Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Denial of God (now with logic)

  1. Mar 5, 2010 #1
    Clarification: Not a religious god, but the first force.

    Starting question: What was the original cause that started everything, how can there be an original cause without god?

    Response:

    Case A: There was no original cause; the universe always was and always will be.
    Result: No god.

    Case B: There was an original cause. Then what caused the original cause? Another cause would lead to an infinite loop and achieve nothing, so the original cause must always have existed. Why couldn't the universe have always existed, it would be illogical to think otherwise?
    Result: No god.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2010 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Case C: There was an original cause. The original cause had no cause.

    Case D: There was an original cause. The original cause caused itself.


    If you mean "first force", then why do you use the word god? If that's not trolling, it's close. :tongue:


    What is a "first force" anyways? What constitutes a "cause"? This whole argument seems like an abstract game, rather than a deductive argument involving words expected to correspond to elements of reality.
     
  4. Mar 5, 2010 #3
    First force existed before creation of the Universe
     
  5. Mar 5, 2010 #4
    why cant the first cause be "god"? how about his idea, "god" disrupted the symmetry of the singularity that gave rise to inflation. but, because the universe exists only as a wave function without an observer, then "god" serve the role of the observer to allow for the universe to collapse and evolve. "god" stayed in the role of the observer until sentient beings evolved. when sentient beings evolved, "god" does not need to keep observing the universe in order for the universe to remain collapsed into matter. the sentient beings can now take over that role. "god" then goes to another singularity and starts the same process in a new universe. this also explains the problem of evil. "god" does not need observe our universe anymore and does not care about the rapes and murders. that type of violence is the same as the violence of a supernova explosion. its background. so long as there are at least one sentient life form in a universe, the universe remains collapsed into matter. also, if we destroy ourselves with nuclear war, the universe will be fine because there are probably other sentient beings on other galaxies that prevent the wave function from re-establishing itself.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 5, 2010
  6. Mar 5, 2010 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Discussion of specfic religions will not be allowed. "god" will be considered a supernatural being and not associated with any particular religion for the sake of discussion.
     
  7. Mar 5, 2010 #6
    The word god was used merely for its familiarity.

    How can the original cause have no cause or cause itself? That is illogical and grounds for the rejection of these two cases. Man...I sound like Spock or someone.

    Please debate the idea instead of arguing semantics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2010
  8. Mar 5, 2010 #7
    That's what I was saying in case B...

    I'm sorry, can you rephrase this?
     
  9. Mar 5, 2010 #8
    Case C: Causation is a poorly understood term, that doesn't apply to universes.
     
  10. Mar 5, 2010 #9
    ah dude, i'm not so sure. basically what i was trying to say is that the universe can exist as a wave function until someone observes it. i was saying that "god" can be the ultimate observer of the universe while it evolved until sentient beings can take over the function of the observer and prevent the universe from collapsing back into a wave. Does this make sense? It really makes sense to me, not that I am right or wrong, just that it could make sense. i'm dizzy right now.
     
  11. Mar 5, 2010 #10

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The word blue is familiar too. Why not use that instead?


    I don't see the problem. *shrug* I do see an apparent contradiction in your beliefs -- you seem to have no problem with "the universe" not having a cause, and you offer no reason why "the universe" and an "original cause" should be different in that respect.



    Without semantics, we cannot discuss the notion of truth.

    And, incidentally, without axioms, the only thing we can prove are tautologies. We cannot even prove a statement like
    A cause has an effect​
     
  12. Mar 6, 2010 #11
    i dont understand this topic. god is being written everywhere. can someone help me distinguish when its OK to say god and when its not. I am not trying to be obnoxious, but i am confused about the rules.
     
  13. Mar 7, 2010 #12
    Reread case B
     
  14. Mar 8, 2010 #13
    1. Awareness of 'I am' proves existence to me.

    2. Existence has to be eternal, or else it would mean it had beginning, but that's impossible since existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

    3. Given eternity the most probable conclusion is that supreme being evolved.

    4. Thus this logicaly proves God to me.

    If logic disproves God to you, fine, your choice.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  15. Mar 8, 2010 #14
    I fail to see the logic.
     
  16. Mar 8, 2010 #15
    Case B proves nothing logically. All it shows is that you have a preference to chosing the universe to have always existed as opposed to a 'supreme being' of some sort. Yet you would prefer to choose the 'supreme being' over an infinite loop.

    Nothing logical shown however to conclude 'No god.'
     
  17. Mar 8, 2010 #16
    Ok so what exactly does supernatural being mean? It sounds like it could mean anything honestly. So if your going to try to prove the non-existence of a being that could be any of almost any type... I think you got your work cut out for you.
     
  18. Mar 8, 2010 #17
    Imagine pure and complete awareness and let's call it God. Now imagine this God being eternal,beyond time and physical limitations. Imagine God creating Universes with life. Life being God's seeds, of same essence as God, thus being relative awareness. Life evolving, progressing into higher and higher states of awareness within this relative reality until one day it reaches highest state of awareness and becomes absolute, goes beyond time and matter, becomes God - pure and complete awareness.

    Now, your logic is kinda true within confines of this Universe, but what if it is incomplete? What if God is outside this Universe?

    My logic tells me there is state of incredibly high awareness (as I pointed out in my previous post here), and I have no problem calling that God.
     
  19. Mar 8, 2010 #18
    What if God is outside this Universe?

    How can god be outside of "every thing"?

    And why are you ok with calling awareness god? What exactly does pure and complete awareness look like?
     
  20. Mar 9, 2010 #19
    You are exactly right. This is YOUR personal 'logic' and it is in no way shape or form comparable to what is actually known as logic.
     
  21. Mar 15, 2010 #20
    So, is there a God or not?
    Has to be one way or another.
     
  22. Mar 15, 2010 #21
    In my opinion it's a pointless question so why ask it? Of course there has to be an answer but does it mean anything to us at all?

    What about the teacup???
     
  23. Mar 15, 2010 #22
     
  24. Mar 15, 2010 #23

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a standard question so forgive my standard reply.

    The question as posed reflects a certain paradigm. It assumes the universe exists and therefore there is a problem of first cause.

    But another way of looking at it is that the universe persists, and it is the product of a developmental process.

    Development can be considered as something ruled also by final cause - there is a purpose, or at least an attractor, which "draws the outcome inevitably towards it".

    The initial conditions for this kind of self-organisation are then a vague potential. The kind of symmetrical everythingness that is also a nothingness.

    I collected resources on this earlier thread.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514
     
  25. Mar 15, 2010 #24


    I think i understand what you are saying but i get the feeling that you are deliberately being vague about your idea. Is it because it's against the forum rules to put forward theories that you cannot prove or is it because you feel that the missing part of the puzzle we call reality is still too hazy? Or perhaps both?
     
  26. Mar 15, 2010 #25

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a philosophy thread, so a sound argument should be good enough. It is also the most ancient of philosophical positions. You can find it Taoism and buddhism.

    And ironically perhaps, the best example in ancient times is the pretty much over-looked metaphysics of Anaximander, the first real philosopher in recorded history.

    His term for what I am calling vague potential was apeiron - loosely translated as the boundless, the unlimited. So scholarly precedent is not a problem for this view of causality.

    Vagueness itself is a standard philosophical term (see the sorities paradox). It was again important in the work of a major metaphysician, CS Peirce, and ontic vagueness was a vogue issue in modern philosophy for about four years from 2002 (don't ask me why the interest flared and died so abruptly).

    No, the real problem is that vagueness requires a fundamentally different notion of causation. And that is just a hard thing to understand.

    I remember at first thinking it sounded nonsense and arguing hard against it. Then when it clicked, the lightbulb went on as they say.

    My interest now is in the scientific application and mathematical modelling of this other view of causality. As philosophy, it is itself vague and handwavey. But systems science is a way to make it concrete. And this in turn demands formal mathematical models.

    The best route to modelling a concept like vagueness would be symmetry (and thus symmetry-breaking).

    But it must be a dynamic symmetry and not a static one. So that connects with the maths of fractals and scalefree systems - systems with scale symmetry. And also with equlibrium models.

    So my general claim is that an ancient idea is the answer to modern scientific issues and to make it work we just need the right mathematical representations.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook