Why is God not needed to explain our existence ?

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
101

Are you serious!? I s’pose you must be.

Perry Marshall, your “god’s” own anointed forensic expert on cosmic evidence-gathering ( ::slight_smile: ), is at least one of lazy, cerebrally challenged or disingenuous, possibly all three. The first part alone of that article is fraught with errors, omissions, distortions, embellishments and fabrications.

  • Like you, he simply neglects the fact that Gödel proved two incompleteness theorems. Nor does he say which one he means or whether he might mean both. Perry Marshall doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
  • He writes, “Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge.” This is not true. The incompleteness theorems belong to mathematical logic and apply only to so-called “axiomatic formal systems” of a certain minimal complexity. Very little of science falls into that category even though some sciences rely heavily on mathematical tools. Human knowledge is likewise not an axiomatic formal system; if it were, all knowledge would be deducible from a handful of basic axioms. Logic itself is a collection of tools for manipulating concepts, and not itself an axiomatic formal system though it forms part of them. Perry Marshall doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
  • He writes, “That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.” There’s an enormous difference between a theorem and a postulate (or axiom), one that all mathematicians and logicians are scarily familiar with. Only Euclid’s fifth postulate concerning parallel lines was troublesome and it led to non-Euclidean geometry (Gauss, Lobachevsky, Riemann, Bolyai a.o.) which was essential for General Relativity. Perry Marshall doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
  • He writes, “The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein)…” Wittgenstein wasn’t a mathematician by any stretch of revisionist history. Russell was primarily a logician, and as such necessarily knowledgeable about the foundations of mathematics to which Gödel’s work is relevant. Perry Marshall doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Et cetera, and so on. By the time he gets all starry-eyed with fawning adulation about a third of the way in, the knowledgeable reader is about ready to throw up from sugar-coated BS.

'Luthon64

102

It could have more to do with wishful thinking: Death is too ghastly to contemplate - getting eaten by maggots or some other disgusting end. I want to live forever. In order to live forever, I’ll require a miracle. For that miracle to happen, I require a powerful God and substantial gatkruip. The more powerful and the more gatkruip, the better my chances. → God is responsible for all kinds of great stuff and any evidence to the contrary is a threat to my eternal life.

103

I don’t think the mindest/belief comes from anything other than an indoctrination that starts at the earliest possible age acting on children’s innate trust for their elders – i.e., a by-product of humanity’s social structure. Belief is sustained mostly by habit with a little help from an unwillingness objectively and critically to scrutinise it. All the “reasoning” and “logic” that is offered consists of little else besides ad hoc, after-the-fact rationalisation and hocus-pocus that is convincing only to those who already believe. We want that the world must be a safe, regular and predictable place, and taking away someone’s warmest and most familiar notions about the world that they have grown up with seriously threatens that need. It’s a case of keeping your head in the sand because that’s where it’s always been and everyone keeps telling you that that’s where it should be.

'Luthon64

104

that is a REMARKABLE fact. So , you SO WHAT question is actually totally wrong in place. It is that remarkable, that it shaked the world view of all scientists and people, who think about the subject.
Many were reluctant to admit and accept the fact, so was Einstein, because if the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause. That is logical.

And as so many have pointed out in this thread, you are unable to prove his existence or the fact that he caused the Big Bang....so where does all this get us? Exactly nowhere.

If you are asking for empirical proofs, you loose your time. That question will not bring YOU nowhere. You will be damned to nihilism. You will never be able to know anything for sure.
You will boil forever in the uncertainty of anything. The ones however, which think further, make a more inteligent, and right philosophical question : how can we best explain our existence ?

If nothing can come from nothing, did the God you refer to (he the nameless one) have a beginning? Did he come from nothing?

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/created.html

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else. A book has an author. Music has a music artist. A party has a party-thrower! All things that begin, that have a start, have a cause to their beginning.

Consider the universe. Scientists once held to the “steady-state” theory, that the universe has always existed without beginning.

Cosmological evidence now refers to the “Big bang” as the point in time that the universe came into being. Our space-time-matter-energy universe had a distinct and singular beginning.

Since it did not always exist, but came into existence (had a singular beginning), then some other reality must have caused or created it.1

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

It isn’t coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

The answer to your question is thus: God (of your making without a description) is not needed to explain our existence, because he/she/it/them is/are manifestations of human imagination and wishful thinking created to explain the unexplainable.

Prove it. Absolute assertions demand absolute proofs.

(some 2700 deities have been created to suit man's needs since the beginning of recorded history and they all come and go as needs change....take your pick!).

that is not the issue of this topic. Open a new topic, and i’ll answer your question.

105

you are insisting and arguing, i am shifting the burden of proof. First of all, i am not asking for proofs. I am asking to expose your world view. Your understanding. I want to understand it.
I have understood clearly enough that a creator seems not necessary in your book. Fine. Go ahead now ( again, why is that so difficult for you ). Or is your atheism also just a " atheism in the gaps " argument ? A creator seems unreasonable to me, therefore no creator is needed ? It seems we have a clear picture already, based on what the participants already posted here. Their world view is based on ignorance. They make the allegation the scientific evidence we have on hand is not enough to get a clear picture of our reality, and therefore they rest in ignorance.

Since i have a very clear picture, and science , religion, and philosophy has permitted at least me ( and i know many others ) to have that picture, and atheist could have it too, their position
is just based on BAD WILL. With bad will i mean : I do not want to know anything about a creator, therefore he shall not exist. Lets ignore the evidence.

106

nothing of your critique was directed to deny the applicability of goedels theorem to marshalls claim… indeed, we can never know everything with certainty. Things we can prove, rely always on things we cannot prove, but we know are true…

107

You really make no effort at all to understand what others have been saying, nor do you answer the many questions put to you. I can conclude only that you started this thread to troll, and that you have zero desire to actually examine what might be the truth. Yet another stupid net troll. Ho hum.

Regarding the above statement, not so. Shit comes into and goes out of existence all the time - go look at vacuums. You are also not in a position to determine “causes” at some levels - specifically the quantum level, where the uncertainty principle applies. Shit happens. The universe happened. Lucky us.

You need to go read up on causality too, methinks.

Anyway, herewith Rwenzori’s disproof of god as cause of the universe:

  1. Causality implies a time sequence. Effects do not precede causes.

  2. Therefore the posited “god” must have existed within time, within a temporal frame, to have “caused” the universe.

  3. But, time came into existence only at ze beeg bang.

  4. Therefore god cannot exist.

Logical, not so?

What was your purpose in starting this thread?

108

Of course we can. You need to understand the nature of language. The sun is shining outside, you better believe it LOL.

109

can virtual particles arise from absolutely nothing ?

As Barrow and Tipler comment

“It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum ‘creation ex nihilo,’ for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true ‘creation ex nihilo’ would be the spontaneous generation of everything–space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter–at some time in the past.”([1986], p. 441)."

1. Causality implies a time sequence. Effects do not precede causes.

If effects do not precede causes, cause and effect can happen at the same instant, without interval, excludes therefore the need of time.

Logical, not so?

nope. wanna try again ?

What was your purpose in starting this thread?

serving Christ :wink:

110
111

Well, that backfired rather spectacularly.

112

did it ?

what is 0 x 0 ?

" i don’t know "

;D

113

On the virtual particle bit, note that it is possible ( article mentioned a few months ago on forum of some experimental efforts ) to get real existent particles from virtual particles. You might, being so clever, tell us of what a vacuum consists then. Phlogiston maybe?

OK, so god came into existence simultaneously with the universe. I wonder where it is hiding. It would be a tad irrational to expect god to be “eternal” outside of time, not so?

Thanks for stating your purpose, but to what end do you wish to expose our irrationality? Not that I have noticed any on our side, mind, but be that as it may.

114

Dear God,

You claim to be almighty, but you are now facing a challenge that would put it to the most strenuous test. Your arrogant servant Jahaziel, whom we believe to be under your protection, invites anyone to convince him that he can be wrong. We have tried in vain. If you succeed, we shall all give up atheism and sing your praise.

Amen.

115

But you flat out ignore answers given to you? How are we to make this gel?

I have understood clearly enough that a creator seems not necessary in your book. Fine. Go ahead now ( again, why is that so difficult for you ). Or is your atheism also just a " atheism in the gaps " argument ? A creator seems unreasonable to me, therefore no creator is needed ? It seems we have a clear picture already, based on what the participants already posted here. Their world view is based on ignorance. They make the allegation the scientific evidence we have on hand is not enough to get a clear picture of our reality, and therefore they rest in ignorance.
Oh way to misunderstand what people are saying to you. Currently the Big Bang model brings us back to the singularity. And nowhere in that model is a God necessary or needed to explain [b]anything[/b]. Go look it up for yourself. Where the singularity comes from, if it comes from anywhere or nowhere [b]we fucking do not know[/b]. If it even makes sense to ask if it 'comes from somewhere, was it caused, what went on before' [b]we fucking do not know[/b] (We is us as the human species. This includes some of the greatest minds we have produced and includes scientists, philosophers and theologians. This "we" is every single person ever. You assert without any credible evidence, any empirical proofs or really any reason at all, God. And we are telling you in no uncertain terms, that that assertion is premature at best.

So when I say “I don’t know, I am stating my ignorance for all to see and being honest. When you assert God without evidence other than wishful thinking, you are being deceitful. In all honesty, I prefer ignorance over dishonesty any day of the week. We are all ignorant to some extend or other. Some choose to be dishonest.

Since i have a very clear picture, and science , religion, and philosophy has permitted at least me ( and i know many others ) to have that picture, and atheist could have it too, their position is just based on BAD WILL. With bad will i mean : I do not want to know anything about a creator, therefore he shall not exist. Lets ignore the evidence.
Fuck me this is stupid. Provide the goddamn evidence. No one is ignoring evidence. None is forthcoming. There exists none. Your "very clear picture" is made of shit and the kaleidoscope of brown you are seeing, is not in any way or from clear
116

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

“The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, “. . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V’(O)= O, V”(O)>O)” ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

“In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event’s occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever.”

OK, so god came into existence simultaneously with the universe.

where did i say that ?

It would be a tad irrational to expect god to be "eternal" outside of time, not so?

No. why do you think so ?

Thanks for stating your purpose, but to what end do you wish to expose our irrationality? Not that I have noticed any on our side, mind, but be that as it may.

i have changed my answer.

117

You must have completely missed my second point. Or maybe it is too hard for you to follow? It invalidates Marshall’s entire thesis. It reveals that neither you nor he has the faintest grasp of what Gödel’s theorems mean and where they are relevant – or that both of you are happy to play the god-squad’s favourite lying-for-Jesus game. Also, you again duck my question. For the fourth time, which one of Gödel’s theorems do you mean? How is it applicable in the context you raised it in?

Naughty, naughty! Not paying attention again. That second point is a bugger, isn’t it? But let’s play your Marshall game for just a second here. So you can prove that your “god” is needed to explain our existence, which proof relies on you knowing that your “god” exists but you can’t prove it. Now take the opposite tack: So we can prove that no “god” is needed to explain our existence, which proof relies on us knowing that your “god” does not exist but we can’t prove it. Disregarding onus-of-proof in relation to positive existence claims, each position is equally lame. Bring in that pesky onus-of-proof factor and your house of Perry Marshall cards comes tumbling down all over again.

Sterling effort there, china. But I must ask that since you changed it, whether it is synonymous with “serving Christ,” winky-blinky included?

'Luthon64

118

Science indeed ends, just stating the facts. There is a singularity. Beyond the singularity, there was no matter, no time, and no space. Logically we can ask then. What brought then our universe into existence ? If there was nothing physical, something non-physical must have caused the universe into being. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Virtual particles do not appear from absolutely nothing. So something else must be the cause. Please correct me, if you think i am wrong.

Go look it up for yourself. Where the singularity comes from, if it comes from anywhere or nowhere [b]we fucking do not know[/b].

We do not know in a absolute term, but we can think about the subject, and come to certain conclusions. We can think about properties, the cause must have. It cannot be material, and in time.

If it even makes sense to ask if it 'comes from somewhere, was it caused, what went on before' [b]we fucking do not know[/b] (We is us as the human species. This includes some of the greatest minds we have produced and includes scientists, philosophers and theologians. This "we" is every single person ever. You assert without any credible evidence, any empirical proofs or really any reason at all, God. And we are telling you in no uncertain terms, that that assertion is premature at best.

Why are you asking for empirical proofs ? Is your world view only based on empirical proofs ? If so, why ?

In his latest book, There Is a God, Flew wrote that

Science … cannot furnish an argument for God’s existence. But three items of evidence … ­­ the laws of
nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe – can only be explained in
the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of
the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the
structures they unveil and map

So when I say “I don't know, I am stating my ignorance for all to see and being honest.When you assert God without evidence other than wishful thinking, you are being deceitful.

like Anthony Flew ?

With regard to the laws of nature, Flew observed that not only are they finely tuned, but the laws themselves are
orderly. Even if the laws result from chance in the evolution of our universe, there must be a deeper law that led
to their origin. That deeper law is God.
Life has teleological organization. Life has a purpose, an end, a telos: the persistence of the living cell in an
environment that tends to disorder, death, and decay, the growth of the acorn to the oak, our own individual
purposes for being here tonight. But inorganic matter has no purpose. The only satisfactory explanation for the
emergence of purpose from non­purpose is the existence of a purposive Intelligence that imposes its orderly
purpose on matter and energy to produce teleologically organized life.
Flew ultimately found the very existence of the universe to be problematic for the atheist. Assuming that natural
laws exist as a “brute fact”, then can the universe be explained in terms of them? Laws are transformation rules.
To produce a final state, they must have an initial state. The only natural explanation of the initial state is another
brute fact. In attempting a naturalistic explanation of the origins of our universe, we are left with several brute
facts which offer no meaningful explanation.
Flew concludes by saying “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the
existence of a self­existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”
It is not unreasonable to believe in God. God need be no roadblock on a rational road to faith.

In all honesty, I prefer ignorance over dishonesty any day of the week.

please point out the dishonesty of above writing.

We are all ignorant to some extend or other. Some choose to be dishonest.

Fine. Your position as considering yourself a atheist based on your ignorance has been clarified. That was the purposte of this thread.

Since i have a very clear picture, and science , religion, and philosophy has permitted at least me ( and i know many others ) to have that picture, and atheist could have it too, their position is just based on BAD WILL. With bad will i mean : I do not want to know anything about a creator, therefore he shall not exist. Lets ignore the evidence. Fuck me this is stupid.

no, thats a brute fact.

Provide the goddamn evidence. No one is ignoring evidence. None is forthcoming. There exists none. Your "very clear picture" is made of shit and the kaleidoscope of brown you are seeing, is not in any way or from clear

be carful. by acessing following link, you will be FULLY RESPONSABLE BY IGNORING THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND FACTS. NO EXCUSE FOR YOU TO BE UNABLE TO FIND THE TRUTH when the day of judgement comes.

heavenforum.com

119
You will be damned to nihilism.

Playing God now Jahaziel? :stuck_out_tongue:

You will boil forever in the uncertainty of anything.

Very Christian of you. Thank you and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crotch.

God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent.

How childishly arrogant! You decided this all on your own did you? Prove it! By the way which God are you referring to? How do you know there is only one? Is your God male or female or just a self-sufficient spirit/force?

And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Naughty Naughty. I thought you lay down the rule not to bring the Bible (that old collection of myths) into this thread.

The answer to your question is thus: God (of your making without a description) is not needed to explain our existence, because he/she/it/them is/are manifestations of human imagination and wishful thinking created to explain the unexplainable.

Prove it. Absolute assertions demand absolute proofs.

Prove what? That gods are the manifestations of man’s imagination? Pls go to school again and learn something about the world, its history, culture etc. Think of Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Siva, Krishna, Loki, Baal, El, Yaweh, Al’Lah, Satan… etc. etc. Go read some real books.

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

Where did I say that? The incoherence in this thread all emanates from one source only: YOU!

120

We can think and speculate and reason and we still end up with “We don’t know”. And it is best to admit to such than to make shit up and spread it as gospel, no matter how hard you believe it.

Why are you asking for empirical proofs ? Is your world view only based on empirical proofs ? If so, why ?
It is and I can't answer why other than to tell you that is how God made me... oh wait! It is just how I roll, mate.
In his latest book, There Is a God, Flew wrote that

like Anthony Flew ?


Not Flew. Don’t use Flew. It is unethical to do so. The man is old and experiencing mental problems from all accounts – it is highly immoral of you guys to try and sneak him in. I wish Jesus was clearer on “don’t tell lie’s” – oh, wait he was clear as a bell wasn’t he?!

please point out the dishonesty of above writing.
Where you use Flew?? Or where you assert God without evidence? Or where you renounce your faith above? Or where you shift the burden of proof? Or where you evade direct questions? Where have you been honest?
Fine. Your position as considering yourself a atheist based on your ignorance has been clarified. That was the purposte of this thread.
So many purposes so much misunderstanding. Are you capable of admitting you could be wrong and misrepresenting me here?
no, thats a brute fact.
Clear cut lie. All doubt has been removed. You are a liar. Pity Jesus won't be happy with you eh? Why is it that I as an atheist have more integrity and honesty in my little finger than you fighting the good fight for Jesus??
be carful. by acessing following link, you will be FULLY RESPONSABLE BY IGNORING THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND FACTS. NO EXCUSE FOR YOU TO BE UNABLE TO FIND THE TRUTH when the day of judgement comes. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god
Roll on floor laugh out loud.

Dealt with all of those. So you have nothing eh? I thought so. Good luck waiting for the day of judgment.