Suggestions that god exists

  • Thread starter brushman
  • Start date

Evo

Mentor
22,874
2,349
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 thats 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 isnt 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
 
138
0
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.
 
243
0
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 dont say there "had to be" a creator, im 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 doesnt happen anywhere in nature, so it doesnt 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.
 
Last edited:
410
1
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?
 
Last edited:

Evo

Mentor
22,874
2,349
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.
 
160
0
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.
 
410
1
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

Mentor
22,874
2,349
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.
 
160
0
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

Mentor
22,874
2,349
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".
 
138
0
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, 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.




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

What does 'free will' mean though? Either the universe is deterministic or it isnt. If it's deterministic, your decisions are based on your construction and the input you recieve. If it isn't, your decisions are based on randomness, which means theyre based on nothing. Where in there is 'free will' a meaningful term to use? It seems to me that the term places an unwarranted amount of significance and fundamentiality on intelligence. I know this sounds off topic, but bear with me a second. What we have done here is taken an anthropocentric view of reality, as if WE were the fundamental parts of the universe, not the particles. Now when we invoke a 'god', we are anthropocentrizing as well. What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god? Was the universe's design intelligent? How can we attempt to answer that if we don't really know what intelligence is in the first place?
 
410
1
What does 'free will' mean though? Either the universe is deterministic or it isnt. If it's deterministic, your decisions are based on your construction and the input you recieve. If it isn't, your decisions are based on randomness, which means theyre based on nothing. Where in there is 'free will' a meaningful term to use? It seems to me that the term places an unwarranted amount of significance and fundamentiality on intelligence. I know this sounds off topic, but bear with me a second. What we have done here is taken an anthropocentric view of reality, as if WE were the fundamental parts of the universe, not the particles. Now when we invoke a 'god', we are anthropocentrizing as well. What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god? Was the universe's design intelligent? How can we attempt to answer that if we don't really know what intelligence is in the first place?

I know you addressed your questions to me but they are offtopic and i seem to stick out with my views and will receive another infraction in the same thread or have my posts deleted. Sorry, i can't reply to you here.


What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god?

This is ontopic but is contentious so i'll be very brief - my brain isn't well suited to dealing with concepts that involve infinities, singularities and such. The God i am thinking of isn't remotely similar to a being sat in a throne. And as usual, I could be wrong(take that as a disclaimer)
 
Last edited:
160
0
There are threads about the existence of god(s) in the philosophy forum. This is skepticism and debunking and the OP's question was
I never tried to redirect the thread, I merely wanted to add that the debunking "junk science" approach fails to determine the existence of a god due to the fact that it only goes to discredit the attempts at science made by religious groups. It doesn't show one way or another whether there may have been an intelligent designer or not.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,874
2,349
Beliefs are NOT proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. Your belief about the natural origin cannot be proven either.
I'm not claiming that a magical creature was involved. I have no problems with people that believe in or worship supernatural beings as long as they don't say it's the only possibility. If they do, then they carry the burden of proof.
 
Because there is existence instead of non-existence.
I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?

As Evo said, and seems to have been neatly ignored, this isn't philosophy, just the facts madam. I've made two stabs at this, and I'm pressing it, why is existence somehow special, and nothingness is not? Why is 0 such a world-changing concept if the infinity of nothing isn't perceived as mystical in some ways?

Posing the existence of a god just makes me ask: what created god? That is an endless cycle. Only if you're satisfied with an ultimate "something" as preferable to an ultimate "nothing" does your argument hold water. It isn't, it doesn't.
 
169
0
I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?
Because nonexistence seems impossible! Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Hawking, completely empty space is impossible according to Heisenberg, which leads to Hawking radiation (the field's strength and its rate of change cannot be accurately determined to be exactly 0). Nature does abhor a vacuum, even outside black holes!

The problem here is that people who believe want an explanation for why the world is, how it was created, why matter should exist, why the universe exists, even if they don't always fully grasp the science of it. They want answers to these questions and skeptical scientists...don't. They shouldn't be derided for asking questions some scientists choose to ignore. The answers proposed are necessarily and scientifically unsatisfactory given the nature of the topic, but that's not their fault (lest you wish to do away with their curiousity about certain questions)

Finally, the burden of proof is NOT on the religious people alone, but actually equally on both sides of the debate. Let me explain:

According to Russell's teapot, the burden of proof is on those who make positive statements, not negative statements. He said its foolish to suppose a teapot is orbiting the earth but can't be seen and we shouldn't assume it exists.

However, how do we differentiate between a positive and negative statement in terms of burden of proof? In the teapot case, its obvious, the default should be there is no teapot because there no evidence and we should expect evidence for such an object and no invisible teapot has ever been discovered. The amount of evidence falls drastically short of the evidence expected.

With gd on the other hand, there can't be an empirical, experimental proof (unless he if he exists chooses to reveal himself). It's impossible to ascertain either way whether or not he exists. The empirical evidence we have for gd is 0 and the evidence we expect to have is also 0! There is an impossible gulf between the evidence we can possibly have and the evidence we would need, and this works both ways. The evidence needed to prove or disprove his evidence is impossible to obtain, and theres no reason to burden oneside with an impossible task that cuts both ways. In contrast to ideas like the flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, and faeries which we should be able to observe, the evidence we have and expect to possibly attain will always fall short of the evidence we need.

As long as you take the scientific approach to religion, the only reasonable approach is agnosticism, whether you are an agnositc atheist, or agnostic theist is up to you.
 
410
1
I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?

.

What is so stranage about this 'nonexistence' affair?

If you didn't exist, would you ask "Why don't I exist?" Or if you didn't exist, would you have asked "Why is there Nothing instead of Something?". And how exactly would you have asked when you don't exist?

Either your question is very deep and i am unable to grasp it, or it doesn't make any sense. Either way, it's offtopic and i can't afford to discuss it here. Post a new topic in the philosophy forum.
 

baywax

Gold Member
1,919
1
What is so stranage about this 'nonexistence' affair?

If you didn't exist, would you ask "Why don't I exist?" Or if you didn't exist, would you have asked "Why is there Nothing instead of Something?". And how exactly would you have asked when you don't exist?

Either your question is very deep and i am unable to grasp it, or it doesn't make any sense. Either way, it's offtopic and i can't afford to discuss it here. Post a new topic in the philosophy forum.
God is considered a metaphysical concept. Its not a fact by scientific terms, its a concept just the same as zero is a concept. No one has empirically proven zero exists and no one has empirically proven god exists. Those people who claim god exists... and zero exists... need to step up to the plate and start digging through the pudding for the proof. Because they have asserted the claim... dare I say shoved both ideas down people's throats... they need to start pulling the bunny out of the hat and giving the proof of the claim. That's where the concept of zero and the concept of other metaphysical phenomena seem to relate to one another.
 
410
1
God is considered a metaphysical concept. Its not a fact by scientific terms, its a concept just the same as zero is a concept. No one has empirically proven zero exists and no one has empirically proven god exists. Those people who claim god exists... and zero exists... need to step up to the plate and start digging through the pudding for the proof. Because they have asserted the claim... dare I say shoved both ideas down people's throats... they need to start pulling the bunny out of the hat and giving the proof of the claim. That's where the concept of zero and the concept of other metaphysical phenomena seem to relate to one another.


I agree, belief in God is belief and i never even once implied otherwise! I am tolerant towards other viewpoints even if they don't make any sense to me.

Now, for reciprocity, would you be so kind as to apply the same rigorous standards towards atheists, and ask them to produce actual evidence that anything can come into existence without the need of a creator? Or evidence that existence is a natural state and does not require an act of god.
 
Last edited:

alt

Gold Member
200
0
Pardon this interuption, but "zero is a metaphysical concept / doesn't exist" ???

I've never heard this before - might anyone be able to point to a short primer ?

(yes, I have searched but found nothing, or metaphysical gobbledygook)

PS - wonderfully interesting thread / conversation. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,320
1,913
Now, for reciprocity, would you be so kind as to apply the same rigorous standards towards atheists, and ask them to produce actual evidence that anything can come into existence without the need of a creator? Or evidence that existence is a natural state and does not require an act of god.
Don't need to. The onus is not on atheists. Again (at the risk of going around in circles) if one must prove the non-existence of things, one's job will never be done. You might as well ask us to prove that
- there is no such thing as winged unicorns, and that
- there is no such thing as Santa Claus, and that
- there is no invisible incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)
 
245
0
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)
Wow what a thinking. Great!!!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.
 
319
1
Wow what a thinking. Great!!!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.
And then the tail end of that is: as science doesn't have an answer for it, and it may very well exist, and something must have caused its existence, that then must be god.

And yes, Dave's right, that it's not up to atheists to prove a negative or prove that a fictional being does not exist.
 
410
1
Don't need to. The onus is not on atheists. Again (at the risk of going around in circles) if one must prove the non-existence of things, one's job will never be done. You might as well ask us to prove that
- there is no such thing as winged unicorns, and that
- there is no such thing as Santa Claus, and that
- there is no invisible incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)


Quite the opposite. I don't demand that you prove anything(I know you can't!). It's the atheists who are intolerant toward other viewpoints, so THEY must prove how their assumptions about origins and the 'naturality' of existence are more valid than the rest.
 
410
1
Wow what a thinking. Great!!!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.

Science does not in ANY way whatsoever point to the conlcusion that god does not exist(certain religions are easier to dismiss as probably not true though). Scientists are not predominently atheists.
 

Related Threads for: Suggestions that god exists

  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
31K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
24K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
Replies
184
Views
25K

Hot Threads

Top