Does God Exist? (7 Viewers)

[Kierkegaard]

It means that God is not 'all interested' (Omittentive!) I can only conclude on the evidence with which we are presented. Physical events can be predicted through the extension of our senses using material equipment; hence the cause of these events must be physical. The same argument lends itself to the monist when arguing against dualism. Basically, if we can predict a physical event, it must have a physical cause. The causal chain can be traced back to the origins, which contradicts the hypothesis that God intervenes, hence the reason why I do not believe in an intervening deity.

 

[joujou_84]

It means that God is not 'all interested' (Omittentive!) I can only conclude on the evidence with which we are presented. Physical events can be predicted through the extension of our senses using material equipment; hence the cause of these events must be physical. The same argument lends itself to the monist when arguing against dualism. Basically, if we can predict a physical event, it must have a physical cause. The causal chain can be traced back to the origins, which contradicts the hypothesis that God intervenes, hence the reason why I do not believe in an intervening deity.

and which religion is this???

 

[Kierkegaard]

Essentially, it's no religion. Deists are not especially religious people.

Go to Deism.org to find out more.

On the second page, they have my most favourite quote:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."​

- Galileo Galilei

 

[Li0n]

Well, I have a different perspective entirely: I'm a deist.

In my humble opinion, it's pretty darn primitive to believe that God causes natural disasters etc. It doesn't take an expert geo-physicist to recognize that these are predetermined events that can be predicted and calculated (given the right technology).

Explain in detail please.

 

[dark_angel]

In my humble opinion, it's pretty darn primitive to believe that God causes natural disasters etc. It doesn't take an expert geo-physicist to recognize that these are predetermined events that can be predicted and calculated (given the right technology).

you keep forgetting that this event DID happen, it didnt matter if there was an expert geologist or not, it did happen.

which begs the question if there is any say in what we do, ie free will

It means that God is not 'all interested' (Omittentive!) I can only conclude on the evidence with which we are presented. Physical events can be predicted through the extension of our senses using material equipment; hence the cause of these events must be physical. The same argument lends itself to the monist when arguing against dualism. Basically, if we can predict a physical event, it must have a physical cause. The causal chain can be traced back to the origins, which contradicts the hypothesis that God intervenes, hence the reason why I do not believe in an intervening deity.

hahahahahah u make me laugh. Such a learned person would surely understand that the causal chain or link ultimately ends up with the beginning of the universe, ie the big bang, which no amount of physics or aspects of mathematical argument has ever been able to, or will be for that matter, describe as it is (was) a singularity, a place where time and space breaks down.

another issue, BASICALLY U CANT SAY ANYTHING WITH WHAT YOU ARE GIVEN, its a fundamental aspect of epistemology.

like i always say, u cant trust your senses.

yet another issue, measurement is never always perfectly acurate, it can only be assigned as a range, i think quantum mechanics should put ur arguement straight. Certain aspects of the universe can never be predicted. Ever heard of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle?

try that for ur deism

 

[Kierkegaard]

you keep forgetting that this event DID happen, it didnt matter if there was an expert geologist or not, it did happen.

which begs the question if there is any say in what we do, ie free will

It does? Our free-will or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on this aforementioned event. I see a non-sequitor error here, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea as to why you even followed such a line of (reasoning?) I'm utterly confused as to what you were thinking.

hahahahahah u make me laugh. Such a learned person would surely understand that the causal chain or link ultimately ends up with the beginning of the universe, ie the big bang, which no amount of physics or aspects of mathematical argument has ever been able to, or will be for that matter, describe as it is (was) a singularity, a place where time and space breaks down.

another issue, BASICALLY U CANT SAY ANYTHING WITH WHAT YOU ARE GIVEN, its a fundamental aspect of epistemology.

like i always say, u cant trust your senses.

yet another issue, measurement is never always perfectly acurate, it can only be assigned as a range, i think quantum mechanics should put ur arguement straight. Certain aspects of the universe can never be predicted. Ever heard of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle?

try that for ur deism

Actually, we can give some pretty darn convincing evidence about the origins of the universe. It is what existed (a first cause or not?) before this singularity that is a matter of mere metaphysics.

Ok, what you are referencing hear is the epistemology of rationalism. This is certainly not the definitive epistemic view of knowledge. I am a pragmatist and as such, I believe that there is no distinction between synthetic and analytic truths, hence all truths are contingent. I say that knowledge can be gained through a pragmatic approach.

As for your blither-blather about Quantum Mechanics. Modern Chaos theory shows us that quantum events have probabilistic outcomes. There is some degree of predetermination in all quantum events. Now, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle suggests that the momentum and position of an electron cannot both be determined to 100% certainty. Again, it's a matter of probabilities.

You're very quick to write it off as 'random', yet you do not consider that mathematical methods are likely to one day explain these Quantum events in terms of a pattern. It's no different to the Riemann Hypothesis and prime numbers.

As an aside, why are you (an obvious rationalist) discussing science at all? Shouldn't you just be dismissing it as an obviously (haha) flawed use of our sensory faculties?

Now, stop with the strawmen. Please.

 

[A2RAYA]

but ur not god..u do not know why god caused this tsunami to occur..."saying that god wanted the ppl to die coz they deserved it" is saying that u know gods agenda....and u dont...

dam straight....noone knows why god caused the tsunami and noone ever will...but god decided and it happened, end of story...and to the people who believe that a big bang created the entire universe: by your laws of science energy cannot be created so where the hell are you going to get all the energy to set off such an event that's been going strong for 5 billion years now?...you don't think god had something to do with it?

 

[dark_angel]

In my humble opinion, it's pretty darn primitive to believe that God causes natural disasters etc. It doesn't take an expert geo-physicist to recognize that these are predetermined events that can be predicted and calculated (given the right technology).

you said that these events are "predetermined events" hence i mearly assumed that you were a fatalist. But if that is what you meant, then that raises the argument of free will. If it was predetermined, then the question is really why? Why was it predetermined? God mayb? If it is the causal link that you are talking about, that some of the plates colliding were the cause, and these could be traced back and further back to an origin, like i said the origin is the big bang.

the mere aspect of causal links is evidently and inherently a failure. why? because u cannot predict what happend before the big bang. The causal link fails at this point. IF u cannot predict this, then how can u apply it now? This is not a question of mere metaphysics, mathematics is merely a tool to try and understand our universe. The fact that we cannot use any evidence or tools such as mathematics to describe what happened BEFORE indicates that there was not causality, let alone time (there might have been, the point is we dont know)

Ok, what you are referencing hear is the epistemology of rationalism. This is certainly not the definitive epistemic view of knowledge. I am a pragmatist and as such, I believe that there is no distinction between synthetic and analytic truths, hence all truths are contingent. I say that knowledge can be gained through a pragmatic approach.

it does not matter if you are a pragmatist or not. If u believe that all truths are contingent, then what is the point of using the word truth? This is like saying that all truths are likely to happen, but not always. How can an event be true if it does not occur?

then how would a pragmatist like you approach something such as a black hole, or a singularity. These exist in real life, and hence it is withing your juristiction to analyse such an object. But alas, you cannot (not wats behind the event horizon anyway)

This is what i am saying, even if u deal with only the theoretical or empirical aspect of this universe, there are some things which u will never be able to analyse, but if that is the case, then why do you continue to beleive in cause and effect?

like you said, it is all based on probabilities. It is not always certain that a cause will allow an effect, even though this is the basis of modern thought.

As for your blither-blather about Quantum Mechanics. Modern Chaos theory shows us that quantum events have probabilistic outcomes. There is some degree of predetermination in all quantum events. Now, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle suggests that the momentum and position of an electron cannot both be determined to 100% certainty. Again, it's a matter of probabilities. You're very quick to write it off as 'random', yet you do not consider that mathematical methods are likely to one day explain these Quantum events in terms of a pattern. It's no different to the Riemann Hypothesis and prime numbers.

Chaos theory implies that a small change in a system can have a large outcome, hence the butterfly effect. There is no such pattern, thats why its called chaos.

Perhaps when the scale is larger, these events can be predicted, but i doubt that anything can be predicted at the quantum level.

Look if theres always an uncertainty, than something can never be based on probablilites, there is always an unknown factor. I dont know anything about the Rienmann Hypothesis, but i do beleive that this view of the world which is deism is fallacious.

As an aside, why are you (an obvious rationalist) discussing science at all? Shouldn't you just be dismissing it as an obviously (haha) flawed use of our sensory faculties?

i want to know more about the universe.

 

[dark_angel]

i have come to the conclusion that deism is essentially nothing more than science itself, and hence it does not need to be called deism, just basic science.

dam straight....noone knows why god caused the tsunami and noone ever will...but god decided and it happened, end of story...and to the people who believe that a big bang created the entire universe: by your laws of science energy cannot be created so where the hell are you going to get all the energy to set off such an event that's been going strong for 5 billion years now?...you don't think god had something to do with it?

All these straight scientist people when they try and discuss god, incorporate god into science. GOD CREATED SCIENCE, HENCE HE CAN NOT BE DESCRIBED, OR PREDICTED BY IT.

its like that stephen hawking dude, when he said that even god could not escape the uncertainty principle, i mean wtf is that, god created the uncertainty principle, how could that affect god.

seriously, the ulitmate failure of science and mathematics is only a matter of time, it is inevitable.

This is the point that i made earlier, which still hasnt been addressed, and i thank you for reminding me. The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can merely be changed into different forms, like you said, where did all the energy in this universe come from?

can science explain that? then how can u even deny the existence of god?

 

[budj]

But how do we know god exists. You can say that god creates this, god creates that. Man, where do you base this claims from? And mathematics failing? lol u truely are a silly kid...

 

[budj]

Im sure there will be many an explanation to the fact of the energy business. It is a mere delicacy to state that, because u cant understand the complex mathematics underlying the principa of the big bang, to say that there must be a god.

 

[dark_angel]

But how do we know god exists. You can say that god creates this, god creates that. Man, where do you base this claims from? And mathematics failing? lol u truely are a silly kid...

I base it from what i believe.

as for mathematics failing, prove to me that 1+1=2 (with mathematics ofcourse)

 

[joujou_84]

Im sure there will be many an explanation to the fact of the energy business. It is a mere delicacy to state that, because u cant understand the complex mathematics underlying the principa of the big bang, to say that there must be a god.

OMG u ppl shit me to tears.........wat is god in ur definition.......a man with a beard sitting up in heaven???....."complex mathematics".....yeh thats nice.....complex mathematics came out of nowhere and created the universe.....there is a force and a power greater than humans......it has no shape, no form, no nothing......the big bang could not occur without this force....energy needs a a source.......its not just hanging around.......

 

[Pianpupodoel]

OMG OMG OMG BBQ u sHeiT CunTs pplZ HaX0rz .

Maybe its not possible to determine what happened BEFORE the big bang because there was no 'BEFORE the big bang'.

Space-time is a single entity, no? Do we not refer to the big bang as the beginning of space-time?

So as for the "Cause" of the big bang, there really isnt any debate about it, as it is just not prudent to try and predict HOW the big bang occured, as it would delve, as previously mentioned, into metaphysics and not real science. Becuase really, science is experimental investigation. If it cannot be proven in a lab, its not really science.

The enormous amount of energy people speak of, "required" to "set off" the big bang, in the end, is not really determinable, as we cannot predict anything 'before the big bang'.

I must stress, as a singularity suggests, where the space-time curvature is infinite, where all laws of physics break down, that it is not possible to know "where this universe came from".

Suppose a=b
a²=ab
a²-b²=ab-b²
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
Since a=b,
2b=b
2=1.

OMG OMG mathematics is failing...wahhHHHhHHHhhh.....

God MUST exist.

Really... What THE?


(BTW, there is a really simple mistake in the above proof that makes it a fallacy, and thus, WRONG)

 

[dark_angel]

OMG OMG OMG BBQ u sHeiT CunTs pplZ HaX0rz .

Maybe its not possible to determine what happened BEFORE the big bang because there was no 'BEFORE the big bang'.

Space-time is a single entity, no? Do we not refer to the big bang as the beginning of space-time?

So as for the "Cause" of the big bang, there really isnt any debate about it, as it is just not prudent to try and predict HOW the big bang occured, as it would delve, as previously mentioned, into metaphysics and not real science. Becuase really, science is experimental investigation. If it cannot be proven in a lab, its not really science.

The enormous amount of energy people speak of, "required" to "set off" the big bang, in the end, is not really determinable, as we cannot predict anything 'before the big bang'.

I must stress, as a singularity suggests, where the space-time curvature is infinite, where all laws of physics break down, that it is not possible to know "where this universe came from".

Suppose a=b
a²=ab
a²-b²=ab-b²
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
Since a=b,
2b=b
2=1.

OMG OMG mathematics is failing...wahhHHHhHHHhhh.....

God MUST exist.

Really... What THE?


(BTW, there is a really simple mistake in the above proof that makes it a fallacy, and thus, WRONG)

what was the real point of this post, to humiliate yourself?

i did not ask u to prove 2=1 ( and what was the point of saying that anyway, who dosent know that trick? who do u think u are anyways?)

I said prove 1+1=2 using mathematics

mayb u should read the post you are going to argue about before u humiliate yourself.

or as u say and i quote "Really... What THE?"

i do not want to argue, but people who dont read or add useless shit to this already monstrous thread do piss me off a tad bit.

 

[Pianpupodoel]

Well maybe i can't be bothered reading the massive 183 pages of extremely long posts that everyone has,

and maybe i shouldn't have added all that load of crap at the end

and maybe next time i should make myself more clear.

You CANNOT prove the existence of God through the big bang.

 

[flyin']

Suppose a=b
a²=ab
a²-b²=ab-b²
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
Since a=b,
2b=b
2=1.

OMG OMG mathematics is failing...wahhHHHhHHHhhh.....

God MUST exist.

Really... What THE?


(BTW, there is a really simple mistake in the above proof that makes it a fallacy, and thus, WRONG)

You're dividing by (a - b) on both sides, and if you let a = b, you in turn divide both sides by 0.

 

[dark_angel]

Well maybe i can't be bothered reading the massive 183 pages of extremely long posts that everyone has,

and maybe i shouldn't have added all that load of crap at the end

and maybe next time i should make myself more clear.

You CANNOT prove the existence of God through the big bang.

why not? What makes you so sure of anything?

and u dont have to read the 183 pages, all i said was to read the post that you are going to argue against, hell i didnt even read everything. Most of it was bs anyways.

 

[jumb]

You people care too much.

 

[joujou_84]

Well maybe i can't be bothered reading the massive 183 pages of extremely long posts that everyone has,

and maybe i shouldn't have added all that load of crap at the end

and maybe next time i should make myself more clear.

You CANNOT prove the existence of God through the big bang.

whos tryin to do that.........actually most ppl r saying that the big bang is evidence that their is NO god.......i dont see how ur connecting the two....