Arguments for and against the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Alan McDougall, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Therefore, God is nowhere.

    Where is this single moment of "creation"? Which point?

    Everything is information depending on the system. Systems define what is information or what is not. A molecule might not have any value of information for X system, but it can present a valuable information for Y system.

    It does. You still didn't define what do you mean by code. If you mean DNA, in this case DNA is not created either. It evolved through chemical agreements through time, and still evolving using species.

    Sorry, it doesn't work like that: You will claim something has a starting and/or finishing point and I will prove otherwise. The idea behind my claim is simple. If:

    a) any occurrence has a history behind it, that is to say "doesn't appear out of nowhere" but progress through time and used by another beings/systems
    b) any occurrence does not disappear out of existence but transforms into something else

    Therefore you can not talk about absolute starting and end points.

    What a bold claim. Yes you can write it down; but the problem is this: Does it work?

    Here is a definition for you from Wikipedia:

    This definition doesn't talk about duplication or anything for a good reason: Because duplication or making working systems depending upon scientific knowledge is "technology". If you find any definition of physics that mixes up science and technology, you can bring it up, we can have a look.

    First, you don't write a code to describe the world, you simply try to formulate the actual happenings in order to understand. Therefore, your conclusion of "Universe is based on a code" is similar to claim that "God exists", pure imagination and unsubstantiated supposition.

    DNA is not a product of a code. DNA is the code for the most of the living thing (viruses that works on RNA is excluded, yet if you think that viruses needs a DNA host to survive we can say the "all" living things instead of the most).

    And since DNA is not product of a code, according to your logic, it shouldn't be the result of creation. Because your logic makes DNA as a creation "if" DNA was coming from a code. Since this is not the case, will you modify your statement, will you prove or argue that DNA is coming from a code (where was it written before DNA, how did it emerge? etc.), or will you find another excuse to insist upon "creation"? Which one?

    My assumption is simple: There is no creator. I designed the subject example in order to clarify what type of "creator" you are talking about; not because of my understanding of a creator; I don't have any image of creator in my mind. And I hope we don't compare the local time zones between God and us; we are discussing an assumption of instant creation claim vs. evolving structures of the universe. If we can follow the elements of process when we look at natural beings, therefore this process requires certain steps: It's against the idea of being 0 and suddenly being 1.

    My world view is not "a creator vs no creator"; it's probably your world view and you are clearly standing behind the creator side. My one is simpler: "What creator"?

    You are imposing the idea of a "creator" without explaining the "logic" (that's what you call it) or the story behind this assumption. Plus, you are also claiming that there is no structural difference between the numbers of creators. Moreover, you are using natural or human made technology in order to argue your God idea (and "the logic behind it") without giving any clue about what this God is made of, where does it stay or what is the limits of its power. You can not, because the answers of these questions are nothing, nowhere/everywhere and limitless respectively. This kind of logic or argument is not a type of logic I am familiar with.

    "Logical assumption" is not something that you can say anything you like and claim it as "logical". "Logical assumption" requires some proposition, statement that can be tested (this is very important: tested) according to certain parameters; it must be arguable according to the rules. If you are talking about a "creator", or a "God", this is not a "logical" argument, it's only a claim.

    Within the code, within the code: What code?

    So you can freely claim that physical universe perform on codes, more dramatically you believe in this, but when someone asks you "what are they?" you simply divert the topic to physics books and other excuses. You simply show me a source, a site, a textbook where I can check out your "universe on code" claim is mentioned, then I will go and check it, promise.

    Guess what you are not able to do that...

    Already explained; not logical, just a wishful thinking. And for the proof... Proof of which argument?

    Just for yourself, unbeknown to us.

    Physics don't work with assumptions; at least not the type of "assumption" in your mind. Fitting into mathematics is not a criteria for Physics, there are calculations in physics that ends up with "infinity" and this is simply meaningless. But this doesn't stop physicists in terms of "continuing their research", they still try to approach differently. Because problem is still there; for instance: Black holes. What are they going to do know? "Black holes doesn't match up with our maths, so let's drop this topic." Is that so? What if current mathematical modelling is not enough to describe what is going on?

    "The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven" you say. This is absolutely right: For instance, idea of God can not be physically proven. Because it's not the subject of physics. If you go back the definition I provided above, physics deals with physical things, with nature. "Everything" is not even a concept. Because anybody can fill the contents of "Everything" with "anything" they like. Physics obviously can not deal with this type of arbitrary approach.

    Is this a conclusion, because it sounds like one. If you do not want to discuss the existence of God, it is your thing, I can understand. But don't try to impose a strange idea that the existence of God is irrelevant to this topic. It may not be relevant for you, but some people might want to know the subject of discussion.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    * The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
    Refutation: There is no evidence that a "first cause" is required. There are no theories of reality that assert there was ever a state of *nothing* (i.e. absence of anything / everything).

    * The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design
    Refutation: It's opinion and not fact.

    * Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
    Refutation: Nature does not exhibit purpose and beauty is subjective. Complexity, order, and adaptation or not random or accidental. They are part of the processes of reality.

    * We know that there are several constants in universe that allow, due to their carefully set values, life on earth.
    Refutation: There may be many constants that would allow life on Earth or elsewhere. We don't have the technology to explore them nor does any theist posess any technology to claim that ours is somehow the "only way".

    * that everything was created with carefully set values (thoughtfully).
    Refutation: There is no evidence the big bang was "created".

    * Due to the complexity of the universe, nature,assumption that there is a force of superior intelligence,is a plausible assumption.
    Refutation: Complexity does not equal sapience.

    * god rocked my world; therefore god exists.
    Refutation: The poster in question hears voices and has been unable to demonstrate them as being externally caused.

    * Do not you see obvious design in the following?!
    Refutation: No

    * Why is it that it is 'translated' this way. Who is the translator? Who is the one who set the syntax.
    Refutation: First part is a science question. That answer wound up with the question about how does reality work? It is not evidence for a sapient external super life form. The latter two questions are bad questions. Why would the translator / syntax require a "who"?

    * Evolution cannot make it because any "stupid" mutation on the way would kill the butterfly and it would have extincted long time ago.
    Refutation: Reality shows otherwise and reality is always correct.

    * You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!
    Refutation: That statement is the result of a poor education in biology and anthropology.

    * Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Holy Quran - Prophets 21:30
    Refutation: No it's not. Read any BB theory in full and then the Quran. They are DRASTICALLY different.

    * Did you know that cosmic webs are mentioned in the Holy Quran?
    Refutation: They are not. The quran doesn't mention cosmic webs by name or describe them in any fashion remotely resembling the "real thing".

    * It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone except God to:

    1) write such a beautiful Arabic text
    2) make it durable
    3) get 9 MILLION people around the world to learn it and recite it by heart
    4) make such accurate scientific claims
    5) structure chapters by mathematical systems - many of which cannot even be discovered without modern technology. I am talking about 316 or 1501 digit numbers for instance!


    1) Beauty is subjective.
    2) Like many other books?
    3) The power of indoctrination is amazing is it not? I somehow doubt you can demonstrate 9 million people reciting the Quran by heart btw.
    4) None have been made.
    5) There is not enough information here to comment.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Nothing cannot be a state no one ever said there was a state of nothing that's just silly. Having a beginning is not the same as a "state of nothing". The "first cause" term is misplaced really since causes and effects have beginning so God is not a cause He is just literally atemporal.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Yes that makes sense He being the creator of locations must be nowhere Himself.

    Why should there be a moment or a point of creation why couldn't the act of creation be beyond space and time?
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    That's what first cause states actually. First there was *nothing*, then some life form turned it into *something*.

    Correct. A beginning is a transformation of something to something else.

    I agree. God is not a cause. He is an effect of the human mind.
  9. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    If the universe is eternal and infinite the "Arrow of Time" would be pushed back into eternity and infinity and the NOW MOMENT would never come into existence.

    To simplify what I am stating, think of a crowd of spectators waiting for the athletes to pass in front of them. But there is no start point in this race and the start line would be pushed back to infinite eternity.

    Thus the spectators could wait an eternity and the runners of this race will never pass in front of them Gosh is this confusing or what?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Now imagine the "infinite distance" race run on a circular path.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    So God is "He" you say. Where did you get this information?
    If God creating locations and being "nowhere" (not existing) makes sense to you,
    can you enlighten us about how does it make sense?

    Because no one knows anything about "beyond space and time". Anything talks about "beyond space and time" can also talk about superheroes.
  12. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Thanks for this wonderful reality that allows me to breath, see, talk, go on face of earth, make things happen, hope, wish, love, care and think about it.

    It just got all the values right to allow all of that. Wonderful. "Reality" or God for God my Lord is real.

    Sad... Very sad... It is a wonderfully created butterfly. It is very nice and it is obvious that it is made according to a well thought plan of God. It looks like you are oblivious to the complex processes involved in reproduction and development of this butterfly. The wonderful shapes on its wings require a highly complex and mutual work of d.n.a., cellular processes and outer chemical processes...

    I am afraid that it is you who is not aware of the complex processes involved in the simplest happenings in our bodies.
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Crunchy Cat,

    Not where "God" as the first cause is concerned.
    Neither does it imply this in any scripture.

    Why do you AGREE to this?

  14. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Nice try but can you look at this "infinite distance" race run on a circular path as something completed.
  15. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    On a circular path there can only be new beginnings
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    You have no idea what other "values" would result in. Additionally, any "values" are not evidence that a sapient super-life form exists.

    Appeal to emotion and there is no evidence it is "created".

    Reality shows it to be a product of evolution. I'll take reality's word of yours any day.

    You're welcome to support your assertion with evidence.

    Again, you're welcome to support your assertion with evidence. Oh, and if you try to equate compexity with sapience you're going to fail again.
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    You can use any scripture or any first cause argument that requires a sapient life form as "the first cause". The most popular one is that "God" was the first cause and before that existence wasn't there (nothing was there). If you wish to use another one, that's fine. I'll refute it just as easily.

    Here is a breakdown of what Big Chiller said and how I am agreeing and disagreeing with it:

    Big Chiller: "The "first cause" term is misplaced."

    I agree with that statement. It's misplaced because it doesn't apply.

    Big Chiller: "Causes and effects have beginning."

    I agree. And those beginnings are themselves the result of causes and effects.

    Big Chiller: "God is not a cause."

    I agree.

    Big Chiller: "He is literally atemporal."

    I disagree. He is an effect of the human mind.
  18. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Well if you believe that you have a problem of infinite regress. Emphasis mine
  19. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    I don't have that issue. Infinite regress only occurs if time is a separate infinite entity that permeates everything. If time is finite, illusionary, or emergent then infinite regress no longer applies.
  20. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Ah but infinite regress isn't referring to time it refers to cause and effect or any sequences it's not just limited to time.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    How can you have cause and effect without time?
  22. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    When did I imply that?
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Crunchy Cat,

    I suggest you actually read up on this, as you have been misinformed.
    There is no reference to "nothing" being before something, in any scripture
    I have read.
    There is, however, the claim of unmanifest matter, becoming manifest.

    Matter can neither be created or destroyed, meaning it is eternal, a scientific fact, and an ancient scriptoral injuction.

    So you agree with it, because you don't believe God exists?


Share This Page