A reasoned argument to suggest that God probably exists

[WonderBeat]

So distrust of intellectuals and suspicion of new information is now of the mind?

Yes. It should not be trusted AT ALL.

 

[Skavau]

Yes. It should not be trusted AT ALL.

So we should be suspicious of being suspicious of intellectuals and new information.

Is our suspicion of our suspicion towards anti-intellectualism also suspicious? Should we be suspicious of our suspicion towards our suspicion of anti-intellectualism?

 

[WonderBeat]

So we should be suspicious of being suspicious of intellectuals and new information.

Is our suspicion of our suspicion towards anti-intellectualism also suspicious? Should we be suspicious of our suspicion towards our suspicion of anti-intellectualism?

I see you are trapped in your own prison of the mind. Sad.

 

[Skavau]

I see you are trapped in your own prison of the mind. Sad.

How can one accurately determine truth without the mind? How can you be sure of anything if you either in part or wholly reject the notion that we can understand anything through observation and rational inquiry?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Never trust the mind. The mind can be your worst enemy. You have to pacify it somehow. Truth comes first, then the mind can step in as a maidservant to that glorious Truth.

But since your mind conceived of that idea, or at least posted on CF, by your logic we shouldn't trust it.

 

[WonderBeat]

But since your mind conceived of that idea, or at least posted on CF, by your logic we shouldn't trust it.

Signs can only point after all.

 

[distraff]

Or at the very least the universe isn't everything.

There aren't many good arguments around so I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally, something must have changed, otherwise all the matter and all the energy in the universe would still exist at one point in a dormant state, if at all. (And incidentally the universe can not be infinitely old either, if it were all the matter in the universe would be infinite distances apart and there be no life and no us, therefore it must have had a beginning).

So if we agree that the catalyst for the beginning of the universe must have happened externally, then we must agree that "stuff" must exist outside of our universe.

Now if we suppose even for a second that "stuff" exists outside of the laws of our universe, then just suppose how vast this "stuff" might be, how complex this "stuff" might be, remember this "stuff" will not be constrained under the same laws of the universe that we are, so the possibilities for what is out there really do become endless and the possibility of intelligence being out there suddenly doesn't seem so improbable, does it?

The "stuff" cannot be vast because it is outside space-time. It cannot be complex because that is an attribute of matter, and matter can only exist in space-time. Maybe whatever outside the universe that caused it to exist was some sort of force?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The "stuff" cannot be vast because it is outside space-time.

Why does the latter preclude the former?

It cannot be complex because that is an attribute of matter,

Why can only matter have complexity? What about anti-matter, or dark matter, so something altogether different?

and matter can only exist in space-time.

Why?

Maybe whatever outside the universe that caused it to exist was some sort of force?

Why can forces exist outside the spacetime continuum, but matter can't?

 

[distraff]

Why does the latter preclude the former?

Because size is directly related to space. There is no evidence space exists outside space-time, or that there is any space-time outside of universes.

Why can only matter have complexity? What about anti-matter, or dark matter, so something altogether different?

Anti-matter and dark matter are just forms of matter.

Why?

Hmm, that is a little bit of an assumption. Correction: There is no evidence matter can exist outside space-time.

Why can forces exist outside the spacetime continuum, but matter can't?

I am using the term "forces" loosely?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because size is directly related to space. There is no evidence space exists outside space-time, or that there is any space-time outside of universes.

...

Hmm, that is a little bit of an assumption. Correction: There is no evidence matter can exist outside space-time.

If there's no evidence either way, then we can't say either way. Yet, your counter-argument seems to rely on us knowing with scientific certainty that no space exists beyond our own, that no matter can possibly exist outside our own. If we don't have that certainty, then your counter-argument seems a little... flat.

Anti-matter and dark matter are just forms of matter.

Nonetheless, why can only matter be complex?

I am using the term "forces" loosely?

So, if you're not using it in the usual sense, what do you mean by it?

 

[WonderBeat]

If there's no evidence either way, then we can't say either way. Yet, your counter-argument seems to rely on us knowing with scientific certainty that no space exists beyond our own, that no matter can possibly exist outside our own. If we don't have that certainty, then your counter-argument seems a little... flat.

Matter by definition occupies extension and duration. These attributes are only found in space and time respectively. If you say there are exotic forms of space and time, that's one thing, but if you say matter can exist in no space and no time, than I don't see that as a fact.

Nonetheless, why can only matter be complex?

Good question.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Matter by definition occupies extension and duration. These attributes are only found in space and time respectively. If you say there are exotic forms of space and time, that's one thing, but if you say matter can exist in no space and no time, than I don't see that as a fact.

Maybe, but there's nothing to say our particular instance of spacetime is the only one. Someone living on a bubble or a balloon might not be able to detect others, but that doesn't mean others don't exist, other instances of the same thing.