Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[BradCube]

haven't we already done this

if god is eternal why can't the universe be?

The Big Bang theory points to a beginning of the universe a finite time ago. It is currently the standard and most proven model.

Even with other models of the universe that propose it has existed for all eternity, they still run up against philosophical problems.

Take this argument for example:

An actually infinite number of things cannot exist:

1) An actually infinite number of things cannot exists
2) A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things
3) Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist.

 

[Farfour]

^^^ Which proves the Christian god, how?

 

[BradCube]

....

Un-fucking believable that you'd say something as naive as that after constantly posting in this thread for hundreds of pages. YEAH, TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO PEOPLE ATTRIBUTED EARTHQUAKES TO A SUPERNATURAL ENTITY, ITS BEEN SAID A MILLION FUCKING TIMES ALREADY, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU? USING THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE AS EVIDENCE FOR A GOD IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS THIS. what you are saying right now is mirroring the exact same naivity of fucking cavemen.

Woah, settle down HalcyonSky! The first time I've talked to you in ages and this is your post? No hello or anything?

As I've already briefly gone over, I don't really find the God of Gaps theory all that much of a problem, certainly no more of a problem than the science-of-gaps that I see being proposed all the time.

Whilst I understand how you see the similarity between earthquakes 2000 years ago and how creation is seen today, there are a few differences. The first is how far we have come scientifically since that time. Yet still, under the standard model, the beginning of the universe seems to violate naturalistic explanations. Thus, I have no problem supposing a supernatural explanation where naturalism fails or has very little explanatory power. It could also be argued then, that just as how technology improved since 2000 years ago, so it will continue to improve until we show that there was a naturalistic explanation for the universe. If that ends up being the case, then fantastic - another mystery under sciences belt solved. However, to assume that an answer will be found and indeed, that there is a naturalistic explanation, seems just as naive as the cave men you were describing - it presupposes the truth of naturalism.

and no, it is not at all in contrast, Enteebee's post couldnt be put better any other way. And yes, we have been through this before, calling the beginning of the universe "seemingly supernatural" is just an absolute cop-out, and in complete ignorance of the scientific theory which attempts to explain this. Our understanding is forever advancing, maybe we will one day be able to know conclusively what happened.

Would you care to put forward the model (or scientific theory) which you believe is the most plausible and solves these problems?

 

[HalcyonSky]

Woah, settle down HalcyconSky! The first time I've talked to you in ages and this is your post? No hello or anything?

As I've already briefly gone over, I don't really find the God of Gaps theory all that much of a problem, certainly no more of a problem than the science-of-gaps that I see being proposed all the time.

Whilst I understand how you see the similarity between earthquakes 2000 years ago and how creation is seen today, there are a few differences. The first is how far we have come scientifically since that time. Yet still, under the standard model, the beginning of the universe seems to violate naturalistic explanations. Thus, I have no problem supposing a supernatural explanation where naturalism fails or has very little explanatory power. It could also be argued then, that just as how technology improved since 2000 years ago, so it will continue to improve until we show that there was a naturalistic explanation for the universe. If that ends up being the case, then fantastic - another mystery under sciences belt solved. However, to assume that an answer will be found and indeed, that there is a naturalistic explanation, seems just as naive as the cave men you were describing - it presupposes the truth of naturalism.


Would you care to put forward the model (or scientific theory) which you believe is the most plausible and solves these problems?

i was just stirring, im actually christian now, i converted after seeing joel osteen preach

 

[BradCube]

I disagree. A supernatural god could quite easily exist outside of our universe in some magic world whereby we don't see the instances where a naturalistic explanation doesn't suffice. Even if we find a theory for everything, that's only a theory for everything as far as our universe is concerned. Why must god be found inside our universe?

What you seem to be after is some sort of all powerful alien that exists within our universe... is this what you mean by God? Or do you mean the thing outside our universe that we'd never be able to detect anyway, so even if we could know everything about our universe we wouldn't necessarily find him?

Ha ha. You seem to have read my mind - as I was thinking the exact same thing as I wrote that! Why, must a supernatural God influence our universe (outside of it's creation)? Well I suppose it doesn't have to.

I think it could be argued that for any personal God (and certainly the biblical God) to exist, one should expect to see God interacting with his universe though. Certainly as you have pointed out though, a theory of everything wouldn't disprove God altogether. It would probably come close to closing a coffin on Christianity though (for me anyway).

 

[BradCube]

You don't see the problems with the "God-of-the-gaps" (GOTG) hypothesis? The fact that it has stifled scientific progress and understanding for thousands of years? If we ascribed to the GOTGH then we'd never know about disease, about natural hazards, heck anything about the world, because we'd excuse it as "oh, God must have done it."

I just don't buy this at all. Scientific discovery ends because we suppose that God did something? If this were true, then christian scientists would not exist. Even if one acknowledges that God did something, one will still want to know why and how God did something.

 

[Kwayera]

I just don't buy this at all. Scientific discovery ends because we suppose that God did something? If this were true, then christian scientists would not exist. Even if one acknowledges that God did something, one will still want to know why and how God did something.

I'm sorry, what? The fact that there would need to be a "how" invalidates the need for a God to be the "instigator"!

 

[BradCube]

^^^ Which proves the Christian god, how?

Oh, it doesn't imply a Christian God at all. In fact, it doesn't even imply a God. All it seeks to show is that the universe has existed for a finite period of time and thus had a beginning.

In fact, many christian apologetic arguments will not infer the christian God at all. They are general truths that are applicable to many monotheistic Gods. Many were actually conceived by Islamic theists centuries ago.

 

[BradCube]

I'm sorry, what? The fact that there would need to be a "how" invalidates the need for a God to be the "instigator"!

If God was in fact the instigator (and thus it was a supernatural event), then yes, no amount of research and scientific investigation will show how that event occurred in naturalistic terms.

However, would such investigation stop simply because the christian believed that God played a part? I doubt it. Naturally humans have inquisitive minds and I would think that God would support intellectual integrity during investigation. He has nothing to hide after all!

 

[BradCube]

i was just stirring, im actually christian now, i converted after seeing joel osteen preach

Heh heh, sure you did

 

[Enteebee]

Let me rephrase then to "a seemingly impossible naturalistic explanation to the beginning of the universe". I don't think it's question begging. I mean, sure, it pre-supposes that a supernatural explanation is the cause, but this is after all naturalistic explanations have been exhausted - it's the next logical conclusion to make right? Surely denying so presumes that naturalism is true?

I presume naturalism due to occams razor... It's much simpler to propose that it is a natural explanation and we do not yet have evidence for it. To instead propose the supernatural as the explanation is to propose a whole other realm of existence. But truly, even if I accepted this argument all you have shown is that there may be an explanation that is 'beyond nature' at the very beginning of the universe. I'm not necessarily so cold to this idea.
No one understands the center of black holes. I'm going to suggest that's where my fairies live.

 

[Kwayera]

Hey Chadd, does the pic in your sig seriously say "heartbeat at 18 days"?

Because that's patently false :s

 

[Enteebee]

Hey Chadd, does the pic in your sig seriously say "heartbeat at 18 days"?

Because that's patently false :s

Nope the heart is formed fairly early on.. I'd be willing to say they're correct.

 

[Kwayera]

Nope the heart is formed fairly early on.. I'd be willing to say they're correct.

It begins to beat more than three weeks AFTER fertilisation. So.. not 18 days.

 

[Enteebee]

It begins to beat more than three weeks AFTER fertilisation. So.. not 18 days.

At 21 days after conception, the human heart begins beating at 70 to 80 beats per minute and accelerates linearly for the first month of beating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart

They're really not that far off.

 

[Kwayera]

Not close enough, either - a lot can happen in 3-4 days of development.

However, while it beats, it is not functional, as such.

 

[KFunk]

Hey Chadd, does the pic in your sig seriously say "heartbeat at 18 days"?

Because that's patently false :s

Pun!

 

[BradCube]

I presume naturalism due to occams razor... It's much simpler to propose that it is a natural explanation and we do not yet have evidence for it. To instead propose the supernatural as the explanation is to propose a whole other realm of existence.

I don't know that naturalism is a simpler answer at all - I don't think the two are even directly comparable in that manner. Surely assuming that naturalism is simpler, assumes naturalism's truth and the supernaturals unlikely hood?

But truly, even if I accepted this argument all you have shown is that there may be an explanation that is 'beyond nature' at the very beginning of the universe. I'm not necessarily so cold to this idea.

Thats true, but that's really all I have sought to show through this argument - that belief in the supernatural is not a blind unreasoned leap of faith.

No one understands the center of black holes. I'm going to suggest that's where my fairies live.

But unless you expect this to be a property of fairies (that they live in black holes), I don't think this is directly comparable to God.

Lol at your sig by the way. I suppose people value human life over other animals but meh - I don't feel like hijacking this thread and transforming it into the abortion one.

 

[katie tully]

Not close enough, either - a lot can happen in 3-4 days of development.

However, while it beats, it is not functional, as such.

Also on that point.

It's not actually a heart that's beating. It's a cluster of heart cells. THey don't defferentiate and specialise into a complete heart at 18 days, but there are definitely myocardial cells capable of beating.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't know that naturalism is a simpler answer at all - I don't think the two are even directly comparable in that manner. Surely assuming that naturalism is simpler, assumes naturalism's truth and the supernaturals unlikely hood?

Well I think it is because you already accept nature as existing right? In order to say "well in this instance there is the supernatural" you're creating an entirely new realm of existence. Surely this should take more evidence than merely a question we don't have an answer to.

Thats true, but that's really all I have sought to show through this argument - that belief in the supernatural is not a blind unreasoned leap of faith.

Well it depends what you mean by 'the supernatural', if you mean that at the most mysterious point whereby we quite possibly will never have the means to probe (the very beginning/before the beginning of our universe) an explanation which is so far beyond nature as we know it to be worthy of being called supernatural might be true - perhaps fair enough. This is a long way from any God though and I personally would disagree with it.

But unless you expect this to be a property of fairies (that they live in black holes), I don't think this is directly directly comparable to God.

Yeah sure, a property of fairies is that they live in black holes.