Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

I wouldn't say it quite like that. I could modify what I said before a little with the following: The universe is all of space and contains everything temporal and material/energy. As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler wrote, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo".

How is what you said, different from what I said?

By temporal do you mean, relating to time, or relating to the worldly as opposed to the spiritual?

 

[Achilles6129]

No it's not. Because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND HOW IT HAPPENED. It's more reasonable to remain open to all the possible answers until more evidence comes along, instead of sticking with one thing you think is right, because if it's not right your God gets flung out the window. If this universe is all there is, and it came from absolute nothingness. Very interesting. If this universe is not the only one or there is more to it than just popping into existence from nothing. Very interesting as well.

It doesn't matter whether or not anyone knows for certain or not. We're talking about evidence and reasonable probabilities. I simply maintain that it is far more reasonable, based upon the teleological and cosmological arguments, to believe in the existence of a Creator as opposed to not. In short, I find your position unreasonable.

If I may break in, I don't think Achilles is saying that believing in God is more reasonable as in "practical" (although I think we could make that case also), but I think he means in this context that it is more reasonable to believe in God, because it is more "rational" (I agree with him).

Really either one.

 

[Achilles6129]

Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and the cosmos rotates around us.

At this point we're just going to have to disagree. We can't continue a conversation if you're going to make your responses only a few words long and also jettison out of hand various scholars that I quote.

 

[Achilles6129]

This does not appear to follow, for a number of reasons. First, isn't time also necessary to bring intelligence into being?

Certainly, yes, if the intelligence began to exist. Remember we're saying that God did not begin to exist.

Given that cognitive processes such as decision-making unfold over time, isn't time also necessary for intelligence to function?

If God is timeless, then it wouldn't be necessary to time to exist in order for his intelligence to function: he would know everything just as a quality of his existence. However, remember that I suggested that time ran differently for God than it does for us. So God could exist is some sort of radically different time that doesn't run on a straight line: this would allow him to function temporally yet exist eternally.

Second, what leads you conclude that time is necessary for matter to exist? If intelligence can exist atemporally, then why can't matter?

What I'm referring to is matter inside of this universe. Time, as we understand it, would be necessary in order to bring any matter into being.

Third, if the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time then one could argue that matter has always existed, in the sense that there was no time in which matter did not exist.

It could be simply restated: matter has existed since the beginning of time.

 

[Davian]

At this point we're just going to have to disagree. We can't continue a conversation if you're going to make your responses only a few words long

Show me where I was not using complete sentences.

I was about to say that we cannot continue to discuss astrophysics if you are not going to familiarize yourself with the concepts. You don't have to accept them but you could at least stop burning straw-man versions of them.

and also jettison out of hand various scholars that I quote.

Where did I do that?

 

[Davian]

...
I don't have time to deal with minutiae over and over again when the answer is simple common sense.

Here is a simple common sense test: can a sailing vessel sail directly downwind faster than the wind that it is in?

(no googling now! common sense is not googled)

Yes or no? Explain.

 

[Joshua260]

How is what you said, different from what I said?

Well, this is what you said:
"The universe is all of space-time and matter/energy"
...and even though I sometimes use the phrase "space-time" myself, since we're defining what we think the universe is, I didn't think it would be proper to use that term here because I don't think "space-time" is an actual thing. Usually what we do is graph out 3d space through another dimension representing time, but that doesn't mean that there actually is such a thing as "space-time". That would be like graphing out the increasing pressure in a closed system as we increase the temperature, but just because we can graph out that relationship, that doesn't mean that there really is such a thing called "temperature-pressure".

Therefore, I prefer the following:
"The universe is all of space and contains everything temporal and material/energy."

By temporal do you mean, relating to time, or relating to the worldly as opposed to the spiritual?

I mean temporal in that the thing we're referring to has only existed in time since time began.

But please go on with what you were trying to prove in your paper.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I don't think "space-time" is an actual thing.

I hope you're joking. I seriously, seriously do.

I mean temporal in that the thing we're referring to has only existed in time since time began.

There are two definitions for the word "temporal" which one is it?

We can't move along with anything until we can come up with some type of agreement on what the universe is. Which unfortunately I don't think is going to happen.

Question. Do we live in the universe or are we part of the universe?

 

[nonbeliever314]

It doesn't matter whether or not anyone knows for certain or not. We're talking about evidence and reasonable probabilities. I simply maintain that it is far more reasonable, based upon the teleological and cosmological arguments, to believe in the existence of a Creator as opposed to not. In short, I find your position unreasonable.

I'll ask you this question as well.. Do we live in the universe, or are we part of the universe?

 

[nonbeliever314]

This cosmological argument is making me depressed. Literally.

 

[TillICollapse]

This cosmological argument is making me depressed. Literally.

Dude, don't let it depress you.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

 

[bhsmte]

Dude, don't let it depress you.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

That sums it up well.

 

[Davian]

This cosmological argument is making me depressed. Literally.

I used to be discouraged, but now I am just amused.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Certainly, yes, if the intelligence began to exist. Remember we're saying that God did not begin to exist.

In other words, special pleading.

If God is timeless, then it wouldn't be necessary to time to exist in order for his intelligence to function: he would know everything just as a quality of his existence. However, remember that I suggested that time ran differently for God than it does for us. So God could exist is some sort of radically different time that doesn't run on a straight line: this would allow him to function temporally yet exist eternally.

What reason do you have to believe that this is the case?

What I'm referring to is matter inside of this universe. Time, as we understand it, would be necessary in order to bring any matter into being.

You didn't answer my question: what leads you conclude that time is necessary for matter to exist? If intelligence can exist atemporally, then why can't matter?

It could be simply restated: matter has existed since the beginning of time.

Or matter has always existed; there was no time in which it did not exist.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'd also like to ask the "for god" side, what are your opinions and or thoughts about quantum mechanics? Wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, etc... I'm just curious, some other threads on this site that I've been on, people were saying quantum mechanics isn't real, and "...transistors don't depend on quantum mechanics to work".

 

[HitchSlap]

I used to be discouraged, but now I am just amused.

Yep, popcorn is the only option at this point.

 

[Achilles6129]

At this point I've explained what I'm saying several times now. Unless someone has something new to add (and judging from the responses, they don't) we're just going to keep going around in circles. So there really is no point to continuing the conversation further.

Anyways, here are a couple of interesting links to the teleological argument:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-teleological-argument-and-the-anthropic-principle

The teleological argument, I think, is ultimately a better argument for the existence of God than the cosmological argument, but it does take more time to develop and one can't be very intellectually lazy. The cosmological argument is much simpler and easier to present. It's also strong; but not as strong, it my judgment, as the teleological argument.

 

[Joshua260]

I hope you're joking. I seriously, seriously do.

Not at all. Spacetime is just a convenient way of thinking about time and space where you can plot a thing's existence through space over time. Just because there is a relationship depicted on a chart, it doesn't prove that they (space and time) are two forms of the same thing. Space is the framework of our universe and time is simply a sequence of events one occurring after the other. Time and space are distinct.

There are two definitions for the word "temporal" which one is it?

That all depends on which dictionary you use.
Merriam-Webster includes this one:
"of or relating to time as opposed to eternity"

...and then using same dictionary eternity means:
"time without an end".

Therefore, my response "I mean temporal in that the thing we're referring to has only existed in time since time began." is valid.

We can't move along with anything until we can come up with some type of agreement on what the universe is. Which unfortunately I don't think is going to happen.

Well, I don't know where you're going with this line of thought, so I can't help you. I thought we made a lot of progress earlier when talking about the KCA. You agreed that the cause was uncaused, omniscient, omnipotent, a free-causal agent, eternal, and immaterial. All of that narrowed down the list of possible causes quite a bit, but then you decided not to continue with that discussion.

Question. Do we live in the universe or are we part of the universe?

I don't know where you're going with this either but I guess I could say that our material bodies are part of this universe.

 

[Joshua260]

This cosmological argument is making me depressed. Literally.

Yes, I can understand when logic doesn't support one's preconceived notions about reality. I noticed a similar reaction in some people who still defiantly believe that OJ was innocent.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Not at all. Spacetime is just a convenient way of thinking about time and space where you can plot a thing's existence through space over time. Just because there is a relationship depicted on a chart, it doesn't prove that they (space and time) are two forms of the same thing. Space is the framework of our universe and time is simply a sequence of events one occurring after the other. Time and space are distinct.

Experimentally Proven: Time "ticks" slower the stronger the gravitational field is. (Especially important in relation to time's direct relationship to space)
Experimentally Proven: Space-time is "dragged" in the presence of a massive rotating object. Frame dragging.

I could go on....

Well, I don't know where you're going with this line of thought, so I can't help you. I thought we made a lot of progress earlier when talking about the KCA. You agreed that the cause was uncaused, omniscient, omnipotent, a free-causal agent, eternal, and immaterial. All of that narrowed down the list of possible causes quite a bit, but then you decided not to continue with that discussion.

That was the dragon talking.

I don't know where you're going with this either but I guess I could say that our material bodies are part of this universe.

What part is not material?