, if god is all good and god created everything then he would have created everything good. don't try and pull the "satan corrupted everything blah blah blah" on me, god created satan too, and god is supposedly all powerful, satan would be no match for him, and anything satan did god could have easily put it all back into order, and destroyed or even changed satan. of course here is the problem, as "pride" and "envy" which is what supposedly caused satan to fall, were never created by god to begin with in satan, but wait god created everything, wait wait wait, its hard to wrap my logical mind (which was also supposedly created by god) around this. it just does not make sense. perhaps there is some sort of omniscient consciousness in which all consciousness comes from and goes back into that is experiencing this universe through life itself, through conscious, sentient beings. but this certainly is not the god of the bible. and this too is my own speculation mixed with some science, some theory, and some creative ideas. we will find out eventually what all of this is about as science progresses.

[history_geek]

the "big bang" is just a theory,

GAH! Stop doing that! It seriously hurts! "It's just a theory" is the favourite horse of teh cretards to discredit scientific theories that they don't like or just plain don't bother understanding. I have argued over this more then once, so allow me to make this perfectly clear: there are two uses for the word "theory" in modern english, the first being the one used in everyday language to imply that "I think/suppose/guess...", while the other one is the scientific one. A sceitific theory is something that is starts with a hypothesis (the guess or idea), that is then tested, untill the gathered information of those and other observations show wheter or not the hypothesis has been correct, and only if the show case is truly considered as strong, it is named a theory.

Or perhaps this is more easily understandable:

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.

A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]

By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And yes, the Big Bang Theory is a sceintific theory, which explains the expansion of the known universe from a single point of origin. However, wehre the matter that expanded thus came from, we don't know yet. That is why the Big Bang is about the expansion, and not the origin, just like Theory of Evolution is about the process that caused the speciation, and has nothing to do with the origin of life, of which there are many competing hypothesis'.

*deep inhale, deep exhale* Sorry, this is just one of those issues that seriously bug me and send me on a rage-rant But I ask you, for the sake of my already shaky sanity, don't do that again 

[Whitney]

In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence.

No...snowflakes and crystals form without intelligence.

Either it would be a mechanism programmed by something with intelligence or it would itself have to have intelligence.

how do you know this?

The order in the universe implies intelligence.

prove it.

If you claim there is no order in the universe, you are simply pointing at the sky and saying it's not blue. here's no way to argue that point. There is macrocosmic order and there is microcosmic order. I realize atheists like to deny that, but to do so is absurd.

I am not the one that mentioned order....so that's a needless strawman.

Second, the universe is paradoxically eternal and temporal at the same time.

Says who?

If you try to go back to the very beginning of the universe, you can't

Right, we haven't figured out time travel yet (or if it is anything more than fantasy)

, because it was made by an eternal being outside of time,

You didn't provide proof of this.

. I don't know if this has been proven scientifically or not, but if ever one looks into it, they will come to that conclusion.

Science can measure back to T=0 utilizing red shifts and background radiation etc.  That's how a general consensus was reached on the age of the universe.  It's covered in public school...I think 5th grade.

And when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.

Perhaps the universe is necessarily eternal...you are making an exception for god so you can shove him into all the gaps in human knowledge.  If god does exist, I don't think she would like to be a gap filler.

[Stevil]

who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed?

I think most scientists and cosmologists don't agree with an expansion/contraction cycle.
The common theory of today is that our universe will continue expanding until is disapated into almost nothingness.
This means it has a limited lifespan, very small lifespan in relation to the infinite nature of space.

I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this

[AnimatedDirt]

I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this

I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself.  He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.

What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?

[yepimonfire]

who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed?

I think most scientists and cosmologists don't agree with an expansion/contraction cycle.
The common theory of today is that our universe will continue expanding until is disapated into almost nothingness.
This means it has a limited lifespan, very small lifespan in relation to the infinite nature of space.

i've heard that before also, care to elaborate some?

[yepimonfire]

I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this

I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself.  He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.

What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?

because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.

[AnimatedDirt]

because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.

And there's proof that it went from this universe to another universe?  Or is that the assumption?

[Whitney]

The idea of multiverses or bubble universes is somehow based in string theory and the math for it is over my head (and probably over most people's heads)...it's also not proven as we basically don't know how to test it yet.

I think what's more important as it relates to this topic is that it is possible that a multiverse model exists in an eternal manner and that would take out the need to assume a god (of course I'd be comfortable with "i don't know" even if there were no current scientific possibility).

Now the particles jumping in and out of existence (or at least appearing to do so)...yes, that has been observed.  It has something to do with stuff that I don't really understand well enough to explain.  All I really understand well is that the more we break down things and the smaller scale we use the more oddly the universe behaves...even to the point that the physics most of us understand starts to break down.

Maybe someone smarter and more educated on this than me can further expand...or at least link to something about it.