Does God exist?

[mage3158]

I'm convinced by my position.

That isn't very solid now is it?

I am defining the universe as the totality of all existence

I guess we were defining it as two different things, as the term is quite flexible.

so if it exists, then it exists in the universe that I am describing. Also, the multiverse theory isn't exactly all that spectacular in terms of evidence, logical feasibility, etc.

A lot of it isn't very spectacular in terms of evidence, including your stance.

Incorrect. Law of the excluded middle. A or non-A. There is no alternative. Existence, or non-existence.

Except that's not what I was talking about, coming to those A or non-A could have been achieved through parameters not yet known by our vantage point.

Why isn't this possible?

Empirically, perhaps, but logically I don't think it's that difficult a question. You seem to presuppose that something created existence by asking the question 'what created existence'. I ask you, if something created existence, then didn't existence already exist?

Thought experiments are kind of useless here, using logic to determine the facts doesn't work here because of the lack of evidence to back you up. Because we could be easily have false assumptions on the actual state of our universe.

The scale is huge, and the data just isn't there.

In any event. My point is simple. If something doesn't exist, then there is no evidence that there doesn't exist, so if you recognize that, saying that the atheist side has no evidence of the non-existence of God should be a truism.

You're right. But that doesn't mean anything really in the grand scheme of things, because two-fold, lack of evidence also doesn't prove something doesn't exist. Because if it did, life only exists on Earth.

 

[malakadang]

That isn't very solid now is it?

No, it's still solid.

I guess we were defining it as two different things, as the term is quite flexible.

Right.

A lot of it isn't very spectacular in terms of evidence, including your stance.

Of course, my stance is entirely a priori.

Except that's not what I was talking about, coming to those A or non-A could have been achieved through parameters not yet known by our vantage point.

Why isn't this possible?

The point is, the universe can only be created by something or nothing. IT CANNOT come through any other parameter not yet known because that would violate the law of the excluded middle, which is based on the law of identity. It DOESN'T MATTER whether that something that created the universe is an unknown parameter, or out of our vantage point.

The ultimate point is, if SOMETHING created EXISTENCE, then EXISTENCE already EXISTED!

Thought experiments are kind of useless here, using logic to determine the facts doesn't work here because of the lack of evidence to back you up. Because we could be easily have false assumptions on the actual state of our universe.

The scale is huge, and the data just isn't there.

This is largely a strawman.

Just answer this very simple question: If something created the universe, didn't the universe already exist? That something could be from a unknown parameter or whatever.

You're right. But that doesn't mean anything really in the grand scheme of things, because two-fold, lack of evidence also doesn't prove something doesn't exist. Because if it did, life only exists on Earth.

Absence of evidence doesn't, but evidence of absence does (depending on how good that evidence is). For example, a needle in a haystack. If you search through the whole haystack, and find no needle, that is evidence of absence, and you can conclude with some certainty that the haystack has no needle in it. Obviously there are other variables which determine how good the evidence is, searching for 10 planets, finding no life, and concluding there is no other life in the universe is obviously stupid.

I'll just reiterate this very important point: Do you believe that something created the universe? If your answer is yes, does that something exist?

 

[Drygores]

Personally I don't believe in a supreme supernatural being sorry religious ppl

 

[DavidZim]

Personally I don't believe in a supreme supernatural being sorry religious ppl

this.

 

Well god is me so I believe in it

k tbh now, I believe in scientific Facts and not really god... sry for religious people

 

[DavidZim]

k tbh now, I believe in scientific Facts and not really god... sry for religious people

that.

 

[mage3158]

Just answer this very simple question: If something created the universe, didn't the universe already exist? That something could be from a unknown parameter or whatever.

Except it isn't simple.

Absence of evidence doesn't, but evidence of absence does (depending on how good that evidence is). For example, a needle in a haystack. If you search through the whole haystack, and find no needle, that is evidence of absence, and you can conclude with some certainty that the haystack has no needle in it. Obviously there are other variables which determine how good the evidence is, searching for 10 planets, finding no life, and concluding there is no other life in the universe is obviously stupid.

Ha, if we can't determine life on other planets how do you expect us to really answer these questions without doubt? You can't, it's just not possible... yet.

Maybe when we become a type two or three civilization we can come back here and discuss it again.

I'll just reiterate this very important point: Do you believe that something created the universe? If your answer is yes, does that something exist?

What I personally believe has no bearing on this argument.

Personally I don't believe in a supreme supernatural being sorry religious ppl

this.

Well god is me so I believe in it

k tbh now, I believe in scientific Facts and not really god... sry for religious people

that.

And this is why I think this topic should just be archived.

 

[SatanInside]

People think that something has to be created in order to exist, but thinking differently, this might not be true, something could've existed and there's no need to put the creation part in it. I think our society is to blame for the thinking that something needs to be created in order to exist and that thinking mostly leads people to believe in that there might be some sort of higher power behind everything. It is easier to believe in that stuff as well as it gives some kind of a shelter for your mind to hide in.

To be honest, to me this resembles of a slave way of thinking about things. I'd personally be against anyone believing in any higher being as it just puts us into a place where us as human beings should be under some control of someone, as if we were slaves, but nonetheless that could only changed over centuries with the pace we're evolving now.

 

[malakadang]

Except it isn't simple.

It IS that simple. We know that existence exists, and we can identify that things exist in the pool of existence. If we posit that a thing created existence, then a precondition for it to be a thing is that it had to exist, and thus existence had already existed. So, why isn't that simple?

Ha, if we can't determine life on other planets how do you expect us to really answer these questions without doubt? You can't, it's just not possible... yet.

Straw man. We're not talking about life on other planets, we're talking about existence and existents. Existents are dependent on existence, so it's very easy to draw the conclusion.

Maybe when we become a type two or three civilization we can come back here and discuss it again.

Just a dodge.

What I personally believe has no bearing on this argument.

That's not even a subtle way to evade the question.

 

[mage3158]

Straw man. We're not talking about life on other planets, we're talking about existence and existents. Existents are dependent on existence, so it's very easy to draw the conclusion.

You can attempt to draw a logical conclusion on something we have no knowledge on, we can assume that what you put forth is correct and it could very well be correct.

However please try to understand where -I'm- coming from in saying that I don't want to make any real stance yet in determining anything. This is really beyond our scope, and I think it's far more complex than you just coming to some quick conclusion.

We could be wrong, we can easily have wrong assumptions.

Just a dodge.

Not a dodge, you're just not really trying to understand what I'm saying to you.

That's not even a subtle way to evade the question.

Because I'm not trying to be subtle. What the fuck does my personal views have to do with anything here?

People think that something has to be created in order to exist, but thinking differently, this might not be true, something could've existed and there's no need to put the creation part in it. I think our society is to blame for the thinking that something needs to be created in order to exist and that thinking mostly leads people to believe in that there might be some sort of higher power behind everything. It is easier to believe in that stuff as well as it gives some kind of a shelter for your mind to hide in.

For some reason, I think something always existing seems just as much of a "shelter" as you put it.

 

[malakadang]

You can attempt to draw a logical conclusion on something we have no knowledge on, we can assume that what you put forth is correct and it could very well be correct.

What knowledge do we need to know. Please explain to me how something can have created existence without first existing to do the creating? It's a contradiction. The stance that something created existence IS a contradiction. That is how we know

However please try to understand where -I'm- coming from in saying that I don't want to make any real stance yet in determining anything. This is really beyond our scope, and I think it's far more complex than you just coming to some quick conclusion.

It's not a quick conclusion, it's a logical conclusion. Your basically denying my knowledge based on incredulity.

We could be wrong, we can easily have wrong assumptions.

What assumptions have I made?

Not a dodge, you're just not really trying to understand what I'm saying to you.

You're not accepting my argument not because it's premises are wrong, nor it being invalid. You're not accepting it because you can't accept it's simplicity and how such a conclusion can be reached based on our supposed lack of knowledge. The thing is, you don't seem to realize my argument is a priori by nature. We don't need evidence of anything really, other than the simple observation that things exist.

Because I'm not trying to be subtle. What the fuck does my personal views have to do with anything here?

I want you to make your views clear so I can demonstrate how they are inconsistent.

If things exists, then existence exists.
Things exists, therefore existence exists.

OR

Existence does not exist, therefore things do not exist.

Can you NOT see the contradiction now when you assert that something created existence? The creation of anything implies its non-existence prior to the instance of its creation. So in order to create existence, that which includes all existents, the implication is that things do not exists; nothing exists, for existence is a precondition for existents.

So, when you make the claim something created x. You already presuppose that existence exists. When you claim that something created existence, you imply that existence does not exist, for things that are created are non-existent prior to their creation. Surely you can see the contradiction. In the first instance you say existence exists, and in the second instance you say existence doesn't exist. You are contradicting yourself. This violates the law of non-contradiction. No empirical evidence is required. It doesn't take a type 4 civilization even to work this out. This is very simple, and very basic logic.

You really have to deny this premise in order to refute this argument: If things exists, then existence exists.

Do you deny it?

 

[mage3158]

What knowledge do we need to know. Please explain to me how something can have created existence without first existing to do the creating? It's a contradiction. The stance that something created existence IS a contradiction. That is how we know

Listen, you can assert this all you want, but unless we can recreate the conditions of the beginning (or lack thereof) of existence this is STILL speculation no matter how basic the answer might seem.

I have even said plain as day that you may be correct, I am just saying that without the ability to test everything it is always going to be an uncertainty.

It's not a quick conclusion, it's a logical conclusion. Your basically denying my knowledge based on incredulity.

I am not denying anything, I am also not proposing anything as fact either, which is where I'd hoped you'd get what I'm talking about.

You're not accepting my argument not because it's premises are wrong, nor it being invalid. You're not accepting it because you can't accept it's simplicity and how such a conclusion can be reached based on our supposed lack of knowledge.

Your logic does not recreate the beginning of existence, your logic does not give evidence or proof. It is logic based on current knowledge of our universe.

I want you to make your views clear so I can demonstrate how they are inconsistent.

To please you:
I do not believe in or subscribe to any given theory involving the creation or lack thereof of the universe.

 

[malakadang]

Listen, you can assert this all you want, but unless we can recreate the conditions of the beginning (or lack thereof) of existence this is STILL speculation no matter how basic the answer might seem.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate the conditions, in order to do so, you would have to return to a state of non-existence and then observe the 'creation' of existence. Again, that is a contradiction for obvious reasons, and you can't exactly scale down this experiment. Regardless, my argument is entirely a priori.

You might as well go up to a mathmetician and say, hang on, let me get the apples out so we can know whether 5+10 really equals 15. Or maybe with the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried, you should gather evidence for the claim before accepting it.

I have even said plain as day that you may be correct, I am just saying that without the ability to test everything it is always going to be an uncertainty.

Have you tested whether 499+501 equals 1,000? If not, why are you so certain?

I am not denying anything, I am also not proposing anything as fact either, which is where I'd hoped you'd get what I'm talking about.

You either accept or do not accept my argument. By abstaining judgement you are not accepting my argument. You may not be denying it, but you are not accepting it, and I find the reasons for your non-acceptance stem from not truly understanding where I'm coming from.

Your logic does not recreate the beginning of existence, your logic does not give evidence or proof. It is logic based on current knowledge of our universe.

How can my logic recreate the beginning of existence if the very position I am advancing is that the universe had no beginning (Was not created)? It's like a Christian telling an atheist your logic does not include God.

To please you:
I do not believe in or subscribe to any given theory involving the creation or lack thereof of the universe.

Well, you should really begin to think about it then =,=

 

[Elena]

Yes I believe in god partially because of how my Aunt and Uncle raised me I think. Also, I feel like if people had something to believe in maybe the world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is.

 

[Anet390]

This thread is getting extremely repetative. I am currently going through all of the pages and collecting the MAIN, KEY, and GOOD arguments. I will compile them into one big post for all to enjoy. This way, nobody repeats themselves and everybody can be involved.

 

[Snoopchicken]

What knowledge do we need to know. Please explain to me how something can have created existence without first existing to do the creating? It's a contradiction. The stance that something created existence IS a contradiction. That is how we know

It's a tricky way to deal with the definition of "universe" - the totality of all existence. I don't believe many of us think of this definition when the term "universe" comes up - rather, we think more of the scientific definition.

To say something created existence is indeed a contradiction because existence is a property which encompasses all (existing) things. However, it is pointless to speak of properties.

When people speak of God creating the universe, I really doubt they mean that He is creating "existence" in itself - they probably mean that he created other objects of existence within our universe (the scientific definition of it). For the topic of "what created the property of existence", nothing did - much like most properties, this isn't something you create. Rather, it's a given if you exist. Much like how when there's no light in a room, the room is suddenly given the property of being "pitch black" - but nothing really created "pitch black" now, as "pitch black" is essentially nothing (it contains no objects of existence, such as light), so indeed, nothing can create it. We can only destroy light until we reach the "pitch black" state, but we cannot actually create it (careful with the definition of "create").

Like, for this quote:

If things exists, then existence exists.
Things exists, therefore existence exists.

Under my viewpoint of the term/property "existence", this is a tautology.

Too long, didn't read: I would never argue that properties (such as existence, or "pitch black") are something which can be created. They're just something associated with, what we'll call, a "measurable phenomenon" (there's probably a better way to describe it, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying) - in fact, they may just be abstract notions of the human mind.

P.S.

This kind of reminds me of the argument that "nothing cannot create something". You know, this statement sounds so logical - how can nothing create something if it's not something in the first place? But we need to backtrack to the beginning now. There are 2 possibilities - either all things were "just there", or there was nothing, and then something just magically popped out. For both cases, a God can be included in the definition - but it may not be preferable (Occam's razor).

To mage3158:

I'm not understanding your argument as a whole. You really don't seem to be taking any stance whatsoever, and are just saying "we shouldn't debate this because we cannot know the answer". But isn't this why we're debating in the first place - because we cannot know the answer? If we could indeed know (at this point in time), there'd be no debate - only ignorant people arguing against a fact for the sake of arguing.

 

[malakadang]

It's a tricky way to deal with the definition of "universe" - the totality of all existence. I don't believe many of us think of this definition when the term "universe" comes up - rather, we think more of the scientific definition.

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence"; the first sentence of wikipedia. I mean, what is the scientific definition of the universe? If we asked what created 99% of existence (not the totality), the question would be virtually meaningless in my opinion; the answer would most likely be the other 1%!

To say something created existence is indeed a contradiction because existence is a property which encompasses all (existing) things. However, it is pointless to speak of properties.

Well, I'm not sure we can really classify existence as a property insofar than an entity can either possess it, or lack it. I prefer to think of existence as the things that exist, and the universe being the totality of all these things.

When people speak of God creating the universe, I really doubt they mean that He is creating "existence" in itself - they probably mean that he created other objects of existence within our universe (the scientific definition of it).

I agree, they'd take it to mean he created that which exists, which is what existence means; not when we define it as a property though, there's two meanings the word existence can take.

For the topic of "what created the property of existence", nothing did - much like most properties, this isn't something you create. Rather, it's a given if you exist. Much like how when there's no light in a room, the room is suddenly given the property of being "pitch black" - but nothing really created "pitch black" now, as "pitch black" is essentially nothing (it contains no objects of existence, such as light), so indeed, nothing can create it. We can only destroy light until we reach the "pitch black" state, but we cannot actually create it (careful with the definition of "create").

Right, but I didn't intend existence to be defined as a property, but rather the things that exist, and the totality of them at that.

Like, for this quote:



Under my viewpoint of the term/property "existence", this is a tautology.

Like I said, I didn't intend for it to be considered a property.

Too long, didn't read: I would never argue that properties (such as existence, or "pitch black") are something which can be created. They're just something associated with, what we'll call, a "measurable phenomenon" (there's probably a better way to describe it, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying) - in fact, they may just be abstract notions of the human mind.

Perhaps, but I'm not referring to existence as a property here.

P.S.

This kind of reminds me of the argument that "nothing cannot create something". You know, this statement sounds so logical - how can nothing create something if it's not something in the first place? But we need to backtrack to the beginning now. There are 2 possibilities - either all things were "just there", or there was nothing, and then something just magically popped out. For both cases, a God can be included in the definition - but it may not be preferable (Occam's razor).

Like I said, a thing cannot create existence (not existence the property!). Imagine a thing is a unit. Imagine the totality of existence is 1 million units. The totality of existence can also be regarded as 500,000 units as well, and 100,000, and even 1, it is merely the total sum of all of the things that exist. So, with that definition in mind, if a thing exists, then the totality of existence exists, and the universe under that definition exists. And so thus in order to not have the totality of all existence, you must have no things, and thus no existence, aka non-existence.

So, a thing creating the totality of all existence is illogical because by virtue of existing as a thing, the totality has already existed. Going one less, and you would have no thing, and I simply don't think non-existence can create existence (the totality).

Now this does leave us in a tricky scenario. Because to say something created the totality of existence is a contradiction, so we must disregard thus if we are to continue our subscription to logic. If we also say that non-existence cannot create existence, then it really only leaves us with one option. Existence was not created. All that exists, was not created, it simply existed. Funnily enough, this is consistent with the law of conservation of mass, energy, etc., it is also not legitimate to say that we cannot fathom that possibility being true therefore it is wrong (would be an argument from incredulity).

So, hopefully that clarifies my position.

 

[Snoopchicken]

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence"; the first sentence of wikipedia. I mean, what is the scientific definition of the universe? If we asked what created 99% of existence (not the totality), the question would be virtually meaningless in my opinion; the answer would most likely be the other 1%!

Sorry, I probably should've put the scientific definition. It's the first result on Google:

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Notice the term "creation". Apparently, Wikipedia discusses 3 different definitions of the universe (as reality, connected space-time, and observable reality), so it is indeed a tricky word to define!

Also, from Wikipedia:

"There are various multiverse hypotheses, in which physicists have suggested that the Universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist."

These physicists are postulating that there are multiple universes. Under your definition of universe, that's complete nonsense - multiple universes are just one universe! However, they're probably referring to the scientific definition.

Right, but I didn't intend existence to be defined as a property, but rather the things that exist, and the totality of them at that.

Like I said, I didn't intend for it to be considered a property.

Perhaps, but I'm not referring to existence as a property here.

Ah, to be honest it sounded like something I read from Ayn Rand once. Not so sure though, so don't hold me for it!

Like I said, a thing cannot create existence (not existence the property!). Imagine a thing is a unit. Imagine the totality of existence is 1 million units. The totality of existence can also be regarded as 500,000 units as well, and 100,000, and even 1, it is merely the total sum of all of the things that exist. So, with that definition in mind, if a thing exists, then the totality of existence exists, and the universe under that definition exists. And so thus in order to not have the totality of all existence, you must have no things, and thus no existence, aka non-existence.

So, a thing creating the totality of all existence is illogical because by virtue of existing as a thing, the totality has already existed. Going one less, and you would have no thing, and I simply don't think non-existence can create existence (the totality).

Okay, let's delve deeper into totality of existence. Let's assume we have 100 Joules of energy - this is the totality of existence. This cannot change, correct? At the most basic unit, everything is energy. 50 Joules of this energy constitute a God. This God, with the other 50 Joules, creates planets, stars, humans, etc.

This is how, I believe, people are arguing for it when they say God "created" the universe. I don't believe "created" refers to bringing something out of nothing - rather, it's alluding to the every day term of creation, such as when I make an apple pie out of flour, eggs, sugar, and apples!

"Creation" refers to the whole - not the constituents. When I say I made an apple pie, I'm not arguing that I made the apples, the atoms in the flour, the sugar molecules, etc. But I indeed did create an apple pie - in fact, without my intervention, if you were to bring the flour, eggs, sugar, and apples, you would not have an apple pie.

This is how I believe people are arguing for (or at least, should be arguing for) God creating all that "exists". "Existence" does not refer to the constituents, which are, in the end, energy, but the whole object instead - planets, stars, humans, etc. This is why I prefer to use the term "designed". Without a God, people would argue that these objects would not exist anymore. Sure, their constituents would exist, but constituents do not equal the whole (emergent property).

Interestingly, from a pantheistic point of view, some people would actually argue God is everywhere - we're a part of God, and God is the totality of existence (100 Joules of energy, in the example above). I think even Hegel would believe this to be true - but he was "crazy", right?! Some people do indeed claim that God is all of the energy in the universe.

However, to say God created the totality of existence is basically like saying God created Himself - something which indeed is illogical. But I don't think people would argue for that. They'd argue that God was just always there, and created (I'd prefer to say designed, since the materials are already there) other objects of existence, expanding upon the essence of the totality of existence.

Now this does leave us in a tricky scenario. Because to say something created the totality of existence is a contradiction, so we must disregard thus if we are to continue our subscription to logic. If we also say that non-existence cannot create existence, then it really only leaves us with one option. Existence was not created. All that exists, was not created, it simply existed. Funnily enough, this is consistent with the law of conservation of mass, energy, etc., it is also not legitimate to say that we cannot fathom that possibility being true therefore it is wrong (would be an argument from incredulity).

I agree - something always existed. But again, this is irrelevant to actually disproving God (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) - as one can give the simple example I gave above with the 100 Joules of energy, where a God could be compatible. You can doubt it with Occam's razor (which is actually subjective, if we're dealing with the quality of the claim), but I'm sure you'd agree that Occam's razor doesn't say anything towards the truth of a statement - perhaps just the probability.

 

[malakadang]

Sorry, I probably should've put the scientific definition. It's the first result on Google:

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Notice the term "creation". Apparently, Wikipedia discusses 3 different definitions of the universe (as reality, connected space-time, and observable reality), so it is indeed a tricky word to define!

Also, from Wikipedia:

"There are various multiverse hypotheses, in which physicists have suggested that the Universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist."

These physicists are postulating that there are multiple universes. Under your definition of universe, that's complete nonsense - multiple universes are just one universe! However, they're probably referring to the scientific definition.

Well, the traditional conception of the universe, even when defining it as all matter... is that it is still the totality of all existence. As for the multiverse, those physicists are wasting our money!

Ah, to be honest it sounded like something I read from Ayn Rand once. Not so sure though, so don't hold me for it!

Maybe, lol.

Okay, let's delve deeper into totality of existence. Let's assume we have 100 Joules of energy - this is the totality of existence. This cannot change, correct? At the most basic unit, everything is energy. 50 Joules of this energy constitute a God. This God, with the other 50 Joules, creates planets, stars, humans, etc.

This is how, I believe, people are arguing for it when they say God "created" the universe. I don't believe "created" refers to bringing something out of nothing - rather, it's alluding to the every day term of creation, such as when I make an apple pie out of flour, eggs, sugar, and apples!

"Creation" refers to the whole - not the constituents. When I say I made an apple pie, I'm not arguing that I made the apples, the atoms in the flour, the sugar molecules, etc. But I indeed did create an apple pie - in fact, without my intervention, if you were to bring the flour, eggs, sugar, and apples, you would not have an apple pie.

This is how I believe people are arguing for (or at least, should be arguing for) God creating all that "exists". "Existence" does not refer to the constituents, which are, in the end, energy, but the whole object instead - planets, stars, humans, etc. This is why I prefer to use the term "designed". Without a God, people would argue that these objects would not exist anymore. Sure, their constituents would exist, but constituents do not equal the whole (emergent property).

I see where you're coming from, however I don't think many people take the position that God simply existed alongside other existents and then altered them in accordance with his will. I genuinely believe most people actually believe God created the universe to the extent that it just magically appeared! I am arguing that as a contradiction. If you want to take the other position that God and the rest of the things in the universe existed and God simply designed the universe as we know it, then I can't deny it's logical possibility.

Interestingly, from a pantheistic point of view, some people would actually argue God is everywhere - we're a part of God, and God is the totality of existence (100 Joules of energy, in the example above). I think even Hegel would believe this to be true - but he was "crazy", right?! Some people do indeed claim that God is all of the energy in the universe.

Again, this could be possible, but if God is energy, or all of it, then energy is God, and since there's nothing divine-like about energy, there's nothing divine-like about God.

However, to say God created the totality of existence is basically like saying God created Himself - something which indeed is illogical. But I don't think people would argue for that. They'd argue that God was just always there, and created (I'd prefer to say designed, since the materials are already there) other objects of existence, expanding upon the essence of the totality of existence.

I agree - something always existed. But again, this is irrelevant to actually disproving God (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) - as one can give the simple example I gave above with the 100 Joules of energy, where a God could be compatible. You can doubt it with Occam's razor (which is actually subjective, if we're dealing with the quality of the claim), but I'm sure you'd agree that Occam's razor doesn't say anything towards the truth of a statement - perhaps just the probability.

I agree that this is all logically possible; though I honestly don't think most people think this is what happened (when they say God created the universe that is).

Expanding on this supposed situation, this would mean that existence was itself a given, the things that existed were simply given, the laws governing the universe were already there, the processes governing the universe were already there. God's powers would have been restrictive in this sense. Instead of being both the creator of the game, and a character in the game, God is now only a character of the game, a character that directs the games path, but ultimately dependent on the games mechanics. This is not the traditional view of God. You know I mean we don't know much about the universe, and so maybe designing the universe the way you said it could have happen could be a logical possibility. But to seriously entertain it would be an absurdity, for a proposition, an idea to be investigated based solely on its logical possibility would end in no advancement in human civilization, ever!

This is where evidence comes in, and o dear, no evidence, sorry theists!

 

[Snoopchicken]

I see where you're coming from, however I don't think many people take the position that God simply existed alongside other existents and then altered them in accordance with his will. I genuinely believe most people actually believe God created the universe to the extent that it just magically appeared! I am arguing that as a contradiction. If you want to take the other position that God and the rest of the things in the universe existed and God simply designed the universe as we know it, then I can't deny it's logical possibility.

In replying to the underlined statement, if people really believe that, then I would have to agree that it's contradictory. Nothingness creating something is not logical. My stance would be that something had to "just exist".

Again, this could be possible, but if God is energy, or all of it, then energy is God, and since there's nothing divine-like about energy, there's nothing divine-like about God.

Aside from speaking of divine-like properties, this statement isn't true. If God is created out of energy, it does not mean He is bound to its properties.

Quick example - humans are atoms. Atoms are not intelligent. Does that mean that humans are not intelligent? Of course not (well, at least in most cases). This alludes to the emergent property - the sum is greater than the constituents.

Expanding on this supposed situation, this would mean that existence was itself a given, the things that existed were simply given, the laws governing the universe were already there, the processes governing the universe were already there. God's powers would have been restrictive in this sense. Instead of being both the creator of the game, and a character in the game, God is now only a character of the game, a character that directs the games path, but ultimately dependent on the games mechanics. This is not the traditional view of God.

Yup. But we really have no clue what's going on out there. A professor once told me that once you leave high school, you think you know everything. Once you leave college, you think you know only your major. And finally, once you do your PHD, you realize you know absolutely nothing.

There are so many possibilities that could really alter the way we think of things. Imagine if there were multiple dimensions, true quantum randomness, or even the silly multiverse theory that our money is being wasted on.

Multiple dimensions allow for things that cannot be seen by us in the third dimension to exist (you cannot see objects of higher dimensions, only equal or lower). Furthermore, things in such a dimension may have different "constraints" (or none at all) than those experienced by us in the third dimension. I'm not saying science is sure that more than three dimensions exist - but hey, I think string theory requires for there to be like ten dimensions to remain viable!

True quantum randomness seems to suggest that at the most basic level, there are NO laws governing the universe.

Finally, multiverse is just a bunch of hoopla! Well, if it's true, then different "universes" with different laws could exist. All in all, there are so many scientific theories out there which can really expand the possibilities.

But to seriously entertain it would be an absurdity, for a proposition, an idea to be investigated based solely on its logical possibility would end in no advancement in human civilization, ever!

Yeah.

This is where evidence comes in, and o dear, no evidence, sorry theists!

Haha, well I've learned that evidence is somewhat subjective. Some may take it that the complexity of the human anatomy is just evidence that it took a really long time for us to evolve, whilst others may say that it is evidence that we were designed. We're talking about the same piece of evidence - the human anatomy. We're just interpreting it differently. Nothing's conclusive, unfortunately.