Prove God exists...sure, no problem.

[Eledhan]

There was no time when the universe did not exist, as time is an inseparable part of the univere. Losing the universe, means losing time.

So, it doesn't make sense to posit that at one time there was no universe and at another time there was "poof" or "Be!" and at yet another time there was a universe.

The universe as a whole isn't subject to a part of itself. Logical, huh?

nicely said...

so, how does that explain matter and space?

I don't believe it does, unless you are not telling me the whole story. Besides, your notion of time may not be correct. If the universe doesn't exist, then how can time exist? According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Okay, thank you...I realize what foiwer is...

I believe that we as humans can make some determination on the characteristics of this "foiwer"

This only works however if we can all agree that time, space, and matter had a beginning. But, as it seems, the general avoidance of this assumption of beginnings will be that there is no reason to believe that the "most recent singularity" (quoted from another member) is actually "nothing". Okay, well, if that's the general consensus...

Where did the singularity come from?

You don't know...of course...well, that just about does it then.

In the event that it is impossible to know, we must revert to theories. My theory is this.

The universe did have a beginning. This beginning is whatever you want to call it, Big Bang or whatever. For the purposes of this discussion I am not trying to put a timetable on the cosmic events. My theory simply says there was a beginning to the universe as we know it, and my theory also says that there must have been a point somehwere in the past when matter, space, and time first began to exist. If matter, space, and time all began to exist, then what caused them to exist?

I believe that "foiwer" caused them to exist. And what exactly is "foiwer"? Well, if "foiwer" caused matter to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by matter. If "foiwer" also caused space to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by space. If "foiwer" caused time to exist, then "foiwer" must not be bound by time. In this sense, "foiwer" is not bound by matter, space, or time; and yet can create and shape all three of these. Thus, my definition (albeit it is a theory) of "foiwer" is very similar to the definition of the Christian God's attributes.

Therefore, although this is simply a theory and has not "proven" God, it is better than any other theory I have heard. If someone has another theory, then please post it, or at least post a link to which I can read it.

That is my entire point, as has been requested. Sorry for the delay or for attempthing to "shepherd" the discussion, but a response to "is 1 plus 1 really 2?" of "It doesn't matter because red is green" is completely off topic and doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile is a simple distraction tactic commonly used in order to avoid the issue at hand.

You see, you are not really explaining anything by positing "God." Any random hit of the keyboard is just as good.

 

[Naraoia]

According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?

And why not? If you imagine spacetime and the universe not as something moving through time with a beginning and an end but as a 4-(or more)dimensional geometrical object whose sections along certain "planes" represent the state of the universe at particular "times" you don't need time (the intuitively perceived one-directional thingy) at all, and beginnings and befores become similarly meaningless. The history of any point in the universe becomes a permanent trace rather than a process.

(That's not saying this is what the world looks like, but you could imagine it like that, and that would blow your problem away. Might as well ask who created the Mandelbrot set.)

 

[Lucretius]

nicely said...

so, how does that explain matter and space?

I don't believe it does, unless you are not telling me the whole story. Besides, your notion of time may not be correct. If the universe doesn't exist, then how can time exist? According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?

I'd recommend taking some physics before jumping into somewhat deep discussions about it (and I don't mean this in a snide way)

Lord Emsworth brings up a valid point that most epistemologists have brought up about non-existence really being a meaningless statement. Saying "something came from nothing" really implies "at one point in time the universe did not exist". But this makes no sense, because we are defining a point, which means we presume it to exist, and since the universe is the composition of anything the universe would then exist because we have defined a point in which it did. But then we said it didn't, meaning we reached a contradiction — via reductio ad absurdum we can say the universe exists at all points in time.

This of course, is based around the definition (well-grounded in physics) that time is part of the universe. Take a look at general relativity — space and time are not treated as separate objects, but a conjoined spacetime. I have never seen time treated as a separate entity from the universe (in physics). It is definitely considered another dimension within our universe however. Even cutting-edge quantum theories rely on the notion that time is a part of our universe — some even go so far as to say that certain space-only descriptions of our universe necessarily yield a time dimension and actually give rise to it!

The other question I know you addressed to Lord Emsworth, but I will take a shot at it. To say that the universe exists eternally does not imply that the Big Bang did not happen, or that it happened infinitely long ago in the past — both of such would deny physics. And to state that particles also exist infinitely would be to deny baryogenesis, which is also a well-grounded physical phenomenon in cosmology. Energy alone existed eternally, not partcles.

Also, to talk about the origin of physical laws, space and time, implies they have an origin. However, physical laws are not like physical particles, they are properties the particles inherently have. This seems to imply that physical laws are directly tied to space, and are probably a result of the spatial fabric rather than anything else — which would imply of course that they too are eternal and do not need any sort of creating factor.

 

[Contracelsus]

This only works however if we can all agree that time, space, and matter had a beginning.

This is a very important point to the whole discussion: WHY do we need to all agree to that? So you can collapse the argument back to a simple "First Uncaused Cause"?

Unfortunately you're about 750 years too late for that. This is something people have been hashing out for a long time.

I don't think you are going to be able to make any ex cathedra claims that this simply must be accepted.

But, as it seems, the general avoidance of this assumption of beginnings

But you see, it isn't an avoidance. It's an acquiescence that we either don't know or can't know. In either case it falls to special pleading if one were to come along and say "well God is different and He doesn't have to have a beginning!"

Hope that helps explain some of these apparent "avoidance" issues.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

nicely said...

so, how does that explain matter and space?

I don't believe it does, unless you are not telling me the whole story. Besides, your notion of time may not be correct. If the universe doesn't exist, then how can time exist?

My point is that the universe never did not exist. And hence did not come from anywhere. It just exists in all its states ranging from singularity, "banging," current, and future.

According to you, time is part of the universe, so you believe that we are eternally existing particles, right?

Depends on your POV. From inside, no. From outside, yes.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Prove God exists...sure, no problem.

You are so going to regret this. Remember, pride comes before a fall...

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?

Second question...

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

Third question...

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

The answer is: I don't know. However, giving my ignorance a name and praying to it seems premature.
Your hypothesis - God - doesn't win just because there are no alternative hypotheses. You have to prove God exists first.
Sorry.

 

[TheOutsider]

Congratulations, you have proven that a god exists. Now prove that your God exists.

 

[Eledhan]

My point is that the universe never did not exist. And hence did not come from anywhere. It just exists in all its states ranging from singularity, "banging," current, and future.



Depends on your POV. From inside, no. From outside, yes.

And you can prove your point?

 

[Eledhan]

Congratulations, you have proven that a god exists. Now prove that your God exists.

Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.

 

[Eledhan]

You are so going to regret this. Remember, pride comes before a fall...



The answer is: I don't know. However, giving my ignorance a name and praying to it seems premature.
Your hypothesis - God - doesn't win just because there are no alternative hypotheses. You have to prove God exists first.
Sorry.

So, the how's of the universe's "beginnings" are unknowable...so why do people have a problem with the fact that I say there's a God?

I don't get all upset by the fact that atheists say there's no God, I just know they're excercising their God-given free will. (please, I'm not trying to debate free will, start another thread if you wish to do that) I just get upset when atheists say I'm stupid or ignorant because I believe that God created the world I live in.

 

[Eledhan]

You are so going to regret this. Remember, pride comes before a fall...



The answer is: I don't know. However, giving my ignorance a name and praying to it seems premature.
Your hypothesis - God - doesn't win just because there are no alternative hypotheses. You have to prove God exists first.
Sorry.

Oh, and I suppose you use Beckham's Razor to eliminate God as a viable hypothesis, right?

 

[atomweaver]

Oh, and I suppose you use Beckham's Razor to eliminate God as a viable hypothesis, right?

Beckham..? ROFL!!!!

I think you meant Occam's Razor, but thanks for the little slip... It made my afternoon

 

[Contracelsus]

Oh, and I suppose you use Beckham's Razor to eliminate God as a viable hypothesis, right?

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLL!"

 

[Eledhan]

Wow...that's sad...

OFFICIAL APOLOGY TO ALL!!!

I must be taking after my wife's obssession with soccer...she once mistook "Mia Hamm" in the game Catchphrase for "mwuahaha"...we were all trying to figure it out...

So, I guess you guys are all wondering what's wrong with me...I don't honestly know.

Thanks for the correction tho Atomweaver...

 

[Eledhan]

Oh, and you're very welcome for the making of your afternoon!

 

[TheOutsider]

Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.

The problem is that the god that you have proven is so vague as to be anything. That's the problem that I've always had with the First Cause argument. The First Cause does not have to be omnipotent or even intelligent. It doesn't even have to be around anymore. It could have created the universe and then poofed itself out of existence. I don't see any compelling reason to worship this First Cause.

 

[atomweaver]

So, the how's of the universe's "beginnings" are unknowable...so why do people have a problem with the fact that I say there's a God?

Simple. This answer either presumes you know something, and/or is good for nothing scientific, as far as answers go.

I don't get all upset by the fact that atheists say there's no God, I just know they're excercising their God-given free will. (please, I'm not trying to debate free will, start another thread if you wish to do that) I just get upset when atheists say I'm stupid or ignorant because I believe that God created the world I live in.

Most evolutionists are theistic. Many theologists assert no conflict between Scripture and the biological Theory of Evolution Here's some Proof. So, the majority of evolutionists are on your side in this matter. Most atheists are so-called "weak" atheists, anyways, who only assert that proof for a supernatural entity is not scientifically possible. There more or less in agreement with you, too. So, why concern yourself at all with the 'strong' atheist opinion (a small minority within a small minority)?

At the end of the day, its not like the opinions of Creationists on the diversification of species is anything more than a minor blip in my consciousness. Nothing to get het up about, in either direction (until Creationists try to insert their theology into my kid's science classroom by way of a judiciary system, and then want to still call it science. Or, until atheists insist upon some pulpit time at your local church on Sundays. Bad ideas, both...)

 

[Naraoia]

Well, if I have proved that a god exists, then I have accomplished all that I tried to accomplish.

However, I don't think you've proved even that, because, as pointed out by numerous posts in this thread, (1) some of your premises are questionable and (2) even if the universe (or energy, time, whatever) did have to come from somewhere, you did not give a satisfactory reason why it had to come from a god, or why the same argument would not apply to a god.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And you can prove your point?

Not necessary. Re-read your thread. Especially bits such as these:

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

Answer: Yes