Prove God exists...sure, no problem.

[Asimov]

And anyway, there's more to see than just on these debate threads. Read more of the forums, have fun!

Try making sense next time.

 

[BrainHertz]

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

My first question is this...

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics...

Stop right there.

Your next possibilities are:

1) Therefore there is no god, because that would imply something outside the laws of physics or
2) Therefore there must be something outside of the laws of physics

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, put, and you're essentially correct. Still, we're arguing semantics here, which is a little nit-picky. Using that vocabulary, space is constantly being created from nothingness, due to the expanding universe. An interesting take on spontaneous generation.

Using that vocavulary, space isn't being 'created' from nothingness: the number of position vectors is increasing. Indeed, we say the universe is expanding because the number of position vectors is increasing.

The relativity of perception is an entirely different debate. Again, I concede you have a point. Mine, however, was simply that the relativity of time, and the "creation" of space in no way supports the existence of a God.

Agreed. It is classic 'God of the Gaps' mentality.

Christians talk about The Big Bang having an origin. So what's your God's origin? You dont know? So that makes your explanation better than ours...why?

Are you asking me, or are you being rhetorical?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Space isn't really created from nothingness. Space simply expands.

Agreed.

You are making it sound like just outside the boundaries of the universe exists nothingness.

Is that not the case?

Clearly, nothing is outside the boundaries of space, and clearly nothingness cannot exist.

Clearly? Your two statements here contradict each other quite spectacularily.

 

[FishFace]

You are wrong. The Big Bang didn't create space. The Big Bang didn't create a vacuum. The definition of "space" in astronomic terms is nothingness.

We're talking about space in physical terms, though, in which space, or rather, spacetime, is not just nothingness. We tend to call space with nothing in it nothingness, but in actual fact, you could remove the space as well and have even less.

I would also argue the point that time, or for that matter, the laws of physics, were created. Time is simply the word we give to our perception of it. A minute isn't 60 seconds because it just is, its 60 seconds because that's the way we choose to represent our perception of it.

But there is still something there which we perceive - just because the way we divide it up is purely contingent doesn't negate its existence.

If he could be proven, then we would all be forced to acknowledge his existence like we can't help but acknowledge gravity's existence. It'd be a foregone conclusion, thus undermining the basis of the faith-based following God wants. To prove God would be to A) somehow be smarter than him, since you got around the roadblocks he put in place to prevent that and B) shatter any concept of spiritual justice. If God is a matter of fact, and not belief, then there is no way to decide who goes to Heaven and Hell - because everyone believes in God.

You could still possibly prove the existence of God though. The Bible may be incorrect, or you may prove the existence of a different God.

 

[Ferran]

But there is still something there which we perceive - just because the way we divide it up is purely contingent doesn't negate its existence.

No, I think you're missing my point. Obviously, time exists in a very real and observable fashion. My point is that time is not a hard and fast, unexplainable aspect of the universe. For you to exist, you must exist at some point in time. Time is simply a facet of existence, and does not point to it's creation by a god.

You could still possibly prove the existence of God though. The Bible may be incorrect, or you may prove the existence of a different God.

Well, that's true, but I was operating under the assumption that the thread's author was trying to prove the existence of the Christian god, and therefore I used the constraints of the Bible to argue against the validity of his topic (from a Christian perspective).

Are you asking me, or are you being rhetorical?

I'm speaking sarcastically and rhetorically to the thread's author.

 

[FishFace]

No, I think you're missing my point. Obviously, time exists in a very real and observable fashion. My point is that time is not a hard and fast, unexplainable aspect of the universe. For you to exist, you must exist at some point in time. Time is simply a facet of existence, and does not point to it's creation by a god.

Time isn't really part of existence. It's conceivable that something could exist, and yet not exist in time or space.

 

[Asimov]

Time isn't really part of existence. It's conceivable that something could exist, and yet not exist in time or space.

Not really.

 

[Tenka]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, you made no real progress toward proving a kind of creator god exists at all.
Like has been said many times, it is not known how energy originated and inventing a magic personality bristlling with powers (particularly those so burdened with excess baggage as the gods humans worship) only serves to push the veil of ignorance a little further out of reach.

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

I don't understand the "and all we have to go by are the laws of physics" part of the question. The matter in our universe (or, our universe) came from the expansion and condensation of energy. According to current models.

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

I don't know if it came "from" anywhere, since there is no time or space to provide any lucid reference.

In response to my own questions, I have to say "I don't have the slightest idea" to each one. Now, I realize that I am not the most intelligent person on the planet, so if anyone has a simple, concise answer with scientific proof of bringing matter or energy from a vaccuum, then I would love to hear about it.

I also would like to know how you can have a vaccuum without the idea of "space", which is considered to be one of the things created in the "Big Bang Theory" along with matter and time.

The big bang didn't expand into a vacuum. There was simply no space dimensions at all, the expansion created the space matter needs to inhabit.
There was no space, no void or vacuum but there were other dimensions where space (and time) wasn't required for whatever stuff existed.
How that stuff came to be I have no idea.

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

Is there a way to explain it using any other means? An explanation is expected to be slightly more rigorous than ad hoc stories that allow for any possibility imaginable, i.e 'gods'.
Saying Goddidit is not an explanation, it doesn't help us to understand or make any reliable prediction or even allow a way to test the hypothesis.

However, that would have been my next line of questioning...how did the laws of physics become so fine-tuned to permit life?

"Life" is a physical, chemical process. If the conditions allow, chemical processes will occur and something fitting a loose definition of life will result and evolve.
If the conditions allow.
From all we have observed the conditions are not going out of their way to ensure life appears.

 

[FishFace]

Not really.

Of course it's conceivable. This God concept doesn't exist in time or space, so you've got a counterexample right there.
All we know is that everything we've ever observed has been located in time and in space - but that seems to be a limitation of our own senses. We're dealing in conceivability here, and there's nothing to say that something couldn't exist without having a location in spacetime.

 

[RealityCheck]

Time isn't really part of existence. It's conceivable that something could exist, and yet not exist in time or space.

Yes and no. As much as "time" and "space" are only conceivable within the constraint of our universe, "existence" is similarly bound. If something were to "exist" outside of time and space, then it doesn't really have any existence we can observe or that will impact us in any way. It's not existence as we would be able to know or understand it.

 

[Asimov]

Of course it's conceivable. This God concept doesn't exist in time or space, so you've got a counterexample right there.

I can conceive of a God who can make square circles, that doesn't mean it's valid. All things that act, act within a concept of time. All things that exist, act.

 

[tanzanos]

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

My first question is this...

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

Actually all matter boils down to pure energy.

Second question...

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Third question...

If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The repulsive force between same poles on two magnets is something that you can physically feel yet what is between the magnets can be seen as 'nothing' in the physical sense

In response to my own questions, I have to say "I don't have the slightest idea" to each one. Now, I realize that I am not the most intelligent person on the planet, so if anyone has a simple, concise answer with scientific proof of bringing matter or energy from a vaccuum, then I would love to hear about it.

I also would like to know how you can have a vaccuum without the idea of "space", which is considered to be one of the things created in the "Big Bang Theory" along with matter and time.

So, ultimately my question is this...

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

I say there's not...it's impossible for something to come from nothing. You can't have space just appear. And there's no such thing as physics creating time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the best place to state this question is: PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums (Powered by Invision Power Board)

 

[FishFace]

Yes and no. As much as "time" and "space" are only conceivable within the constraint of our universe, "existence" is similarly bound.

Really? Existence merely means a concept is instantiated. Is instantiation a concept that is bound to the universe? I don't think so. Look at Plato's World of the Forms - things that had real existence outside of the universe, and outside of space and time.

If something were to "exist" outside of time and space, then it doesn't really have any existence we can observe or that will impact us in any way.

Plato would disagree, that's for sure.

It's not existence as we would be able to know or understand it.

We might not be able to know it, but we can still understand it. Logical Positivism (or verificationism, which is what you seem to be espousing) is so passé!

 

[FishFace]

I can conceive of a God who can make square circles, that doesn't mean it's valid.

What do you mean? Validity is not a concept that is usually ascribed to concepts.

All things that act, act within a concept of time.

I'd accept that, albeit tentatively.

All things that exist, act.

Really? What makes you say that?

 

[RealityCheck]

Really? What makes you say that?

Existence itself is action. "To exist" is a verb.