Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Gokul43201]

Your set of testable assumptions do not prove anything at all about existence and why there is something instead of nothing. You make an experiment, gather the results and interpret the data the way to suit your philosophical inclination. This is normal, humans are biased, even if they don't realize it all the time.

Are the three sentences above related to each other in some way? I don't see it.

Moreover, the first sentence is repeating an assertion I made in response to your previous post, and by merely repeating instead of addressing and responding to it, does not advance the discussion.

As for the rest of your post, I have the same kind of difficulty with it as I do with the above quoted section: there are a series of non-sequiturs (except possibly one) and I can not see how they are meant to address any of the parts of my post that they follow. Maybe you need to be more explicit in drawing out the connections for me ... but given my currently limited time I think I'll probably leave things here for a bit.

I would like to address the fine-tuning issue when I get some more time though.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've never seen the argument that non-existence could also be viewed as magical. Never thought about it that way, i know way too little about non-existence to make a case on it(and whatever i think i know is very likely wrong anyway). Ask me in 100 years(hopefully ).

Perhaps there is a third way to think about it: that neither existence nor non-existence need be viewed as magical?

 

[DaveC426913]

But that's not how most atheists participating in this thread come across. No matter how many times you say that you merely lack belief in gods, your intolerance of other viewpoints(this is visible in the posts so far) indicates that it's not just lack of belief but a belief that god does not exist.

The lack of tolerance isn't toward belief in God, it's toward weak arguments trying to support a conclusion.

You'll find that people on this board are equally quick to tear apart any and all weak arguments, whether they be about God or about the historical presence of humans on the Moon or about the Heisenberg state of atoms at absolute zero.

And in each case, the arguments are all old, well-estalished and have all been heard. No need to revisit them all again; we jump straight to the dismissal.

 

[zomgwtf]

The lack of tolerance isn't toward belief in God, it's toward weak arguments trying to support a conclusion.

You'll find that people on this board are equally quick to tear apart any and all weak arguments, whether they be about God or about the historical presence of humans on the Moon or about the Heisenberg state of atoms at absolute zero.

And in each case, the arguments are all old, well-estalished and have all been heard. No need to revisit them all again; we jump straight to the dismissal.

Not only that but the lack of belief in particular Gods has to do with the RELIGIONS that portray them! Nothing to do really with the actual existence of God. Someone on these forums once said the only difference between atheist and christians is the lack of belief in one more God. Couldn't be more true.

The intolerance generally shown by atheist is towards particular religions hardly ever shown towards the general concept of God. (Very general concept not one narrowed by any religion)

Religions are definitely debunkable by science and that's what some atheist do, simple. Some atheist might take a philosophical approach to the problems of God and existence etc. but that's far from being a majority. The amount of persons doing this relative to the atheistic population is so small it's probably negligible.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Are the three sentences above related to each other in some way? I don't see it.

The interpretation of experimental evidence as to how it relates to the big scheme of things is subjective. Every scientist, from the PHD to the Nobel Laureate, can interpret the data to support his personal beliefs as to how everything came to be or why there is anything at all(and all in fact do). Drawing a firm, definitive conclusion based on the beliefs of a circle of scientists is naive.


The existence of everything, no matter if it developed through evolution or if everything is part of a giant computer simulation, projection, etc., is a testament of the existence of god. God is simply the essence of everything that is in existence. I posit that anything that exists needs the hand of God, regardless if that is a dog, a flee, a stone or a human. Existence in my view is actually supernatural.

 

[GeorgCantor]

And in each case, the arguments are all old, well-estalished and have all been heard. No need to revisit them all again; we jump straight to the dismissal.

You can't prove that existence isn't supernatural(or if it's natural) so why bother imposing your belief on others? This isn't very tolerant, i can only compare it to those followers of the islam religion who are very certain they have got everything right and are generally intolerant towards other views. What if you are wrong?

 

[GeorgCantor]

You'll find that people on this board are equally quick to tear apart any and all weak arguments, whether they be about God or about the historical presence of humans on the Moon or about the Heisenberg state of atoms at absolute zero.

What does a Nobel Prize winner know about existence, Dave? What does ANYONE know? Why do you expect a bunch of naive humans to have discovered the ultimate truths? We as species operate on the principle of incomplete information. That's how we always draw our conclusions and those conclusions are always tentative. All our models are raised on incomplete information and there is always the possibility that the model might be proven wrong or that it needs adjustments. I would say that you have been blinded by science, like most of the atheist camp. We can't draw definitive conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God from what we know. If we do, we'd be acting naive.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't prove that existence isn't supernatural(or if it's natural) so why bother imposing your belief on others? This isn't very tolerant, i can only compare it to those followers of the islam religion who are very certain they have got everything right and are generally intolerant towards other views.

We're not imposing our beliefs, we're tearing down weak arguments, which can be done whether or not we believe in the subject at hand. It's called Devil's Advocate, and do it all the time, even for things I agree with. I could point you at some very recent threads where I have done exactly that.

What if you are wrong?

What if we are?

At the risk of generalizing (athiests, correct me if I misstep here), we'd loooooove to be wrong; we're probably one of the few groups in the world that would love to be proven wrong. Athiests care less about being right or wrong than they do about incontrovertable evidence either way.

So when ask for evidence, and we get nothing compelling, we see no reason to believe. But we're always open to new input.


Believers don't know or care if anyone else sees the evidence, all that matters is that they see it. That's the key to belief versus critical examination - objective, repeatable and independently-examinable and compelling evidence.

 

[Studiot]

What do we mean by 'god'?

Is he an all powerful being? ie one that can chose to perform any task if he so wishes.

Then he can perform the task of setting himself an impossible task, whether he choses to or not.

Of course this is a paradox.

So perhaps he is not all powerful, but has limitations?

Then is he not simply a more advanced being than us?

 

[Gokul43201]

The interpretation of experimental evidence as to how it relates to the big scheme of things is subjective. Every scientist, from the PHD to the Nobel Laureate, can interpret the data to support his personal beliefs as to how everything came to be or why there is anything at all(and all in fact do). Drawing a firm, definitive conclusion based on the beliefs of a circle of scientists is naive.

Where do you get this stuff from? If all scientists ("from the PHD to the Nobel Laureate", whatever that means) are doing this, you must have millions of papers you could cite, where the authors interpret experimental data to draw conclusions about "why there is anything at all."

And irrespective of that, if you are now proposing that mainstream science is really just the agglomeration of the personal beliefs of a circle of scientists, that's just plain crackpottery.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do we mean by 'god'?

Is he an all powerful being? ie one that can chose to perform any task if he so wishes.

Then he can perform the task of setting himself an impossible task, whether he choses to or not.

Of course this is a paradox.

So perhaps he is not all powerful, but has limitations?

Then is he not simply a more advanced being than us?

Been there, done that. Locked the thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=396540".

 

[GeorgCantor]

Where do you get this stuff from? If all scientists ("from the PHD to the Nobel Laureate", whatever that means) are doing this, you must have millions of papers you could cite, where the authors interpret experimental data to draw conclusions about "why there is anything at all."

There is no agreement between phd's and Nobel prize winners on whether God exists or not. Period. If you want me, i could cite you references on their personal beliefs, one by one, each Nobel prize winner. There are just as many deists among Nobel prize winners as there are atheists. I would be surprized if this were news to you.

And irrespective of that, if you are now proposing that mainstream science is really just the agglomeration of the personal beliefs of a circle of scientists, that's just plain crackpottery.

What is crackpottery imo is the implicit assumption that some scientists 'know' or have 'proven' that a God/creator is not necessary for the miracle of existence. And as you say the opinion of the "mainstream science on God is really just the agglomeration of the personal beliefs". This is totally correct, you put it quite well.

 

[Evo]

And as you say the opinion of the "mainstream science on God is really just the agglomeration of the personal beliefs". This is totally correct, you put it quite well.

Please link to the post where gokul said this.

 

[nismaratwork]

TO expand on my point, consider the history of "zero". Nothing has been far more mystical than something for a long time. The idea that something is anymore astonishing than the nothingness, or some other state that we can't imagine is ridiculous.

 

[alt]

I've been thinking about the discussion we had last night (well, my last night) about the meaning of the word 'atheist'. I agreed that in the breakdown of the word it means 'without belief in a god', as was said by others here.

I was left with some dissatisfaction about this conclusion, because I know that if you ask the common man in the street what he thinks an atheist is, he will probably reply 'someone who doesn't believe in god' but with a positive slant on 'doesn't believe' to the extent that he believes that 'there in no god'.

This makes me wonder then, whether words mean what they literally mean, or what the majority of people using them think they meam.

I thought it worthwhile therefore, to look at the definitions available immediately around me. The first one, which I referenced earlier, was;

Wordweb
Atheist; Someone who denies the existence of god
Atheism;
1) The doctrine or belief that there is no God
2) A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

I found this quite interesting, as it really doesn't appear to be a dictionary designed by religionists. The next was;

Microsoft Works (v9)
Atheist; unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
Atheism; unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

Again here, 'does not believe' is perhaps a little stronger than 'without belief' IMO. The next;

Collins Softback English Dictionary Harper Collins Publishers 1992 Edition
ISBN 0 00 4701144-5
Atheism;
1) A rejection of belief in God or gods
2) Archaic. behaviour or attitudes regarded as evil or sinful; godlessness.

Definitely a lot stronger than 'without belief'. Next;

Macmillan Australian Student Dictionary
(For primary school children aged 10 - 15)
Copyright Macquarie University NSW, 2005
ISBN 978 7329 9973 5
Atheist; noun; someone who believes that there is no God

Again, stronger than 'without belief'.

Yes, I've seen the wiki pages referenced by others that say 'without belief', but isn't it interesting how other, perhaps older, more traditional sources say something quite different.

Perhaps we are seeing an evolution of the word from one meaning to another.

PS; just to lay my cards on the table about belief in God, well, I'm ambivalent, and as certain posters have commented earlier, it depends volumes, on wht you mean by 'god'.

One thing for sure, though, I would never try to persuade anyone either way. But it's interesting talk, nonetheless.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is no agreement between phd's and Nobel prize winners on whether God exists or not. Period. If you want me, i could cite you references on their personal beliefs, one by one, each Nobel prize winner. There are just as many deists among Nobel prize winners as there are atheists. I would be surprized if this were news to you.

You claimed that these beliefs were based on interpretation of experimental data. You had better start citing papers or retract that claim.

What is crackpottery imo is the implicit assumption that some scientists 'know' or have 'proven' that a God/creator is not necessary for the miracle of existence.

Where is this implicit assumption (behind this grandiosely meaningless assertion) made in this thread?

And as you say the opinion of the "mainstream science on God is really just the agglomeration of the personal beliefs". This is totally correct, you put it quite well.

Not only is this a deliberate misquote of what I said, it's just plain crackpottery.

 

[n.karthick]

I think it is more easy for people to believe things than reasoning, that is why they stick to belief system. In my view, by simple reasoning, anyone can easily understand and convince himself that "God" is just a mental concept created for some convenience and has no physical significance.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it is more easy for people to believe things than reasoning, that is why they stick to belief system. In my view, by simple reasoning, anyone can easily understand and convince himself that "God" is just a mental concept created for some convenience and has no physical significance.

And do you think we would all follow the same "simple reasoning" and reach the same conclusion? Do you think we all start with the same premises for our reasoning? Do you think we all accept the same evidence to base conclusions on?

We're on post 198 now. Do you think 196 of them are pointless? (Post 1: "This is the way things are." Post 2: "Huh we are all forced to agree.")

 

[Pattonias]

How would a definition of god that doesn't extend further than an intelligence behind the origin of the universe stand up to scrutiny?
Most people pick apart the notion of a creator due to opinions as to whether he interacts with the universe and how well he may or may not perform this duty.

If you say that your only concept of a creator was a non-human intelligence that set in motion the universe, and left the rest open ended; could we not find credence in some peoples notion of a higher intelligence?

For some, myself included, we have determined that systems established through technology are automatically assumed to have a creator/designer. I tend to carry this thinking into the universe. I see an incredibly complex order that could denote an intelligent design. This belief doesn't give credence to any religion as there is no evidence to the nature of a creator or reason behind creation so how could I make a judgement.

Describing a mythical creature or absurd monster doesn't really counter this argument because, as some have said, we can use natural observations to determine the unlikelihood of their existence to the near infinite.

When held simply to the possibility of an intelligence behind the system that is the universe, it seems that a "creator" is as much a possibility as any other explanation.

 

[pftest]

When held simply to the possibility of an intelligence behind the system that is the universe, it seems that a "creator" is as much a possibility as any other explanation.

Yes that's true, it may very well be the case that the universe was created (consciously influenced). It may not be science (science wont/cant consider it), but reality isn't constrained by the limits of the scientific method.

I think the belief that there is no creator, or that he is redundant, is based on a string of assumptions. It all starts with the assumption that the physical ingredients in general are devoid of consciousness. Also, as i mentioned earlier, the current universe needs consciousness to be the way it is. Many assume that consciousness is a late arrival, limited to the brains in which it "emerged", and think that the universe could exist perfectly well without it. But upon closer inspection, this "emergence" business has no examples anywhere in nature to back it up.

I see an incredibly complex order that could denote an intelligent design.

Yes and even if there was an incredibly simple situation, there is no logic to suggest that simplicity implies lack of conscious influence. I remember reading Victor Stengers hypothesis of a pre-bigbang void of "unphysical" zero energy. He made it seem like it was an argument against a creator.

 

[Evo]

How would a definition of god that doesn't extend further than an intelligence behind the origin of the universe stand up to scrutiny?
Most people pick apart the notion of a creator due to opinions as to whether he interacts with the universe and how well he may or may not perform this duty.

If you say that your only concept of a creator was a non-human intelligence that set in motion the universe, and left the rest open ended; could we not find credence in some peoples notion of a higher intelligence?

For some, myself included, we have determined that systems established through technology are automatically assumed to have a creator/designer. I tend to carry this thinking into the universe. I see an incredibly complex order that could denote an intelligent design. This belief doesn't give credence to any religion as there is no evidence to the nature of a creator or reason behind creation so how could I make a judgement.

Describing a mythical creature or absurd monster doesn't really counter this argument because, as some have said, we can use natural observations to determine the unlikelihood of their existence to the near infinite.

When held simply to the possibility of an intelligence behind the system that is the universe, it seems that a "creator" is as much a possibility as any other explanation.

Yes that's true, it may very well be the case that the universe was created (consciously influenced). It may not be science (science wont/cant consider it), but reality isn't constrained by the limits of the scientific method.

I think the belief that there is no creator, or that he is redundant, is based on a string of assumptions. It all starts with the assumption that the physical ingredients in general are devoid of consciousness. Also, as i mentioned earlier, the current universe needs consciousness to be the way it is. Many assume that consciousness is a late arrival, limited to the brains in which it "emerged", and think that the universe could exist perfectly well without it. But upon closer inspection, this "emergence" business has no examples anywhere in nature to back it up.

Yes and even if there was an incredibly simple situation, there is no logic to suggest that simplicity implies lack of conscious influence. I remember reading Victor Stengers hypothesis of a pre-bigbang void of "unphysical" zero energy. He made it seem like it was an argument against a creator.

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

 

[Galap]

Omnipotence and omniscence cannot exist. We live in a universe. That is obvious. Something exists rather than nothing. This can be proven. For omnipotence and omniscience to exist, the universe itself must be in a self refferential and self diagnostic state. It must be in a state where it knows about itself entirely. Now, I, being a part of the universe, am somewhat diagnostic and manifest, due to the fact that I am intelligent and alive. I can say for certain though that I do not contain all the information that exists in the universe, and since I'm a part of it, I can prove that such information is not known at all by the whole universe. Therefore no omniscience.

If that was worded confusingly I can try to rephrase :)

Now I'm not saying that what we call the universe isn't artificial, but I am saying that for it to be such there must be something outside it, a place in which the creator resides, it itself being a non omnipotent being with respect to both its environment and ours. If you build a house, it does not make you the God of all that's inside.

 

[pftest]

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

First, i don't say there "had to be" a creator, I am saying that is is possible that a conscious influence has been around since the big bang. One main objection to this is that C emerged in brains, but upon closer inspection, "emergence" of that kind doesn't happen anywhere in nature, so it doesn't exactly score high on how natural such an event is. I believe materialism is so popular because of a combination of the bandwagon effect, a counter-reaction to religion, and people not properly understanding what science is.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

One point i have made earlier is that there is nothing unnatural about consciousness. There is also no conflict between the existence of consciousness, and the way the universe behaves, whether it is by laws or not.

People often bring up evolution also. Even there, is it clear that consciousness influences evolution, simply because of how it influences animal behaviour and thereby natural selection.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Because there is existence instead of non-existence.

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

The Newtonian universe is dead! No need to take the dead body out of the coffin, except for nostalgic reasons. We need a Major shift in our thinking to understand the universe as it is, not as it is perceived or as it seems.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

Somebody deleted my fairly long replies to you earlier and the one to Gokul, but my point was - why do you suppose anything could be in existence without a Creator? That timeline you posted doesn't address origins and doesn't say if anything can exist without a creator. Isn't it a bit naive to jump to conclusions given the lack of information about the origin and the controversial nature of the clues we have at hand - a universe that is right for life and fairly comprehensible?

 

[Evo]

why do you suppose anything could be in existence without a God?

Because there is no need for magic.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

 

[Pattonias]

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

The discussion about what happened at the origin of the universe is pure philosophy. I feel that there may be a creator because I see an order in the universe and I find it difficult to argue for a lack of design.

The time line is irrelevant. Until humans started keeping track of time, time in the universe was meaningless. I could see how if I was arguing as a creation scientist the time line would be a problem, but as I believe in evolution I don't have any problem with the time line.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Because there is no need for magic.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

I am aware that there are many things i believe and assume to be true, even though i cannot prove them. There are many things that you yourself believe and assume to be true, even though you cannot prove them. You can't prove that you have free will for instance. You can't prove that there is randomness in Nature, etc. So what? We always need to make assumptions, you make the assumption that the origin is natural and i have no problem with that. You can't however stress that your assumptions are more valid than the rest, because you don't have evidence to back them up. Atheists need to become tolerant towards other viewpoints and realize the assumptions that lie behind their reasoning.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

Beliefs are NOT proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. Your belief about the natural origin cannot be proven either.

 

[Evo]

The discussion about what happened at the origin of the universe is pure philosophy.

My point was that this is not the philosophy *forum*, so be brief and to the point.

 

[Pattonias]

My point was that this is not the philosophy *forum*, so be brief and to the point.

And my point is that any answer would be philosophy as neither you or I am able to give an answer the has been proven true. I gave you my answer in the previous post.

 

[Evo]

And my point is that any answer would be philosophy as neither you or I am able to give an answer the has been proven true. I gave you my answer in the previous post.

There are threads about the existence of god(s) in the philosophy forum. This is skepticism and debunking and the OP's question was

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".