Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

Mathematics can be used to describe essentially everything.

That's the point I was making. Math can be used to describe just about anything, whether it's real or not...just like actual infinities that don't actually exist. You have to get your philosophy nailed down first in order to make sense of the math.

 

[Joshua260]

The dragon is not omniscient, it doesn't make sense for him to know his own future.
The dragon is eternal, not timeless, he doesn't like to be in a static state.
The dragon didn't have a cause since he's eternal.
The dragon is omnipotent.
The dragon is a slave to his own freedom.

Just a reminder...we're not really talking about an actual dragon, but about an immaterial being who can manifest itself into a dragon.

I disagree with some of your logic, but I concur with some of your conclusions, so I'll concentrate on where we differ. So far, we agree that the cause is:

1. immaterial
2. omnipotent
3. a free-causal agent
4. uncaused

But I take issue with your assertions that this non-dragon being is:

a. Not timeless
b. Not omniscient

response to a. You said that he would be eternal (which means "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning"), but that he would not be timeless. That doesn't make sense if he had no beginning but time did (as logic and scientific evidences seems to suggest). If he had no beginning, but time did, then there must be a state of affairs in which he exists but time doesn't, ergo he would be timeless.

response to b. I don't agree with your objection that he would not be omniscient because he would not know his own future. If he is omnipotent, he could certainly make everything happen just as he desired and thus determine (and thus know) his own future. In effect, "So let it be written, so let it be done." But some might say, as in the case of the Christian god, suppose he had given some of his creation the gift of free will? How would he then know his own future since he doesn't control how his creatures would act, and then how he would counter-react? The answer is that if he created these beings, he would certainly know how they would react when faced with certain choices. So, this omniscient being wouldn't necessarily have to see the future, as if time was laid out along a ruler and he could skip down to the end of the ruler and see the end as if it already exists but hasn't come to pass yet. Instead, he could simply know how his own self would react given certain situations, and also how his creatures would react in certain situations. Therefore, he could in effect know what will happen in the future (even his own future). BTW (off-topic), in regards to Christianity, this is commonly known as Molinism.

 

[Joshua260]

You rule out everything besides an Abrahamic god.

Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.

 

[nonbeliever314]

That's the point I was making. Math can be used to describe just about anything, whether it's real or not...just like actual infinities that don't actually exist.

Who says?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.

You already told me the cause of the universe is an Abrahamic God, or possibly a "mean one".

 

[nonbeliever314]

Joshua, please respond.

You claim you have taken classes in quantum mechanics and general relativity, so using math and physics to help your argument shouldn't be a problem. You always cite cosmology papers, so I don't see why you'd rather just stick to philosophy. I take it your "side" doesn't get the fair defense if math comes into play?

 

[Davian]

...
I disagree with some of your logic, but I concur with some of your conclusions, so I'll concentrate on where we differ. So far, we agree that the cause is:

1. immaterial
2. omnipotent
<snip>

Why does it need to be omnipotent?

 

[nonbeliever314]

But some might say, as in the case of the Christian god, suppose he had given some of his creation the gift of free will? How would he then know his own future since he doesn't control how his creatures would act, and then how he would counter-react?

HE'S OMNISCIENT! Omniscient = having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

 

[Achilles6129]

That doesn't explain why you think the universe was created from nothing. The universe need not have come to be from nothing. So the question is still relevant: how do you know?

Explain to me what materially can exist without time, apart from nothing.

 

[Achilles6129]

How do you know this? Do you just make this up as you go along? Am I to accept these assertions at face value?

If God is powerful enough to create the universe then obviously he's powerful enough to be able to manifest himself materially.

"A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[4][5] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with inflation theory before parroting that again.

Not my "Divine Flame", but if we look to modern cosmology, it would seem that very little "power" would be needed to create the cosmos.

First of all, as I've said previously on these forums, Wikipedia is not a very good source. Second, it doesn't matter if the universe ultimately balances itself out and thus has "zero energy," the power required to create the universe and the laws that govern it would be immense: imagine the power needed to create a star like our sun. Imagine the power in a hurricane or tornado. Obviously the Creator has to form these things and thus must have power over them.

 

[Achilles6129]

An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenvolent thinking being with plans and goals and emotions, and who exists in three distinct persons, is by definition much more complex than a physical law or force without any of that extra baggage. You can't rationally argue against that.

Not in the slightest. Let me repeat my analogy from earlier: which is simpler, saying that a tree made a car or an intelligent designer made a car? Obviously the latter. Why? Because a tree can't think, design, etc. Same applies to the universe.

Who's saying the non deity-related creation of the universe was a "random accident"? That tends to be something that only Christians say. That statement seems to be in the same vein as "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

OK, so then why did this "thing" create the universe? How did it come into being?

Right, a completely unfounded assumption. If someone replies to you and says the universe doesn't seem like a designed machine at all, and asked you to prove it, what would you say?

I would show them the laws of the universe and the predictability of certain parts of the universe. For example, we can calculate what the stars looked like in the night sky thousands of years ago because we understand astronomy. There's an exactitude here that strongly resembles the workings of a machine.

 

[Joshua260]

You already told me the cause of the universe is an Abrahamic God, or possibly a "mean one".

Well yes, that's the list I narrowed down to earlier, but I'm going through this little exercise to see if you can figure out any characteristic traits different from what I have already. So far, we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused,omniscient, free causal agent. So together, we've already narrowed down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua, please respond.

You claim you have taken classes in quantum mechanics and general relativity, so using math and physics to help your argument shouldn't be a problem. You always cite cosmology papers, so I don't see why you'd rather just stick to philosophy. I take it your "side" doesn't get the fair defense if math comes into play?

Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.

I'm not talking about infinities at this point. I'm asking why you don't show me mathematically where you're argument is going. If you know QM and GR, you know a ton of math and high level physics. You can make a much stronger case that way.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Well yes, that's the list I narrowed down to earlier, but I'm going through this little exercise to see if you can figure out any characteristic traits different from what I have already. So far, we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused,omniscient, free causal agent. So together, we've already narrowed down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.

The dragon is a joke. I'm not taking it seriously. We can drop the dragon thing. I think if the universe had a beginning there's more to it naturally speaking than what anyone knows so far. So this "timeless", "uncaused" stuff doesn't sit well with me. I don't think before the universe there was absolute nothingness.

Look at this #966

 

[nonbeliever314]

Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.

I'm just gonna say it. I'm calling out your bluff. I'm convinced you don't know QM and/or GR. Every time I bring it up, you don't give me a direct answer.

 

[Davian]

If God is powerful enough to create the universe then obviously he's powerful enough to be able to manifest himself materially.

So this hypothetical god is both material and not material. Timeless, and subject to time (can't make decisions or walk-n-talk in the Garden of Eden if you are stuck like a bug in amber). Powerful enough to create universes, but undetectable by any modern means to date.

Are you here to help Joshua260 or to make his claims even more incoherent?

First of all, as I've said previously on these forums, Wikipedia is not a very good source.

Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. If you can falsify the scientific citations linked to in those pages I referenced, feel free to do so. Have you even read them?

Second, it doesn't matter if the universe ultimately balances itself out and thus has "zero energy,"

Zero net energy. Note the difference.

the power required to create the universe and the laws that govern it would be immense:

Speculation. It could be tiny.

imagine the power needed to create a star like our sun.

If the universe is a closed system, as it is observed to be, then the energy of the Sun is balanced by gravity.

Imagine the power in a hurricane or tornado.

The energy of our weather systems comes from the light from the Sun hitting our atmosphere. Is this news?

Obviously the Creator has to form these things and thus must have power over them.

Obviously you are just making this up as you go along. You don't even know when you are - repeatedly - contradicting yourself.

 

[Davian]

Not in the slightest. Let me repeat my analogy from earlier: which is simpler, saying that a tree made a car or an intelligent designer made a car? Obviously the latter. Why? Because a tree can't think, design, etc. Same applies to the universe.

By what testable criteria do you determine this?

OK, so then why did this "thing" create the universe? How did it come into being?

"Why?" may not be a valid question.

I would show them the laws of the universe and the predictability of certain parts of the universe.

Laws that are at the whim of this hypothetical deity of yours?

For example, we can calculate what the stars looked like in the night sky thousands of years ago because we understand astronomy.

Thousands? Not millions? Billions? Do you accept the standard model of cosmology?

There's an exactitude here that strongly resembles the workings of a machine.

What would it look like if it were the product of natural forces?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.

What are you extrapolating from?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Explain to me what materially can exist without time, apart from nothing.

Explain to me how an immaterial, disembodied mind can exist without time. If you can posit such an entity, then what's wrong the suggestion that the material could itself exist without time? You still haven't answered my question though: how do you know that the universe was preceded by nothing, which you defined as nothing material and no time. How does that even make sense, given that the term "precede" is temporal?