Egor's Proof of God

[Stevil]

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 don't like string theory.
But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?

[Asmodean]

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.

Didn't that have something to do with a dimensional shift? Mr. Flat and all..?

Imagine you are Mr. Flat, living in the 2D universe of a sheet of paper. A pencil is stuck halfway through the paper. To you, it is just a circle. You are not aware of the larger structure, since in your 2D world, you had no need to evolve means with which to see beyond the dimensions you know and inhabit.

You may think that our 3D space is about as high as it gets, but consider that Mr. Flat is probably just as convinced of the same for 2D, living in his notebook universe.

I'm no expert in this, but making something vanish out of our three dimensions does not make it vanish from this universe, just transitions it into an aspect of this universe we are not yet aware of. At least, those be my two ears.

[xSilverPhinx]

Not that it's conclusive, but: 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background

In summary: apparently one of those blobs suggests that there could be a gravitational interference of some sort, coming from a parallel universe.

There's the idea of the holographic universe, in which ours is a projection on a world of a higher dimension, much like what happens on the event horizon of a black hole I think, and if true  there would be a metaverse beyond ours.

As for string theory, they say that the dimensions are small and curled up in microspace, not anything we would ever be able to see. To detect the hypothetical strings, we would need to build a hadron collider as large as the solar system so...that complicates things. Just a bit. They use the analogy of people looking at a telephone wire from far off perceive it as a line whereas ants walking on the wire see more dimensions and can even go around it and end up in the same place. It's a question of zooming in. How they calculate these things is beyond me though. They say the maths works, so ...    

[DeterminedJuliet]

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?

If that is the only way you define God, I don't really have a problem with it and I wouldn't even call you deluded for it. When it comes to our knowledge beyond the universe, we're all pretty vague. I get that there is probably a "something" out there that we don't understand.

It's only when you start ascribing anthropomorphic personality traits and claim to know what that big "something" wants and desires that I think the real leap occurs.

[Whitney]

But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?

I don't think we can draw that conclusion just off the position that god is not proven.

We could just be really lucky that we exist (of course we are lucky as individuals even if existence in general is inevitable)

[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.

Didn't that have something to do with a dimensional shift? Mr. Flat and all..?

Imagine you are Mr. Flat, living in the 2D universe of a sheet of paper. A pencil is stuck halfway through the paper. To you, it is just a circle. You are not aware of the larger structure, since in your 2D world, you had no need to evolve means with which to see beyond the dimensions you know and inhabit.

You may think that our 3D space is about as high as it gets, but consider that Mr. Flat is probably just as convinced of the same for 2D, living in his notebook universe.

I'm no expert in this, but making something vanish out of our three dimensions does not make it vanish from this universe, just transitions it into an aspect of this universe we are not yet aware of. At least, those be my two ears.

thank you carl sagan.
although there are theories that other universes can exist, such as the m-theory and others that have been mentioned in this thread.

[Stevil]

But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?

I don't think we can draw that conclusion just off the position that god is not proven.

We could just be really lucky that we exist (of course we are lucky as individuals even if existence in general is inevitable)

I think that to consider there is a possibility that there is no god one must consider that the conditions are autonomous and hence our universe isn't a one off fluke.
I term a universe to the result of a big bang. A system of expanding energy/matter from a central point.

But of course Atheism doesn't preclude a god, that still remains a possibility although in my opinion a very unlikely one.

The issue I have with the god possibility are:
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?
How can it have intelligence without knowledge?
How can there be knowledge without information?
How can there be information without data?
How can there be data without energy/matter?
How can it create energy/matter from nothing?
How can it have caused the big bang and not have been destroyed in the process?

[MadBomr101]

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.

I'll make this easy on you, if god created all life and nothing he created exists for no reason, then explain god's purpose for cancer.

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.

Do you ever actually read what you write before you post it?
 
Re-read the above and see if you can identify the glaring lapse in logic.  If not, it'll be made clear in the next block.  Until then, you should understand that the Big Bang posits a theory for the existence of the universe based on our understanding of physics and cosmology that is observable and demonstrable.  However, no one claims to know what the agent was that precipitated the bang because, prior to that instant, time, space, and reality didn't exist.

It is here, in this nether region of the unknowable where Xians such as yourself like to dismiss the whole of science despite the fact that it clearly didn't come from nothing.  It came from something that science can't explain.  A fact science openly admits.  It is also here where many apologists will attempt to shoehorn god into the event by proclaiming him to have been the only possible agent to have brought about such a monumental act of creation.  Nuh uh. They don't get to extrapolate from natural processes to arrive at a magical origin.  A duck is an amazing creature, it can walk, swim, and fly but it doesn't take god to make a duck, it just takes two other ducks.

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.

Y'know what real magical thinking is; it's thinking that the universe and all life was created by a magical being.  So everything you said here was baloney.  We see no logical reason for the existence for god and believing in god is the very definition of magical thinking.  There's no way around it.  You proclaim belief in a magical supreme being which, contrary to your above statement, is the very definition of magical AND illogical thinking.

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.

Hmmm, saaaay, that's convenient.  Mind if I use that too?  

The Big Bang took place in an eternal present moment outside of time.  It would've had to in order to create the universe.  Therefore, there is no cause for the Big Bang. There is no creator of the Big Bang. The Big Bang simply was.

Damn, that is SO much less work than actually having to think of a reasonable and rational argument to support one's claims. 

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.

I believe I've made it clear that this kind of lazy, unsupported, "Well, God is just so awesome and beyond our comprehension that there's no way to explain Him in any rational or reasonable way." Xian copout isn't gonna fly.  I wouldn't expect you to allow any of us to get away with this crapola either.

Your arguments have been consistently weak since you first arrived and continue to be filled with a brand of logic that can only make sense to those of faith.  All they're doing here is confirming that the rest of us made the right choice in rejecting this nonsense.  

Thank you for helping to strengthen my atheism even more.  

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The existence of God can neither be disproven nor proven by logic and reason alone.  Neither can any probabilities be constructed with respect to this issue, as we don't have enough information yet about how the universe got here, nor do we have any baseline against which to form such probabilities.  Theists can't validly say that "God probably exists" and atheists can't validly say "God probably doesn't exist": we simply don't have the knowledge to be able to make these types of calls.  When a Las Vegas bookie sets the odds of one team winning a game or one horse winning a race, that determination is based on mounds of historical data.  We don't have that kind of background information.

This is why, for me, it's all a matter of personal experience.  If one's personal experience leads them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that.  If one's personal experience does not lead them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that.  That's about as far as the argument can go, in my opinion, given our current state of knowledge.

[Asmodean]

thank you carl sagan.

That's Asmodeus Saganis in Latin :-P

[Egor]

No...snowflakes and crystals form without intelligence.

That’s begging the question.

prove it.

Prove that order in the universe implies intelligent design? It’s prima facie evidence of design, and the word design implies intelligence. Or are you expecting something from a test tube?

Says who?

Says me.

You didn't provide proof of this.

So what? Any proof I provide you will discount because you like being an atheist.

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.

What “science?”  Because the cosmology that I’m aware of has a + or – error of .13 billion years. And that’s only if the mathematical models are correct. That’s not covered in 5th grade by the way. In fact, cosmology and astronomy aren’t taught in 5th grade, neither is the algebra used to determine the age of the universe.

Be that as it may, I can’t prove my hypothesis is correct. Someone else will have to do that. But the fact is, the closer you get to determining the age of the universe, the more it will seem the universe has always existed. This paradox is a fact if God exists outside of time and created the universe within a dimension of time. If you just think about it, it will make sense to you, and you can do so without ever admitting God exists.

Perhaps the universe is necessarily eternal...

Uh…wait a minute. That advanced 5th grade class you attended said that the age of the universe is known down to the instant of time when it happened. So how can you say the universe is possibly eternal? Wouldn’t that contradict your 5th grade teacher.

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.

You have to make an exception for God, or else there is no truth and no knowledge. If there is no God, nothing can really be known, for everything is simply chaos, without order, without meaning, without reason.

[Egor]

The existence of God can neither be disproven nor proven by logic and reason alone.

I completely agree. In fact, I have a kind of cartesian graph that shows that very thing. The close one gets to a physical explanation of God, the more God looks like a force of nature, but the more God looks like a force of nature, the more another God is required to explain the first god, ad infinitum.

This is why, for me, it's all a matter of personal experience.  If one's personal experience leads them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that.  If one's personal experience does not lead them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that.  That's about as far as the argument can go, in my opinion, given our current state of knowledge.

But, IMHO, one way is more rational than the other. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. There are no arguments against the existence of God, when God is considered the intelligent Creator of the cosmos. Make no mistake; atheists don't so much have a problem with God as they do with Jesus Christ.

[Egor]

The issue I have with the god possibility are:
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?
How can it have intelligence without knowledge?
How can there be knowledge without information?
How can there be information without data?
How can there be data without energy/matter?
How can it create energy/matter from nothing?
How can it have caused the big bang and not have been destroyed in the process?

If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?

When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.

How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?

There's no time now, but you think and make decisions. Apparently that's just a capability of consciousness. There is no past in existence and the future hasn't happened yet. You are always in an eternal present moment. Are you not?

As for the other questions, I simply don't understand what you are getting at sufficiently to answer them.

[Stevil]

If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?

When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.

My dreams are made of neurons and electrical pulses, chemical changes within my brain.

How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?

There's no time now, but you think and make decisions. Apparently that's just a capability of consciousness. There is no past in existence and the future hasn't happened yet. You are always in an eternal present moment. Are you not?

As for the other questions, I simply don't understand what you are getting at sufficiently to answer them.

So by your definition time does not exist

[Too Few Lions]

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.

So....the holy spirit is proof that Jesus Christ is the appropriate revelation of god, I hope you can see what a poor circular argument that is. By the same logic divine ecstasy 'proves' that Dionysos is the correct revelation of god, and maat 'proves' that the Egyptian gods are the correct revelation. You're going to have to prove to me that the holy spirit actually exists, and isn't just a made-up Christian idea, that you're then claiming as proof that your god and saviour are the true(st) ones.
At the moment I see that as no proof whatsoever as to why your god should be considered creator of the universe ahead of any other force ascribed that power.

But, IMHO, one way is more rational than the other. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. There are no arguments against the existence of God, when God is considered the intelligent Creator of the cosmos. Make no mistake; atheists don't so much have a problem with God as they do with Jesus Christ.

I don't think that's quite true, for most atheists Jesus was either a mythical figure or an apocalyptic Jewish philosopher who lived 2000 odd years ago.  Either way he's no great shakes, and there's nothing new in his teachings or story in the gospels.  

Personally I also don't have a problem with the belief in gods, I see nothing inherently harmful in that, it's certain religions that I dislike. As for these arguments for the existence of god(s), what are they? So far all you've come up with is saying the universe exists, therefore it must have been created by something, and that something is your god. That's an assumption based on faith, not a logical argument. The other arguments you've passingly mentioned were all written by people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, who only knew a fraction of what we know now.

Given how long ago it happened, none of us can know how the universe came into being. Your claim that it was your god who created the universe is based on things written 2-3000 years ago, by people who thought the universe was a fixed dome that sat above a flat Earth (in the case of the OT) or as a sphere that surrounded a central Earth (most probably in the case of the NT). Personally I prefer to put my trust in modern cosmology and science.