Logically rationalize God

[Aramas]

OP never really defined the term "god" so I'm not sure how an undefined term can be rationalized

[Metamorph]

Natural selection and random mutation is just not enough to make new information.

Abiogenesis is a pipe dream.

Irreducible complexity is insurmountable. A flagella just evolved? Not likely.

Well energy from the Sun hits particles and reduces their entropy. Likely organic matter and inorganic matter form at the same time as a light wave, which consists of photons and antiphotons, hits particles which are too basic to be defined as organic or inorganic. Basic organic matter evolves readily, especially as negentropy is common in the Universe. Perhaps God does this but no Zeus-looking guy running around is necessary to explain science yet again.

[timber]

Well energy from the Sun hits particles and reduces their entropy. Likely organic matter and inorganic matter form at the same time as a light wave, which consists of photons and antiphotons, hits particles which are too basic to be defined as organic or inorganic. Basic organic matter evolves readily, especially as negentropy is common in the Universe. Perhaps God does this but no Zeus-looking guy running around is necessary to explain science yet again.

Absolutely not what I was talking about at all.

Just fuck it man, I don't care enough about you or this to really get into it with you. I used to be atheist once as well, you guys truly know you have the single answer and everyone else is deluding themselves.

[timber]

That entire sequence of events for the development of the flagella relies on inherent direction of order. Apparently there is zero direction in evolution. Directionless, purposeless. Yet several simultaneous mutations are required at the same time and these had to be carried on through generations as they immediately needed to have some kind of benefit.

Frankly its all bullshit. The entire atheist, purposeless, happenstance is entirely bullshit. If it was so easy to theorize about why haven't researchers actually just done it? Just make it already. Its because its far to complex.

The flagella is just the tip of the iceberg. The folding shape of proteins is another insurmountable obstacle. DNA doesn't bind as amino acid nucleotides without enzymes. Explain the world before enzymes to make DNA? It’s incredibly complex operation for technicians to even do by forcing these molecules to comply with advanced laboratory techniques, you really believe this totally perfect scenario was playing out on early, UV scorched Earth?? As if all you need are the parts and a car will just assemble itself if given enough time. It wouldn’t happen in a hypothetical world, so how could a place with zilch in the way of molecules with some perfect ability to copy with fecundity aka. DNA without a cell wall...just happened to propagate, how the hell did it even get to that place in the first place? DNA doesn't just go together by itself, it needs other kinds of chemistry for that to happen. Hard to do by teams of people in a lab with the best technology, but it was happening in treacherous nature without any mindful intervention just cause? Hur-dur.

Information in terms of evolution is about creating new forms more complex forms from less complex forms. If it was so easy why haven't they produced a new species of fruit flies after all these years? Time scales are all off as well. Whales in 10 million years is impossible using the very same principles. Make even a simple bacteria that works, but don't cheat and just mash already available forms together. Do it the way is supposedly happened.....it can't be done, even with a simple tiny archaea cell, that has maybe 250 genes. Do it without any single preassembled part. Just pure physical chemistry. ....... There is a growing wave of people moving away from Neo-Darwinism.


I actually think quantum mechanics will hold clues for evolutionary biology. The intention of the atom and its affinity to entangle holds clues there.


Like you have to really think about how complex even just cell division is..there are hundreds of thousands, if not a million little chemical operations going on, each distinct and each would have had to evolve separately, by chance, with no direction, no meaning, and no memory..like think about the very first instruction: divide, which is of itself a collection of thousands of individual chemical steps that would have had to evolve just happenstance, for no reason, and against the very principles of pro-ported just to pull it off would need hundreds of codes of information do this in the right order and this order just happened to come about even though the likelihood of hundreds of perfectly ordered instructions is statistically less probable than there are molecules in the entire Universe. It would have to dictate instructions in a order of magnitude that exceeds even common sense and it would look like hundreds of these types of process>>>, then this, then this, stop, then this, then this, stop.


Abiogenesis is proto, even before that point of the code was able to even do something, how did the DNA (RNA early earth wtv) even get to the point where it could have actually done something useful with its code, like you can't think in terms of step by step evolution here of structure, like this is proto-structure. I'm talking random random DNA string of code with no order and therefore no ability to produce meaningful structure. Like why in the fluke chance in hell would it just happen to actually have enough of a pattern to actually instruct something to manifest from seemingly no-thing. Like really what was the sequence way down at that root level long before there even was a DNA code to begin with?? I'm talking dividing the RNA, DNA string into an equal version of itself, you have to understand that even that basic operation that occurs inside a cell is more complex in steps than any mechanical machine mankind has ever built. Abiogenesis just says to us, it was fortuitous, you see? Its like ya fucking right, give me a fucking break.


Chimpazees in a cage don’t just type out Shakespeare if given the chance. …. Its this kind of blind faith in magical chance that has lead to the creation of The Rise of Skywalker and the magical Mary Sue that can do anything, because the plot needs it.


Structure of the DNA molecule gives proteins their shape. Structure is function. To tell a molecule to make a shape and then to add new information just by tiny changes in the DNA molecule is just not a good enough principle to demonstrate that evolution was possible in a world BEFORE DNA molecules even had a shape and coded sequence to begin with. Like DNA doesn't just hang out in open pools, or in the depths of the ocean just chilling without protection from the elements.


Actually the more you look into it the more ludicrous the atheist world view actually becomes. Its like you guys are separated from spirit or something, when really you are just inside the paradigm that needed to happen to escape the clutches of the Christian Church as it had a strangle hold on Civilization's framework perception of reality, along with the burgeoning fields of technological flowering that was occurring at the time. Its okay to submit to a higher power, even if you have been taught form childhood there is none.

[Metamorph]

Absolutely not what I was talking about at all.

Just fuck it man, I don't care enough about you or this to really get into it with you. I used to be atheist once as well, you guys truly know you have the single answer and everyone else is deluding themselves.

I'm not an atheist (my actual beliefs are complicated,) but no organized religion says "thou mustest believe Creation happened in a way contradictory to science, and then thou shalt be saved." It's always events around a human being or avatar during human history (Jesus, Buddha, etc.)

[Metamorph]

I actually think quantum mechanics will hold clues for evolutionary biology. The intention of the atom and its affinity to entangle holds clues there.

Congratulations, you denied my very specific quantum origin of abiogenesis, and then put forth a vague quantum origin of abiogenesis! But unless we find Jew Zeus at the scene, it can't be a valid theory.

[End]

Kierkegaard is terrible. No one should fear a just being. No one should believe something contrary to what reason tells them to be true - is that even really possible?

I've pointed this out before but I'll do it again here. There is a story by Jack Vance that really illuminated this point for me. If you don't want to read his stuff and find the story I'm referencing in doing so but I"ll spell it out in order for you to "get it" as it were. Two people who are quite desperate for damn good reason get two options, either prostrate themselves before some asshole wizard or a literal God of Justice. They choose to gamble on the later. The being giving them that choice notes how rare/stupid it is that those given the choice gamble on the later choice given how, well, likely that "God" is going to fuck them over so very very hard.

I doubt you'll get why that story stuck with me as hard as it did but I do welcome you opinion on this matter if/when you get around to reading it. It's a good one, and I'd hope we all share our top stories with each other.

After all, this ain't a "pay to win" site like Amazon has sadly become...

[Adam Strange]

@End, I thought I’d read every story that Jack Vance ever wrote, but I don’t recognize the one that you are describing. What is the name of the story?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I've pointed this out before but I'll do it again here. There is a story by Jack Vance that really illuminated this point for me. If you don't want to read his stuff and find the story I'm referencing in doing so but I"ll spell it out in order for you to "get it" as it were. Two people who are quite desperate for damn good reason get two options, either prostrate themselves before some asshole wizard or a literal God of Justice. They choose to gamble on the later. The being giving them that choice notes how rare/stupid it is that those given the choice gamble on the later choice given how, well, likely that "God" is going to fuck them over so very very hard.

I doubt you'll get why that story stuck with me as hard as it did but I do welcome you opinion on this matter if/when you get around to reading it. It's a good one, and I'd hope we all share our top stories with each other.

After all, this ain't a "pay to win" site like Amazon has sadly become...

No one can tell if someone is a "God of Justice" if they are capable of any action - that is no choice at at all.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

That entire sequence of events for the development of the flagella relies on inherent direction of order. Apparently there is zero direction in evolution. Directionless, purposeless. Yet several simultaneous mutations are required at the same time and these had to be carried on through generations as they immediately needed to have some kind of benefit.

Frankly its all bullshit. The entire atheist, purposeless, happenstance is entirely bullshit. If it was so easy to theorize about why haven't researchers actually just done it? Just make it already. Its because its far to complex.

The flagella is just the tip of the iceberg. The folding shape of proteins is another insurmountable obstacle. DNA doesn't bind as amino acid nucleotides without enzymes. Explain the world before enzymes to make DNA? It’s incredibly complex operation for technicians to even do by forcing these molecules to comply with advanced laboratory techniques, you really believe this totally perfect scenario was playing out on early, UV scorched Earth?? As if all you need are the parts and a car will just assemble itself if given enough time. It wouldn’t happen in a hypothetical world, so how could a place with zilch in the way of molecules with some perfect ability to copy with fecundity aka. DNA without a cell wall...just happened to propagate, how the hell did it even get to that place in the first place? DNA doesn't just go together by itself, it needs other kinds of chemistry for that to happen. Hard to do by teams of people in a lab with the best technology, but it was happening in treacherous nature without any mindful intervention just cause? Hur-dur.

Information in terms of evolution is about creating new forms more complex forms from less complex forms. If it was so easy why haven't they produced a new species of fruit flies after all these years? Time scales are all off as well. Whales in 10 million years is impossible using the very same principles. Make even a simple bacteria that works, but don't cheat and just mash already available forms together. Do it the way is supposedly happened.....it can't be done, even with a simple tiny archaea cell, that has maybe 250 genes. Do it without any single preassembled part. Just pure physical chemistry. ....... There is a growing wave of people moving away from Neo-Darwinism.


I actually think quantum mechanics will hold clues for evolutionary biology. The intention of the atom and its affinity to entangle holds clues there.


Like you have to really think about how complex even just cell division is..there are hundreds of thousands, if not a million little chemical operations going on, each distinct and each would have had to evolve separately, by chance, with no direction, no meaning, and no memory..like think about the very first instruction: divide, which is of itself a collection of thousands of individual chemical steps that would have had to evolve just happenstance, for no reason, and against the very principles of pro-ported just to pull it off would need hundreds of codes of information do this in the right order and this order just happened to come about even though the likelihood of hundreds of perfectly ordered instructions is statistically less probable than there are molecules in the entire Universe. It would have to dictate instructions in a order of magnitude that exceeds even common sense and it would look like hundreds of these types of process>>>, then this, then this, stop, then this, then this, stop.


Abiogenesis is proto, even before that point of the code was able to even do something, how did the DNA (RNA early earth wtv) even get to the point where it could have actually done something useful with its code, like you can't think in terms of step by step evolution here of structure, like this is proto-structure. I'm talking random random DNA string of code with no order and therefore no ability to produce meaningful structure. Like why in the fluke chance in hell would it just happen to actually have enough of a pattern to actually instruct something to manifest from seemingly no-thing. Like really what was the sequence way down at that root level long before there even was a DNA code to begin with?? I'm talking dividing the RNA, DNA string into an equal version of itself, you have to understand that even that basic operation that occurs inside a cell is more complex in steps than any mechanical machine mankind has ever built. Abiogenesis just says to us, it was fortuitous, you see? Its like ya fucking right, give me a fucking break.


Chimpazees in a cage don’t just type out Shakespeare if given the chance. …. Its this kind of blind faith in magical chance that has lead to the creation of The Rise of Skywalker and the magical Mary Sue that can do anything, because the plot needs it.


Structure of the DNA molecule gives proteins their shape. Structure is function. To tell a molecule to make a shape and then to add new information just by tiny changes in the DNA molecule is just not a good enough principle to demonstrate that evolution was possible in a world BEFORE DNA molecules even had a shape and coded sequence to begin with. Like DNA doesn't just hang out in open pools, or in the depths of the ocean just chilling without protection from the elements.


Actually the more you look into it the more ludicrous the atheist world view actually becomes. Its like you guys are separated from spirit or something, when really you are just inside the paradigm that needed to happen to escape the clutches of the Christian Church as it had a strangle hold on Civilization's framework perception of reality, along with the burgeoning fields of technological flowering that was occurring at the time. Its okay to submit to a higher power, even if you have been taught form childhood there is none.

Order is a a human notion.

DNA replication is not "random". If it was, then things that are incapable of replicating would be as prevalent as things that are capable of replicating. Lifeforms that prosper in their environment are especially good at replicating - this is not "random".

What happens in the universe happens according to the laws of nature - it is meaningless to say that any one event has "purpose" or is "random".

We only have one instance of nature to compare things to. You are essentially saying "This happened, it could only have been this way, therefore it must have been created with purpose." This is like a puddle thinking that the hole that it is in was created for it.

There is no evidence that creating something out of nothing is possible. Chimpanzees typing out the works of Shakespeare someday is merely a matter of estimated low probability.

[End]

@End, I thought I’d read every story that Jack Vance ever wrote, but I don’t recognize the one that you are describing. What is the name of the story?

If you have than you are a man of culture that I honestly envy. For I have only had the chance to read a few of them, but I do intend to correct that this year. The man was an absolute genius/grandmaster of storytelling and I hold it to be an absolute fucking crime against the arts that his name and, by extension, his stories are not known by all who call themselves fans of Fantasy and Science-Fiction (at least in the "western" world) from just the samples I've had the pleasure of experiencing. I mean fuck, I've ran into people who are big into D&D and have no fucking clue who Gygax was directly (yet very lovingly and respectfully) ripping off with that system.

As for the story, it was from his "Tales of the Dying Earth". It was titled "T'sais" and focused on that eponymous, hauntingly beautiful yet very poor girl who, through an accident of her creation by a sorcerer/mage, couldn't see anything beautiful in the world or even accurately conceive of what "beauty" points towards/is a result of but hey, read it again and you'll see he wasn't being subtle about it. It stuck with me for many reasons .

[ashlesha]

Lol glad I could make a thread that has been a source of endless amusement.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Consider...


-Something can’t come from nothing, everything has an origin/purpose for existing

-Therefore, something started the Big Bang

-Things usually come from things “greater” (ex babies come from parents)

-If the universe was created by something “greater” it makes reasonable sense that entity would defy physics and logic to create a Big Bang out of thin air (God)

-It’s hard to replicate any form of speciation/adaptation in the lab even when directed with intelligent scientists (ex: we can’t breed different species no matter how hard we try due to genetic limits) but evolution assumes it happened by random chance through sheer force of nature given a long period of time (some bacteria floating around to complex organisms)


A trip down memory lane...

Everyone trying to gangbang me here:

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ghetti+monster

Debate with SubT Part I (Wow 10 years ago lol...)

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...sus+historical

Debate with SubT part II (my user name was Bill Nye back then)

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ize-God/page15

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ize-God/page16

If Something cannot come from Nothing, then logically, Something must always have existed. Therefore Something does not need a creator.

Order is a a human notion.

DNA replication is not "random". If it was, then things that are incapable of replicating would be as prevalent as things that are capable of replicating. Lifeforms that prosper in their environment are especially good at replicating - this is not "random".

What happens in the universe happens according to the laws of nature - it is meaningless to say that any one event has "purpose" or is "random".

We only have one instance of nature to compare things to. You are essentially saying "This happened, it could only have been this way, therefore it must have been created with purpose." This is like a puddle thinking that the hole that it is in was created for it.

There is no evidence that creating something out of nothing is possible. Chimpanzees typing out the works of Shakespeare someday is merely a matter of estimated low probability.

[Computer Loser]

If Something cannot come from Nothing, then logically, Something must always have existed. Therefore Something does not need a creator.

How could something always exist without a creator/cause if it follows the laws of nature, according to you

"..What happens in the universe happens according to the laws of nature.."

What's an example of this / why would the universe itself be exempt from following the laws of nature

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How could something always exist without a creator/cause if it follows the laws of nature, according to you



What's an example of this?

You said that "Something can’t come from nothing"...therefore "Something" must always have existed. It is the only possibility given the parameter you gave.

The laws of nature can only be said to exist within the universe.

An example of that is any event that happens.

If "Something" always exists, then there must be an infinitely long chain of causes and effects if there is such a thing as causality. Possible you are limited by seeing "Time" as linear. Possibly we are limited by even considering "Time" as a meaningful concept.

[Computer Loser]

You said that "Something can’t come from nothing"...therefore "Something" must always have existed. It is the only possibility given the parameter you gave.

This is what I said:

Something can’t come from nothing, everything has an origin/purpose for existing

Therefore, something has to have a cause. If in the case something has always existed (aka God), it has to DEFY the laws of nature/physics. The universe itself can't defy the laws of nature/physics. (unless proven otherwise. there are no such examples)

The laws of nature can only be said to exist within the universe.

What about the universe itself. Is it not bound to laws?

If "Something" always exists, then there must be an infinitely long chain of causes and effects if there is such a thing as causality. Possible you are limited by seeing "Time" as linear. Possibly we are limited by even considering "Time" as a meaningful concept.

Infinite cause and effects, I don't see the possibility in this

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This is what I said:

Something can’t come from nothing, everything has an origin/purpose for existing

Therefore, something has to have a cause. If in the case something has always existed (aka God), it has to DEFY the laws of nature/physics. The universe itself can't defy the laws of nature.

Something does not have to have a cause if "God" does not have to have a cause. I don't know why you need to magic up a "God" - we have evidence of the universe, but no evidence for "God".

But the universe itself can defy physics

The laws of nature can only be said to exist within the universe.

No it cannot. It would be nonsensical to say that something acts contrary to the laws of nature.

If "Something" always exists, then there must be an infinitely long chain of causes and effects if there is such a thing as causality. Possible you are limited by seeing "Time" as linear. Possibly we are limited by even considering "Time" as a meaningful concept.

Infinite cause and effects, I don't see the possibility in this

As Lavoisier said, “In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed.”

There is no logical reason why Time cannot loop, for example, like the circumference of the Earth. Another possibility is that "Time" does not exist - for example, that the universe is holographic and exists purely as an image. "Time" may merely be the order we give to events.

The premise that everything has a cause is not falsifiable. We cannot observe outside existence to see if it did have a cause. And how would you observe something being created out of nothing unless you knew you were part of something that was a complete system? And you have already contradicted yourself by requiring in your philosophy something to have no cause. So you should dismiss it.

Infinite cause and effects, maybe, sounds a bit religious. like that requires some faith

I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence. That is the opposite of religion or faith.

Can you tell me, on the circumference of a circle, where is the beginning?

[Computer Loser]

Something does not have to have a cause if "God" does not have to have a cause. I don't know why you need to magic up a "God" - we have evidence of the universe, but no evidence for "God".

And you have already contradicted yourself by requiring in your philosophy something to have no cause. So you should dismiss it

Lol that's the whole point of what I was saying. The existence of a universe IS evidence for God. It's not "magic upping a God." Its giving an explanation for something / an entity outside of the physical realm, which defies physics, that may have caused the start of the universe.

The premise that everything has a cause is not falsifiable. We cannot observe outside existence to see if it did have a cause.

Everything in real life has a cause. The computer your typing on, the chair you're sitting on. If you can't come to this conclusion I don't know what to tell you. We don't need to do science experiments with test tubes to prove this

And no, we weren't there when the universe was formed but that doesn't automatically mean, "oh we weren't there so we can't know for sure" that's like saying we can't know for sure that your great great great great grandparents ever existed because we weren't there to observe them

There is no logical reason why Time cannot loop, for example, like the circumference of the Earth. Another possibility is that "Time" does not exist - for example, that the universe is holographic and exists purely as an image. "Time" may merely be the order we give to events.

I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence. That is the opposite of religion or faith.

Your time loop hypothesis is a bit of a stretch as well. It needs a lot of faith

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Lol that's the whole point of what I was saying. The existence of a universe IS evidence for God. It's not "magic upping a God." Its giving an explanation for something / an entity outside of the physical realm, which defies physics, that may have caused the start of the universe.

Not it isn't. As others have argued, "non-existence" may be non-stable or a meaningless concept. There may be nothing inherently remarkable about "Existence". You are only able to say that there is because you exist. That's not far removed from thinking you are more exceptional than a rock. Your perception may be a bit biased. I'm reminded of the comedian who said that they were thinking that the brain was a remarkable thing - only to realise who was telling them this.

Everything in real life has a cause. The computer your typing on, the chair you're sitting on. If you can't come to this conclusion I don't know what to tell you. We don't need to do science experiments with test tubes to prove this

And no, we weren't there when the universe was formed but that doesn't automatically mean, "oh we weren't there so we can't know for sure" that's like saying we can't know for sure that your great great great great grandparents ever existed because we weren't there to observe them

Everything within an ISOLATED SYSTEM has a cause, a system of known properties defined by the laws we observe. It must logically follow that the events within the system have causes and effects as we predict from our understanding of the laws. But nothing can be said about an open system - it is perfectly possible for matter to be created spontaneously out of nothing, only this is not falsifiable. We do not know what is outside existence (that probably isn't even a meaningful concept). "Existence", "the universe", "the multiverse", "reality", whatever you want to call it, may really have been spontaneously created out of nothing. But we can only make determinations about what happens within isolated or closed systems. You are able to consider a "God" with no creator - which either must have been created out of nothing or have always have existed, but you are notably unable to consider that it is in fact "Existence", "the universe", "the multiverse", "reality" that has no creator. This is most likely because of how you were raised as a child.

Spinoza consider the universe and god to be the same thing. Is that really such an alien concept to you? To me, to consider "God" as distinct from the universe must mean that "God" is less than the whole. I like much of what Spinoza wrote, but I consider his "god" to be a unnecessary detail.

Your time loop hypothesis is a bit of a stretch as well. It needs a lot of faith

I didn't even say I believed it. I just said that it was a logical possibility based on what you say must be true. Limiting yourself to what is possible is not a matter of faith, but of reason. But you may be limiting yourself by assuming things to be true, e.g. that something cannot come from nothing - I do not make that claim, because I think as a general rule it isn't falsifiable. Within an isolated system, that premise is true by definition, and so it is nonsensical to attempt to falsify it.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Lol that's the whole point of what I was saying. The existence of a universe IS evidence for God. It's not "magic upping a God." Its giving an explanation for something / an entity outside of the physical realm, which defies physics, that may have caused the start of the universe.

No, it’s not. According to the Big Bang Theory, time itself began to move when the singularity grew; in other words there was never a time when the universe did not exist. You can say “something can’t come from nothing”, but there never was a nothing to begin with, because there was no time before the universe. And by similar reasoning you could argue that a cause must precede its effect; if there was never a time when the effect did not exist, you have trouble.

Everything in real life has a cause. The computer your typing on, the chair you're sitting on. If you can't come to this conclusion I don't know what to tell you. We don't need to do science experiments with test tubes to prove this

OK, does a god need a cause to exist? If not, why not? And why does the existence of the universe require a cause?

Your time loop hypothesis is a bit of a stretch as well. It needs a lot of faith

No, it doesn’t. It’s as good an explanation as any. It doesn’t require “faith” to believe because it‘s a best guess, not a belief that flies in the face of reality and requires reassertion and reassurance to maintain. SubT doesn’t have “faith” in this hypothesis any more than I have “faith” Joe Biden will win the next American Presidential election or that I won’t win the lottery. Christianity is a proper example of a belief that requires faith to maintain. A Christian has “faith” when he convinces himself his prayers are being answered, when he ignores contradictions he’s taught, and accepts that a god who commanded genocide repeatedly can be reasonably described as “all-merciful” and “loving.”

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Lol that's the whole point of what I was saying. The existence of a universe IS evidence for God. It's not "magic upping a God." Its giving an explanation for something / an entity outside of the physical realm, which defies physics, that may have caused the start of the universe.

Something which cannot be observed cannot be an explanation of anything. You may as well say that Batman caused the universe for all the sense it would make.

The early stages of the Big Bang is the earliest known event in the universe - that does not mean that this is when "existence" arose. It is merely the earliest known even we know of. A ripple in an ocean may seem like the first event in the life of an ocean, but it may not be so. The ocean may have had many earlier ripples. So it may well be with "existence".

To be able to explain the events in the life of an ocean - what causes what effects - does not mean that the ocean itself must have a cause. It is not inconsistent to say that everything within the ocean operates under the laws of nature while the ocean itself has no first cause - i.e. that it is eternal.

A system within a larger system must follow all the laws of the larger system. The reverse is not true - a larger system does not have to follow all the laws of smaller systems within it.

[Computer Loser]

No, it’s not. According to the Big Bang Theory, time itself began to move when the singularity grew; in other words there was never a time when the universe did not exist.

Before we talk about that, what caused the big bang?

But nothing can be said about an open system - it is perfectly possible for matter to be created spontaneously out of nothing, only this is not falsifiable. We do not know what is outside existence (that probably isn't even a meaningful concept). "Existence", "the universe", "the multiverse", "reality", whatever you want to call it, may really have been spontaneously created out of nothing.

You can't have nothing causing it, since nothing is nothing.

Even in quantum physics, those particles appearing in and out had to follow a set of rules, rules that exist within our physical universe. yeah sure, the scientists can try creating a vacuum (like removing air), but they couldn't remove

I. time
II. space

The experiment was still taking place somewhere.

If you truly have nothing, you can't even have quantum particles

You can say “something can’t come from nothing”, but there never was a nothing to begin with, because there was no time before the universe. And by similar reasoning you could argue that a cause must precede its effect; if there was never a time when the effect did not exist, you have trouble.

???

"There never was a nothing to begin with" aka you are saying the universe is infinite, or in other words no beginning. this is simply not true because of the big bang you are describing. if the universe is constantly expanding (as Hubble discovered) / getting bigger, it means at one time it was a small point.

Think about a balloon you blow up, at some point there was a beginning point. And since there is a beginning point, there had to have been a cause.

OK, does a god need a cause to exist? If not, why not? And why does the existence of the universe require a cause?

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe must have a cause

Does God need a cause?

No, because you can't put God into a category #1; "things that begin to exist" since God

a. exists out of time
b. doesn't occupy space
c. not made of material matter

that's like me asking you "what is the strongest reptile"

and you respond "a challenger mark 2 tank!!!"

uhh no because the challenger mark 2 tank isn't even alive, it doesn't even fit in the right category.

No, it doesn’t. It’s as good an explanation as any. It doesn’t require “faith” to believe because it‘s a best guess, not a belief that flies in the face of reality and requires reassertion and reassurance to maintain.

The universe being infinite (even though we know it's expanding) makes no scientific sense, that's why it requires faith.

Other explanations are also improbable. Might as well say a tornado running through a junkyard can miraculously form a perfectly assembled plane by chance. Now add the complexities of the universe, the complexities of an atom holding itself together and now the probabilities are stacked against you.

Faith is required in either case.

SubT doesn’t have “faith” in this hypothesis any more than I have “faith” Joe Biden will win the next American Presidential election or that I won’t win the lottery. Christianity is a proper example of a belief that requires faith to maintain.

A Christian has “faith” when he convinces himself his prayers are being answered, when he ignores contradictions he’s taught, and accepts that a god who commanded genocide repeatedly can be reasonably described as “all-merciful” and “loving.”

Yes, Christianity requires faith not necessarily logic or reason or science. But logic reason and science can also strengthen and supplement that faith as well.

A Christian has “faith” when he convinces himself his prayers are being answered, when he ignores contradictions he’s taught, and accepts that a god who commanded genocide repeatedly can be reasonably described as “all-merciful” and “loving.”

Sorry, but your understanding of Christianity is off if that's what you believe

[raTG13]

I do not believe in Darwinian evolution anymore. Its relies on way to much magic and conjecture. Chance is the supreme God in science right now. The belief that the unlikely event is actually more than likely.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Before we talk about that, what caused the big bang?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm not sure if it's possible to observe earlier events, although it has been suggested that there is some evidence of other universes. One possibility is that a Big Crunch of an earlier universe resulted in the Big Bang.

You can't have nothing causing it, since nothing is nothing.

Even in quantum physics, those particles appearing in and out had to follow a set of rules, rules that exist within our physical universe. yeah sure, the scientists can try creating a vacuum (like removing air), but they couldn't remove

I. time
II. space

The experiment was still taking place somewhere.

If you truly have nothing, you can't even have quantum particles

I was talking of open systems - there is no law of nature that says that an open-ended system cannot have matter been created from nothing.

???

"There never was a nothing to begin with" aka you are saying the universe is infinite, or in other words no beginning. this is simply not true because of the big bang you are describing. if the universe is constantly expanding (as Hubble discovered) / getting bigger, it means at one time it was a small point.

Think about a balloon you blow up, at some point there was a beginning point. And since there is a beginning point, there had to have been a cause.

The singularity has not actually been observed. It isn't possible to observe a Planck unit of time before the earliest known part of the Big Bang. There may never have been a singularity.

The Big Bang is an expansion of SPACE, not of matter.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe must have a cause

There is no evidence that the universe began to exist.

There is no evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

It does not follow from your premises that the universe must have a cause.

Does God need a cause?

No, because you can't put God into a category #1; "things that begin to exist" since God

a. exists out of time
b. doesn't occupy space
c. not made of material matter

that's like me asking you "what is the strongest reptile"

and you respond "a challenger mark 2 tank!!!"

uhh no because the challenger mark 2 tank isn't even alive, it doesn't even fit in the right category.

If "God" is able to cause an event, it exists within "Time". A thing that does not occupy Spacetime does not exist. A thing that is not a form of matter (e.g. whether matter or energy) does not exist.

The universe being infinite (even though we know it's expanding) makes no scientific sense, that's why it requires faith.

Read this page, and it may make some sense to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

The expansion refers only to SPACE, not to its shape.

Other explanations are also improbable. Might as well say a tornado running through a junkyard can miraculously form a perfectly assembled plane by chance. Now add the complexities of the universe, the complexities of an atom holding itself together and now the probabilities are stacked against you.

Faith is required in either case.




Yes, Christianity requires faith not necessarily logic or reason or science. But logic reason and science can also strengthen and supplement that faith as well.



Sorry, but your understanding of Christianity is off if that's what you believe

You're the one who has shown they have faith in miracles.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Before we talk about that, what caused the big bang?



You can't have nothing causing it, since nothing is nothing.

Even in quantum physics, those particles appearing in and out had to follow a set of rules, rules that exist within our physical universe. yeah sure, the scientists can try creating a vacuum (like removing air), but they couldn't remove

I. time
II. space

The experiment was still taking place somewhere.

If you truly have nothing, you can't even have quantum particles



???

"There never was a nothing to begin with" aka you are saying the universe is infinite, or in other words no beginning. this is simply not true because of the big bang you are describing. if the universe is constantly expanding (as Hubble discovered) / getting bigger, it means at one time it was a small point.

Think about a balloon you blow up, at some point there was a beginning point. And since there is a beginning point, there had to have been a cause.



1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe must have a cause

Does God need a cause?

No, because you can't put God into a category #1; "things that begin to exist" since God

a. exists out of time
b. doesn't occupy space
c. not made of material matter

that's like me asking you "what is the strongest reptile"

and you respond "a challenger mark 2 tank!!!"

uhh no because the challenger mark 2 tank isn't even alive, it doesn't even fit in the right category.

I suggest you read this dismantling of Kalam and William Lane Craig:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willia...gical_argument

[Computer Loser]

There is no evidence that the universe began to exist.

There is no evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

It does not follow from your premises that the universe must have a cause.

I suggest you read this dismantling of Kalam and William Lane Craig:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willia...gical_argument

I suggest you read this dismantling of "the dismantling"

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I suggest you read this dismantling of "the dismantling"

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

I don't know why you think that makes Craig's argument stronger.

[Computer Loser]

If "God" is able to cause an event, it exists within "Time". A thing that does not occupy Spacetime does not exist. A thing that is not a form of matter (e.g. whether matter or energy) does not exist.

God isn't exactly a concept humans can wrap their limited brains around, that's the whole idea of God or an entity beyond everything. I mean, we can barely perceive 2-dimensions and there are hypothesis' that there are 10 dimensions the universe operates with.

I know to you that probably means nothing, but the idea that we are all here by chance and everything happened neatly to form the universe is a stretch as well

[Socionics Is A Cult]

God isn't exactly a concept humans can wrap their limited brains around, that's the whole idea of God or an entity beyond everything. I mean, we can barely perceive 2-dimensions and there are hypothesis' that there are 10 dimensions the universe operates with.

"God" was invented by mankind.

Can you give an unique property of "God" that is observable? Any such property is easy to comprehend.

I can get my head around something that has no observable properties - but that is a thing which does not exist.

[Computer Loser]

"God" was invented by mankind.

Can you give an unique property of "God" that is observable? Any such property is easy to comprehend.

I can get my head around something that has no observable properties - but that is a thing which does not exist.

Just look at the world around you and observe how much order there is. The chances that ours atoms that are perfectly designed to hold everything together (about 1/10^100th chance), from the perfect distance the sun is away from the earth, to the structure of our DNAs... Is it all by sheer chance???

Is it really that hard to believe there could be a designer behind everything?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Just look at the world around you and observe how much order there is. The chances that ours atoms that are perfectly designed to hold everything together (about 1/10^100th chance), from the perfect distance the sun is away from the earth, to the structure of our DNAs... Is it all by sheer chance???

Is it really that hard to believe there could be a designer behind everything?

Order is a a human notion.

DNA replication is not "random". If it was, then things that are incapable of replicating would be as prevalent as things that are capable of replicating. Lifeforms that prosper in their environment are especially good at replicating - this is not "random".

What happens in the universe happens according to the laws of nature - it is meaningless to say that any one event has "purpose" or is "random".

We only have one instance of nature to compare things to. You are essentially saying "This happened, it could only have been this way, therefore it must have been created with purpose." This is like a puddle thinking that the hole that it is in was created for it.

There is no evidence that creating something out of nothing is possible. Chimpanzees typing out the works of Shakespeare someday is merely a matter of estimated low probability.

An universe created by an omnipotent being is infinitely more complex than an universe with no creator. Yet you believe this creator had no creator.

[FreelancePoliceman]

An universe created by an omnipotent being is infinitely more complex than an universe with no creator.

How is that?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Just look at the world around you and observe how much order there is. The chances that ours atoms that are perfectly designed to hold everything together (about 1/10^100th chance), from the perfect distance the sun is away from the earth, to the structure of our DNAs... Is it all by sheer chance???

Is it really that hard to believe there could be a designer behind everything?

There is also a lot of things I would call "disorder" or "chaos" - order as I would appreciate it is rare by my standard. (Although objectively there may be no distinction between a rock and a human in terms of complexity). Things tend to decay over time, at least in our universe.

Theist like to use the existence of "Good" as proof of "God", while ignoring all the "Evil". "Good" and "Evil" are subjective concepts, but that's another discussion. The existence of "Evil" is just as much "proof" that "God" is omnimaloveolent rather than omnibenovolent. It is similar with our notions of order and disorder.

But in any case, there is no rational reason why a creator of an universe must be complex, if there is in fact a creator.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How is that?

Oh, I meant an universe PLUS its omnipotent creator being must be infinitely more complex than the same universe without such a creator.

[serenaeva]

Why would you apply scientific reasoning to a spiritual matter?
"But why wouldn't you apply logic and reason to everything in life?"

Because logic and reason are just one tool in the proverbial 'toolbox'. Don't use a screwdriver on a task better suited for a hammer.
"Either something is demonstrably true or it isn't."

Sure, but just because you can't demonstrate that something is true does not automatically make it false. Certain things in this universe are both unprovable an unfalsifiable by the standards of scientific methodology.

As I see it, there is a hierarchy of truth. The highest truths are spiritual truths, and answer why the universe works the way that it does. The lower truths are scientific, and answer how the universe works the way that it does. Take the theory of evolution as an example - science has revealed at length how the process works, yet fails to answer why it exists in the first place. Therefore, the assumption that you can quote-in-quote logically rationalize God in itself is.. quite frankly foolish. At least as far as i'm concerned.

[Exodus]

God is the principle of simplicity underlying the universe.

We simplify things by reducing them to aspects of a common reality. The creation is many, the Creator is One. Multiplicity without unity is division and confusion. Creation is not separate from Him yet it does not encompass Him. It is rather an emanation of His Will which is One and produces the various manifestations.

You can imagine this as a circle. The circle is a boundary that defines the interior region, but the interior is much greater in extent than its boundary which is like nothing and has zero area.
Yet the circle itself is defined as points equidistant from the center. The center (one point) defines the circle (many points) and is their origin.

[Ave]

You can logically rationalize anything. And make it seem like anyone is crazy for disagreeing.

[Ave]

Godel's Ontological Proof is a formal logical argument that attempts to "prove" the existence of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...E2%80%931109).

It's a perfect example of how you rationalize something that doesn't exist in reality by "proving" it through logic which is internally consistent but doesn't correlate to anything in the reality perceived our experienced by our senses. Yes, I would say that anything that is rationalized as existing but not first picked up by the senses is bs. Even Plato's theory of forms requires the presence of the senses to "arrive" at the conclusion that sense perception is not the "highest" reality.

It's also a good manipulation tactic - arguments that are logically consistent with themselves are more convincing than those that refer to external things that can be demonstrated and falsified through experience.

To "prove" anything, you can also use statistics, facts in a selective fashion - just like convincing people of the existence of God requires using logic that is internally consistent but not based on anything external. So it is, in a sense, selective.

[End]

You can logically rationalize anything. And make it seem like anyone is crazy for disagreeing.

Petty much true given how, as I've constantly pointed out, Perception>Reality is a fact not only in politics, but in pretty much everything. Here's a snag though, I don't see those who refuse to acknowledge "God" exists as crazy. I find them misguided at best and demonically obsessed/possessed at worst, but not in any way crazy. Well, save for if they've read the entire corpus of the works of the Doctors of the Church. They basically made a valid deductive argument in favor of his divine existence. Deductive arguments are "I win" buttons in philosophy. If you successfully make one, you win. Hence, why it's so damned hard to successfully do so. It's damn hard to do that, ask any honest philosophy buff.

Again, we all have a belief/ideal/whatever that basically functions as "God" does in all the regards that matter to a theist like myself. Knowing who/what/it/whatever is your God is a key factor in having a stable personality and thus living a happy life. It need not be mine (though I'd prefer it was and given what mine is I dare you to find a better entity to have "faith" in) but it is something and the sooner you accept that the better off you'll be. Hell, it could even be Satan. At least then we both know exactly where we stand. It's actually easier to relate to and deal with an avowed and vehement enemy than it is with some waffling fence sitter. At least you know exactly where you stand in regards to an avowed enemy. That lack of certainty with the waffler is actually a reason to hate him/her more than an avowed enemy now that I think on it.

Hell, we even got real life historical examples in regards to my point. Malcom X held George Lincoln Rockwell in higher regard than the average "white liberal" because at least the literal (censored) were more honest and forthright with him! There's even a picture that ought to be famous but isn't. He and his crew were literally wearing brown shirts with that (censored) symbol on their red armbands. Also literal white dots in a sea of black. You can look it up yourselves. Those guys walked out of that event unscarred by the by. Telling given the current climate I'd say.

I mean, could you imagine merely waving an American Flag around in an ocean of Antifa fanatics at a rally for their own? How long do you think you'd last? If you're stating measurements of time that extend past the 10 minute mark without the cops watching you're delusional. And that assumes the cops aren't on the side of Antifa. In a big "deep blue" urban area I'd be honestly surprised if some cop didn't flat out cap the flag waver to the cheers of the MSM to boot...

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Why would you apply scientific reasoning to a spiritual matter?
"But why wouldn't you apply logic and reason to everything in life?"

Because logic and reason are just one tool in the proverbial 'toolbox'. Don't use a screwdriver on a task better suited for a hammer.
"Either something is demonstrably true or it isn't."

Sure, but just because you can't demonstrate that something is true does not automatically make it false. Certain things in this universe are both unprovable an unfalsifiable by the standards of scientific methodology.

As I see it, there is a hierarchy of truth. The highest truths are spiritual truths, and answer why the universe works the way that it does. The lower truths are scientific, and answer how the universe works the way that it does. Take the theory of evolution as an example - science has revealed at length how the process works, yet fails to answer why it exists in the first place. Therefore, the assumption that you can quote-in-quote logically rationalize God in itself is.. quite frankly foolish. At least as far as i'm concerned.

I have no reason to think there is anything in the universe that is unprovable and unfalsifiable. And there is only one truth.