Argument for the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter UrbanXrisis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument Existence
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on arguments for the existence of God, particularly in relation to the beginning of the universe. It highlights scientific evidence supporting the idea that the universe had a starting point, referencing background radiation and the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity, which posits that time and matter originated at the Big Bang. Some participants criticize the methods used by proponents of certain arguments, suggesting they misrepresent facts and knowledge. The concept of fine-tuning is also debated, with some arguing that it is a flawed argument since life exists in a minuscule portion of the universe, implying that the universe was not specifically created for life. The conversation emphasizes the importance of asking the right questions when faced with unsolvable problems, while questioning the relevance of the term 'existence' in this context.
UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
"Argument for the Existence of God"

I find this very interesting and humorous:
http://members.cox.net/wwcw/godexists.html#bot1

any thoughs?

Did the Universe Begin?
There's quite a lot of evidence that the universe did have a beginning. From background radiation to the fact that the universe is expanding. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity (Hawking, Penrose) states that time and matter came into existence at the same moment, at the Big Bang.

So the beginning of the universe is hardly refuted among scientists, though some try to get around it by using wild speculation. that is wholly without evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In that quote, he is simply arguing that the universe came to be during the big bang. Although not as widely accepted as it once was, it isn't at all unreasonable. Also I don't see anything about God in the quote.
 
Well, I certainly can't fault them for trying to inform people about what they apparently believe is the truth. However, I think their methods are reprehensible, their presentation is not an argument, and, while neither may be their fault entirely, as they deride others for giving "completely fabricated explanations" they should hold themselves to the same standard and not misrepresent their own knowledge, the positions of others, or facts of record or observation. It is a shame but nothing new.

By the way, does the following make any sense to anyone else? No, I didn't edit it; It is an entire line of reasoning.
Some might say that claiming fine-tuning after the fact is invalid, but that is not the case here. Imagine if you faced a firing squad of 100 experienced marksmen at 10 yards who all missed you. Would you then say, "I don't find it at all odd that they missed"? Of course not, you would assume that they meant to miss.

Happy thoughts,
Rachel
 
The ID arguments have lots of problems. The fine tuning arguments are mostly bogus. There is only a very tiny spot in space and time where life is possible. Take that as evidence that the universe was not "created for life". One generally finds that different places have different conditions. Thus there are many "trials" of physical variables making rare occurences quite likely.
If you see problems that you can't solve try asking the right questions, not questions that appeal to some psychological problem.
 
If it makes them happy that's all good but I think the word 'existence' is misleading and pointless.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
363
Replies
21
Views
8K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K