Why physicists can't avoid a creator

[Exiledoomsayer]

It is answers like this that lead me to believe that the atheists objection to the existence of God is more a matter of the will than the evidence.

Then you missunderstood the purpose of the post.

The suggestion was made that because atheists do not believe in all powerful being that cares about what you do with your sexlife we cannot possibly have an answer to the question 'were does the universe come from?'

I merely provided an answer to the question as a demonstration that its easy to come up with an answer if you are not required to actually demonstrate that your answer is correct and 'I dont know' is not good enough.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I do not think anyone has demonstrated that. Ultimately, it leads to infinite regress, because if you exempt God from the rule, then the rule is worthless. It's a classic problem.

Also, this isn't a topic about evolution.

"Classic problems" with this type of argument never stop those who are unfamiliar with the last several hundred years of philosophical debate about this sort of thing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hang on let me go straight ahead and pull a cause of the universe out of a bunnyhole..

There is a non-living type of comic microwave oven that continously dings into existance new universes automatically each with slightly different rules, our universe is one of those.

There you go now we both have a perfectly unsupported cause for the universe. The problem ofcourse is the unsupported bit.

So I'm going to not believe in either your jehovah or the cosmic mircrowave oven untill we got evidence one way or the other and keep the question of 'what could cause a universe' at unknown untill further notice

But the cosmic non-living microwave oven so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to come unto us in the form of a man who was 100% man and 100% cosmic non-living microwave oven, and he appeared in a small Roman colony 2000 years ago to give us the "ultimate" in truth and then to be sacrificed to himself (in his role as one with the cosmic non-living microwave oven) in his role as the son of the cosmic non-living microwave oven in order to atone mankind to himself (in his role as the non-living cosmic microwave oven who created us all!)

AMEN.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So perhaps it would be an idea to explain what you meant than?
Simply declaring your discussion partner couldnt possibly understand isnt really what I'd consider an appropriate response untill I cease to attempt to understand you.

Well, I mean it's obvious isn't it? You clearly are not going to arrive at the correct conclusion, so you obviously don't understand the crux of the article.

Scientists have definitive proof of God now! QED.

Granted it is no different from the infinite regress of the "first uncaused cause" proposed by philosophers such as Aquinas hundreds of years ago, and it doesn't necessarily indicate it had to be Jahweh (could have been Aharu Mazda), but generally we know now that science is fundamentally flawed if they fail to start every cosmology lecture with:

"And in the beginning GOD...."

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This cause presents a problem for the atheist who believes in evolution as they have to assume that everything came from nothing and was it's own cause which is logically impossible.

Not true. You don't "have to assume that everything came from nothing and was it's own cause".

'Things just are' is a very simple alternative. And it is true, even if you have decided to tuck the label "God" on some things.


(And just so this is understood: "Cause" is an insufficient definition for "God". At least in my book. YMMV)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Anything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself.

Only problem is your idea of "who" or "what" that is is dramatically different and absolutely equivalent to multiple different religions across time. The Creator is different, wants different things, does different stuff, but all share the lack of any real evidence to suggest that that particular creator is real.

The creationist recognizes that cause to be God. This cause presents a problem for the atheist who believes in evolution as they have to assume that everything came from nothing and was it's own cause which is logically impossible.

Actually that isn't a problem for people who believe in evolution since evolution has almost nothing to do with the ultimate origin of the universe.

As for being an atheist and having a problem with it: well, I don't. It will be as much of a problem for me at the "end of life" as it will for you if Al'lah was the guy in charge and you failed to follow the 5 Pillars of Islam.

In the end there is no difference between the fate of the atheist and the fate of the truly pious who simply "worshipped the wrong god".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Would you agree, given the complex design and information found in the universe that this cause would of necessity have to be intelligent and not an inanimate object like a comic microwave oven?

I wouldn't.

I'm sitting here at my desk with a few different mineral samples sitting around me. They grew quite naturally into incredibly beautiful forms at multiple scales using only natural processes that we can see in the lab every day.

It appears quite complex and amazing but is simply what happens when different elements of different size/charge ratios combine under certain chemical conditions.

The very minute the formation of an ice cube in a freezer becomes evidence for God is the minute that we can start dealing with infidels who refuse to believe in the "Cosmic non-living Microwave Oven" who created us all! Selah!

 

[mathetes123]

I wouldn't.

I'm sitting here at my desk with a few different mineral samples sitting around me. They grew quite naturally into incredibly beautiful forms at multiple scales using only natural processes that we can see in the lab every day.

It appears quite complex and amazing but is simply what happens when different elements of different size/charge ratios combine under certain chemical conditions.

The very minute the formation of an ice cube in a freezer becomes evidence for God is the minute that we can start dealing with infidels who refuse to believe in the "Cosmic non-living Microwave Oven" who created us all! Selah!

So you can see certain physical laws which govern the natural world in predictable, mathematically precise ways and still believe these laws did not require an intelligent law giver?

 

[mathetes123]

Then you missunderstood the purpose of the post.

The suggestion was made that because atheists do not believe in all powerful being that cares about what you do with your sexlife we cannot possibly have an answer to the question 'were does the universe come from?'

I merely provided an answer to the question as a demonstration that its easy to come up with an answer if you are not required to actually demonstrate that your answer is correct and 'I dont know' is not good enough.

I think we both agree that the fact that if the universe had a beginning, it required a cause outside of itself. For you to suggest that any proposed cause is equally likely is absurd. The complex design and information found in the natural world would logically lead one to believe the cause to be an intelligent cause because by merely observing the world around us, we can recognize that information and design only result from intelligent causes.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I think we both agree that the fact that if the universe had a beginning, it required a cause outside of itself. For you to suggest that any proposed cause is equally likely is absurd. The complex design and information found in the natural world would logically lead one to believe the cause to be an intelligent cause because by merely observing the world around us, we can recognize that information and design only result from intelligent causes.

1) If you say everything requires a cause, then God also requires a cause. If you say God is exempt from needing a cause, then I can argue that the universe is exempt from needing a cause (and I save a step!)

2) Complexity is not evidence for design.

 

[Upisoft]

I think we both agree that the fact that if the universe had a beginning, it required a cause outside of itself.

Why do you think that has to be true?

 

[mathetes123]

1) If you say everything requires a cause, then God also requires a cause. If you say God is exempt from needing a cause, then I can argue that the universe is exempt from needing a cause (and I save a step!)

2) Complexity is not evidence for design.

1) God does not require a cause because he is not limited by his own creation. He created time and is not subject to time. Only things that have a beginning require a cause. God has always existed and therefore had no beginning and so does not require a cause.
2) Design and information do require an intelligent cause.

 

[mathetes123]

Why do you think that has to be true?

Logic. Nothing can be it's own cause.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think we both agree that the fact that if the universe had a beginning, it required a cause outside of itself. For you to suggest that any proposed cause is equally likely is absurd. The complex design and information found in the natural world would logically lead one to believe the cause to be an intelligent cause because by merely observing the world around us, we can recognize that information and design only result from intelligent causes.

We also observe that the intelligent causes that we usually deal with are not much of any use without this thing called working brain, and that thoughts are dependent upon self-same working brain.

 

[Upisoft]

Logic. Nothing can be it's own cause.

This is not logic, this is statement. It could be true or false. Why do you think it is true?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

1) God does not require a cause because he is not limited by his own creation. He created time and is not subject to time. Only things that have a beginning require a cause. God has always existed and therefore had no beginning and so does not require a cause.
2) Design and information do require an intelligent cause.

1) All of the same could be argued for the universe. If you're going to make something exempt from the rules, might as well save a step.
2) I said "complexity". Complexity is all around nature, and nature can produce it naturally. DNA does not require an intelligent cause. And if it was designed, I wouldn't say it was designed intelligently.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Nothing can be it's own cause.

Except God, right?

 

[mathetes123]

Except God, right?

God did not have a beginning and so did not require a cause. God created time and is not subject to the limitations of His own creation.

 

[mathetes123]

1) All of the same could be argued for the universe. If you're going to make something exempt from the rules, might as well save a step.
2) I said "complexity". Complexity is all around nature, and nature can produce it naturally. DNA does not require an intelligent cause. And if it was designed, I wouldn't say it was designed intelligently.

1) Why would God be subject to the limitations of His own creation?

2) If the information in DNA did not require an intelligent cause, then what was the cause for this information?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

1) Why would God be subject to the limitations of His own creation?

2) If the information in DNA did not require an intelligent cause, then what was the cause for this information?

1) It's okay if you want God to be exempt from the rules, but then the rules aren't really rules anymore. So now, not everything requires a cause.

2) The DNA-protein system evolved. DNA can be altered, thus the information can be changed. All you're doing is regurgitating PRATs.