Science needs God

Blake Kidney
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Science needs God

Proof of God: A Short Essay

1) Science itself proves the existence of God. Every time a claim is made through experimentation, science is proving the existence of God. However, where debate arises is in the definition of God, and this is where science struggles. Science cannot develop a definitive hypothesis for God, as God is not natural or testable. This, however, does not mean science cannot develop a hypothesis for the existence of God.

2) Humanity does not control the universe or make it what it is. No matter what we think, say, or believe; facts will still be facts, laws will still be laws, and the universe will still exist as it is. A person could command gravity to “stop”, however, despite what is said gravity will still continue to function regardless. We are not the cause of the universe.

3) The universe does not lack a cause as science has claimed the universe has continuous physical laws and a beginning. Science has proven the universe has a date of origin whereby physical laws were put into effect. These physical laws are labeled “laws” as they remain constant throughout the life of the universe. For a constant to be created, an eternal constant would have to sustain the created constant. A constant is something that never changes, and thus, for anything to be constant it would also have to be eternal. Being the laws of physics had a date of origin; this would suggest the laws of physics are not constant but rather variable. At one point in time, the laws of physics were established. Therefore, for the laws of physics to remain constant, there needs to be “something else” in control that is eternally unchanging.  

4) Since humanity does not control the universe, “something else” apart from humanity does. The question then arises: what is this “something else?” Another way of stating this question is to ask: “What makes the universe what it is?” or “How did the universe happen to be what it is?” or “What is the first cause of the universe?” This “something else” is “God.” However, what is “God?”

5) If we accept the hypothesis of “chance” as the explanation for the cause of the universe (God), then we incur a dilemma as “chance” is not rational, reasonable, or logical. Rather, “chance” denotes events that cannot be understood or predicted and that are absent of logic or design. This would suggest that events occurring within the universe have no cause or reason. For example, if an apple should fall off a tree, the only conclusion science could draw is that it happened by chance. Science could not conclude a rational, reasonable, or logical explanation for the apple falling off the tree as the universe itself has no reasonable cause. If science accepts “chance” as the cause of the universe, then science has no grounds to support any other claim. Science needs a hypothesis for a reasonable first cause in order to support any claim based upon ration, reason, and logic.

6) Since the universe does exist bearing properties calculable by mathematics and logic and unalterable by humanity, and since science is capable of testing and establishing theories as laws on the basis of constancy; this proves the existence of God whereby God is an intelligent, eternally perfect, higher power.

7) “Intelligent” implies that God is rational, reasonable, and logical. Since God is the cause of the universe and the universe operates on a particular logic as shown by mathematics; this proves God is intelligent. In addition, science thrives on reason and logic by the analysis of observation and experimentation. Without the hypothesis of “intelligence” as the cause of the universe, science could not hold any claim or hypothesis. Science would have to accept that everything happens without a reasonable cause, and thus, nothing in science could be proven.

Cool “Eternally perfect” implies that God is continuous without a beginning or end, God is complete (needs nothing), and God never changes. The question often arises, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Since God is eternal, complete, and unchanging; God does not need a cause as God is the cause of God. This is proven by the existence of the universe and the variable nature of the universe. We establish that something needs a cause by the fact that: (i) it exists with an identity, (ii) it does not sustain itself, (iii) it has a beginning, and (iv) it did not cause itself. For example, we know a building has a builder because it exists as a building which is unique to everything around it, the building ages and does not sustain itself, the building obviously has a beginning and end, and the building did not create itself. (i) In regards to God, we ascertain “something else” exists apart from humanity as the cause of the universe. Therefore, God (the something else) exists as the cause of the universe. (ii) Everything within the universe needs sustenance. Something enforces the laws of physics causing them to remain constant. This is proven by the fact that the laws of physics are not truly constant because they had a beginning. Therefore, “something else” must exist that never changes providing a basis for the laws of physics. This “something else” has to be unchanging and complete. God needs nothing and is sustained by being God. (iii) The universe has an origin. Therefore, the universe cannot be the cause of itself. The universe needs another eternal constant to sustain its properties. Thus, “something else” caused the universe. In order for this “something else” to be the first cause, it would have to be eternal. Something without beginning or end simply exists. As such, the first cause is the cause of itself. It is because it is. God is. (iv) Whatever created the universe would have to be the cause of itself, as everything that exists within reason would need a reason to exist. God is the cause of God, and therefore, God exists because of God. This concept is difficult for humanity to grasp because humans draw existence from other sources. Humans labor for food in order to sustain their existence. Humans work and eat to live. God simply exists. God is.

9) “Higher” implies that God has greater control over the universe than humanity. This is proven by the fact that the universe exists and yet we do not control it. We may believe whatever we want regarding the universe, but it will still remain the same. “Power” implies that God has the power over the universe. This is proven by the fact that the universe has not changed. The laws of physics that were established at the beginning of the universe are still in effect. In order for such laws to remain constant, there has to be an eternal constant governing them.

10) Science needs a hypothesis for the existence of God or else it relies on human perception as the ultimate source of truth. If there is no absolute truth apart from humanity, then the entire universe and everything in it is merely a figment of our own imagination. However, we cannot control the universe with our imagination and so we know the universe is not imaginary. Additionally, if there is no absolute truth, then the statement “there is no absolute truth” is also false. If we are to make any scientific claims and accept them as being true, we must also claim that absolute truth does exist apart from humanity. Science is not the invention of truth; it is the pursuit of truth. Scientists do not invent the universe; they study it through observation and analysis. Therefore, science needs the existence of God (an intelligent, eternally perfect, higher power) as the basis of all things in order to establish claims based upon ration and reason. If the universe is not based upon ration or reason, then how can a person say anything is rational or reasonable? On what basis can they make such a claim, since under such a hypothesis the universe is merely a delusion? Any claim denying the existence of God is mere foolishness as such a claim negates itself and cannot be supported. Therefore, either God does exist and science is creditable; or God does not exist and neither does ration, reason, or logic.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Welcome!!  I may be wrong,

Welcome!!

 I may be wrong, but I think this is a reallllllllllllly long way of stating the "god of gaps" argument.  It was interesting and well written though.  Thank you for sharing.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, this smells like god

Yeah, this smells like god of the gaps with a ton of erroneous assumptions tossed in, just for fun.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Humanity does not control

Humanity does not control the universe or make it what it is. No matter what we think, say, or believe; facts will still be facts, laws will still be laws, and the universe will still exist as it is. A person could command gravity to “stop”, however, despite what is said gravity will still continue to function regardless. We are not the cause of the universe.

 

Hmmm, I never knew that the goal of science was to control the universe. I always thought priests wanted to do that.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney wrote: Proof

Blake Kidney wrote:
Proof of God: A Short Essay

1) Science itself proves the existence of God. Every time a claim is made through experimentation, science is proving the existence of God.
How did you come to the conclusion that there's a god? What evidence is there for a god?
Quote:
However, where debate arises is in the definition of God, and this is where science struggles.
Science does not deal with linguistics.
Quote:
Science cannot develop a definitive hypothesis for God, as God is not natural or testable. This, however, does not mean science cannot develop a hypothesis for the existence of God.
Science is actually a method to determine falsifiability. People hypothesize and all ideas are hypotheses.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello copy/paste troll

Hello copy/paste troll


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I desided not to read

I desided not to read it.

 

Over time I found out that any proof for God is bull shit.


Blake Kidney
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What evidence is

Quote:
What evidence is there for a god?

Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Obviously, if you were to answer honestly and rationally, you would say "No."

This means that something else did. Therefore, a power higher and greater than you caused or brought about the universe. Hence, the existence of a god.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS:

PERSON A: "Nothing caused the universe."

ANSWER: The universe does exist. Science has proven that the universe also has a point of origin. Therefore, this answer is not plausible. The universe does exist and did have a beginning; therefore something must have caused it. If we accept that the universe does not have a cause, we must also accept that things within the universe also do not have a cause. As such, until we discover something that exists without a cause, we have no basis to conclude the universe does not have a cause.

PERSON B: "The universe happened by chance, thus, the cause of the universe is chance."

ANSWER: Whatever caused the universe made it what it is. As such, the physical laws at work within the universe should be reflective of the cause. For instance, if ball were to roll in the sand, the ball would leave the mark of a ball. If the universe happened by chance, then the universe would be marked with random events signifying chance. Is that what we see in the universe? No, we do not. We do see events that appear random to our human point of view. However, in general, the overall principle of the universe is based upon a logic and order calculable by math and physics. Science is able to test and experiment because the universe is based upon math and reason. If we accept chance as the cause of the universe, we must also accept that all things within the universe happened by chance, and this would mean that science could not prove any hypothesis. Therefore, the universe did not happen by chance.

PERSON C: "Just because we do not know what caused the universe doesn't prove the existence of god."

ANSWER: We do know what caused the universe to a degree. If we were to see a footprint of a dinosaur imprinted on a stone, we would use that as proof of the existence of dinosaurs. The universe has a huge footprint called mathematics. All of science relies on mathematics as a means of being able to prove different hypothesis. This footprint proves that whatever caused the universe had reason and logic. The current hypothesis for the origin of the universe says that before the Big Bang, a singularity existed where there were no laws of physics. This could very well be true, but the question is, what caused this chaotic state to explode into order and reason? Obviously, we know whatever it was that it would: 1) have existence capable of making such a mark, and 2) have more power than anything in the universe so as to mark the universe with order. Hence, this proves the existence of a higher power, or a god.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I am still not convinced.

I am still not convinced. There is no logical reason to believe that this was created. Formed?? yes, but not created.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
We do know what caused the

We do know what caused the universe to a degree. If we were to see a footprint of a dinosaur imprinted on a stone, we would use that as proof of the existence of dinosaurs. The universe has a huge footprint called mathematics. All of science relies on mathematics as a means of being able to prove different hypothesis. This footprint proves that whatever caused the universe had reason and logic.

 

Do you have a background in science??

All that proves is that a footprint existed. Anything else is pure speculation and inference. We know dinosaurs existed from fossils, not footprints.

I don't get how a footprint suggests that a creator had reason or logic. That statement obviously has none. All that it suggests is there is a footprint. Everything else you are saying is your own subjective assumptions that continue to cloud your judgement.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney

Blake Kidney wrote:

Quote:
What evidence is there for a god?

Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Obviously, if you were to answer honestly and rationally, you would say "No."

This means that something else did. Therefore, a power higher and greater than you caused or brought about the universe. Hence, the existence of a god.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS:

PERSON A: "Nothing caused the universe."

ANSWER: The universe does exist. Science has proven that the universe also has a point of origin. Therefore, this answer is not plausible. The universe does exist and did have a beginning; therefore something must have caused it. If we accept that the universe does not have a cause, we must also accept that things within the universe also do not have a cause. As such, until we discover something that exists without a cause, we have no basis to conclude the universe does not have a cause.

PERSON B: "The universe happened by chance, thus, the cause of the universe is chance."

ANSWER: Whatever caused the universe made it what it is. As such, the physical laws at work within the universe should be reflective of the cause. For instance, if ball were to roll in the sand, the ball would leave the mark of a ball. If the universe happened by chance, then the universe would be marked with random events signifying chance. Is that what we see in the universe? No, we do not. We do see events that appear random to our human point of view. However, in general, the overall principle of the universe is based upon a logic and order calculable by math and physics. Science is able to test and experiment because the universe is based upon math and reason. If we accept chance as the cause of the universe, we must also accept that all things within the universe happened by chance, and this would mean that science could not prove any hypothesis. Therefore, the universe did not happen by chance.

PERSON C: "Just because we do not know what caused the universe doesn't prove the existence of god."

ANSWER: We do know what caused the universe to a degree. If we were to see a footprint of a dinosaur imprinted on a stone, we would use that as proof of the existence of dinosaurs. The universe has a huge footprint called mathematics. All of science relies on mathematics as a means of being able to prove different hypothesis. This footprint proves that whatever caused the universe had reason and logic. The current hypothesis for the origin of the universe says that before the Big Bang, a singularity existed where there were no laws of physics. This could very well be true, but the question is, what caused this chaotic state to explode into order and reason? Obviously, we know whatever it was that it would: 1) have existence capable of making such a mark, and 2) have more power than anything in the universe so as to mark the universe with order. Hence, this proves the existence of a higher power, or a god.

The big bang was not the origin of matter and space. Just the structure of this universe. The big bang was just a collection of matter pulled in by gravity over time, then exploded out. The big bang would be happening all over space, creating multiple universes. Pulling in matter, blowing out. Doing the most destructive force in this universes job, gravity. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr Kidney your essay proved

Mr Kidney your essay proved nothing. It was nothing more than some bold statements eg. "Science proves God everytime we experiment." but then you don't go on to explain why. Your argument uses the God of the Gaps and the First Cause argument (an age old argument from Aquinas). Let me use an analogy: We know weather has a cause, warm water rises as vapour from the tropical seas and create massive storms the effects of which travel thousands of miles causing various weather all over the world, rain in Manchester, sandstorms in the Sahara, monsoons in India. But, weather which seemingly has logic to it, we can predict it to a certain degree of accuracy, does not have a conscious creator. The Universe, again with a certain degree of logic to it may indeed have had a first cause - would that first cause need to be conscious?

You also bring up the fact that God is beyond natural/physical. So how do you then solve the problems of a non-physical being creating a physical universe? Indeed a physical being could in theory create a physical universe - that makes perfect sense - indeed we could simply be the product of an experiment in a massive laboratory which is seemingly small compared to the universe it is in - that would be a physical being creating a physical universe. We don't know what caused the universe, in fact we don't even know if the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe, it could be that the universe is ever expanding and contracting firstly expanding through the force of the initial bang and then contracting under the force of gravity until it is ready to explode again. Or it could be that there are multiverses, each with their own laws of physics. A big bang could be the result of a natural volatility in the cosmos or a collision between two universes. You might ask then well who created the multiverses - well do they need a creator? Weather doesn't have one, why should a multiverse?

Lastly, all you have justified is deism. You have not justified the following:

a) Jesus Christ

b) The Holy Spirit

c) The Flying Spaghetti Monster

d) Why we should worship God

e) The answering of prayer

f) The morality codes of various religions.

g) The continued social persecution of atheists in the USA.

h) Hell

i) Anything much really


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney

Blake Kidney wrote:

Quote:
What evidence is there for a god?

Simply this: Did you cause the universe?

No. 

 

Blake kidney wrote:
Did you set the physical laws into motion?

No.

Blake Kidney wrote:
Did you make the universe what it is?

Yes. Just kidding... No.

Quote:
Obviously, if you were to answer honestly and rationally, you would say "No."

You're a good guesser.

Quote:
This means that something else did.

Wow. That's out of left field. Exlain how the fact that one didn't make the universe supports the world record setting logical triple jump to something else did.

 

Quote:
Therefore, a power higher and greater than you caused or brought about the universe.

Cool how you use therefor as if you are following a logical progression. Sadly, such is not the case. Because we know A to be untrue does not mean B is necessarily true. 

 

Quote:
Hence, the existence of a god.

Hence, I like baseball.

Quote:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS:

PERSON A: "Nothing caused the universe."

ANSWER: The universe does exist. Science has proven that the universe also has a point of origin. Therefore, this answer is not plausible. The universe does exist and did have a beginning; therefore something must have caused it. If we accept that the universe does not have a cause, we must also accept that things within the universe also do not have a cause. As such, until we discover something that exists without a cause, we have no basis to conclude the universe does not have a cause.

Show me anything within the universe that was caused to exist. Come on, anything. Show me one single thing that isn't simply a rearrangment of matter or a conversion of matter to energy or energy to matter. You can't can you? Until you can to claim that everything that we now of exists due to a cause is wholly unsupported. In truth we know of nothing that is caused to exist. We simply know of things that are restructurings of already existing things.


Quote:
PERSON B: "The universe happened by chance, thus, the cause of the universe is chance."

ANSWER: Whatever caused the universe made it what it is. As such, the physical laws at work within the universe should be reflective of the cause. For instance, if ball were to roll in the sand, the ball would leave the mark of a ball. If the universe happened by chance, then the universe would be marked with random events signifying chance. Is that what we see in the universe? No, we do not. We do see events that appear random to our human point of view. However, in general, the overall principle of the universe is based upon a logic and order calculable by math and physics. Science is able to test and experiment because the universe is based upon math and reason. If we accept chance as the cause of the universe, we must also accept that all things within the universe happened by chance, and this would mean that science could not prove any hypothesis. Therefore, the universe did not happen by chance.

We have already established that we have no reason to think the universe requires a cause in the above reply.

Secondly, there is no reason to think a universe formed by chance needs to be wholly chaotic. The ball analogy makes absolutely no sense in this situation. 

To make the ball analogy relevant we would have to state we should expect to see ball in the mark the ball left in the sand if you want to state that we should see events of chance (which, in actuallity, we do in the quantum world) in a universe formed of chance. If the ball only leaves a path that can be interpreted as having been made by a ball, then all we should draw from that (if anything) is that we should expect that the universe could be interpreted as having been formed by chance, which it can. 

Also, when you say that the universe is ordered you are looking at the universe from the perspective of one of its inhabitants which has evolved with the goal of survival. For such an inhabitant to survive it must be able to make predictions and be able to put a certain amount of trust in them. Evolving within this set of physical laws that exist in this universe your definition of an ordered universe is one that operates under the physical laws within which you evolved. You see, you call this universe ordered as ordered is  defined by your environment which is the universe.

Did I miss anything? 

Quote:
PERSON C: "Just because we do not know what caused the universe doesn't prove the existence of god."

ANSWER: We do know what caused the universe to a degree. If we were to see a footprint of a dinosaur imprinted on a stone, we would use that as proof of the existence of dinosaurs. The universe has a huge footprint called mathematics. All of science relies on mathematics as a means of being able to prove different hypothesis. This footprint proves that whatever caused the universe had reason and logic. The current hypothesis for the origin of the universe says that before the Big Bang, a singularity existed where there were no laws of physics. This could very well be true, but the question is, what caused this chaotic state to explode into order and reason? Obviously, we know whatever it was that it would: 1) have existence capable of making such a mark, and 2) have more power than anything in the universe so as to mark the universe with order. Hence, this proves the existence of a higher power, or a god.

Mathematics and logic do not exist in some platonic realm. Men (and some women Eye-wink ) have data processors that we call brains. Math and logic are some of the ways our brains process information.

 Physical laws are simply the products of interactions. If there were no matter nor energy there would be no physical laws. The fact that matter and energy exist means that physical laws (the ways they act and interact) must exist as well.

You understand the universe in the way that a human understands the universe due to the way the human's mind has evolved. Your perception of this universe is wholly perspective reliant as you can only process the external stimuli you receive through the data processing unit available to humans, your bean. When you look at the universe you will see it as being set up for humans because we have come to understand it from our perspective. It is easy to allow this perspective based illusion to lead one to belief that human's are the reason for everything. This is why we tend to project ourselves onto it and call this projection a god.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney

Blake Kidney wrote:

 

Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Obviously, if you were to answer honestly and rationally, you would say "No."

This means that something else did. Therefore, a power higher and greater than you caused or brought about the universe. Hence, the existence of a god.

Let me get this straight. Because I didn't create the universe "God" must exist? This is how your logic scheme pans out? Utter nonsense. In essence you've posed a question and then assume the answer is "God" because the question exists. Silliness.

There's nothing here.


youths ulterior...
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I can't understand c++

I can't understand c++ programming but sacrificing a goat while chanting to it won't bring me any closer.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney wrote: Simply

Blake Kidney wrote:
Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Yes. Prove me wrong.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: Blake

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Blake Kidney wrote:
Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Yes. Prove me wrong.

Ahh, the joys of facetiousness.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
sorry, but to me this simply

sorry, but to me this simply seems like a very lengthy way of restating "because the bible says so", combined with "god of the gaps". none of it is particularly scientific nor convincing, and hardly worth arguing.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
And he hasn't even bothered

And he hasn't even bothered to reply.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: Blake

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Blake Kidney wrote:
Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

Yes. Prove me wrong.

Okay, Me and my posse made it all, therefore you couldn't have done it. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Blake Kidney
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I have not had time

Sorry I have not had time to reply, I have been busy.

Quote:
weather which seemingly has logic to it, we can predict it to a certain degree of accuracy, does not have a conscious creator.

How do you know? Weather is a system. We observe this system, not from the point of origin, but already in progress.

If you say, "weather has logic", then you have already suggested an intelligence. Logic and order can not be produced from something random. It is either entirely random or it is not. For instance, if I roll a set of dice continuously, they may randomly make a sequence. However, this would not happen consecutively. For anything to be random, it would have the absence of logic. Therefore, if there is any order or logic in the universe, it cannot be random.

Quote:
So how do you then solve the problems of a non-physical being creating a physical universe?

This question contradicts itself. There is no problem in a non-physical being creating a physical universe as the creator always exists on a plane above the created. Think of the virtual world inside computers. Does humanity exist inside the virtual world? No, we exist above and outside it. We wrote the code that causes the virtual world. As creators of the virtual, we may create a simulation of ourselves. In essence, we could create a virtual caricature that represents us. However, it would be impossible to exist within the virtual world as we are physical.

This discussion has nothing to do with religion as religion is a system of beliefs in a god or gods. This discussion is concerned with the presence or existence of a creator above or apart from our current existence.

We cannot discuss the identity of that creator as the creator exists outside the physical realm. Science can only go so far as to prove the existence of God, not the identity or makeup of God. The only way a person existing within the physical realm can know the identity of the creator is if God reveals it to Him. Otherwise, God is beyond our reach.

The overall point of this discussion is to show that science needs God. The whole basis of science lies in observation and analysis. The scientist seeks to study reality in truth. The scientist doesn’t makeup their findings. The scientist explores, theorizes, and draws conclusions. Therefore, science does not rely on humanity as the cause or source of reality.

Every claim that science makes is built upon other claims. You proved this in your post. You said, “We know weather has a cause, warm water rises as vapour from the tropical seas and create massive storms the effects of which travel thousands of miles causing various weather all over the world.” This truth is based upon another truth. Water has certain properties that cause it to vaporize when exposes to heat. Therefore, water has an existence, but what causes the existence of water? Once we conclude the cause of water, then what is the cause of that? And the cause of that? And the cause of that? We keep going until we find the “first cause.”

The “first cause” would be something that doesn’t need a cause because it is infinite (without a beginning or cause) and it is the cause of itself (meaning it is the basis for itself). We know the universe has a beginning (this has been scientifically proven), therefore, the universe cannot be the “first cause.”

Obviously, there is a “first cause” or else we could not prove anything. We prove something by reproducible results. If we can reproduce the results of the experiment, then it is proven. However, this is reliable only because we do not expect the results to change. Why? If the universe is random and happened by chance, then any theory “proven” by science could instantly change. This means we have proven nothing and no data is reliable. Rather, the entire foundation of science is built upon this premise that something exists within the universe as a “first cause” that does not change. It is truly infinite, without beginning or end.

To explain this in another way, every variable needs a constant to give it definition or else it doesn’t have an existence. For example, let’s think of this algebraically. The letter “X” is often used to denote a variable. The letter is simply a representation of an unknown constant. It is variable. It could be any number. What gives it definition? The constant it represents. “X=3” The constant gives the variable definition and existence. Otherwise, “X” doesn’t exist. It is just a representation of something else. Likewise, the entire universe is variable. It is continually changing and expanding. What then gives it definition? Anything that has a beginning has obviously experienced a change. What then exists apart from the universe that does not change and is constant?

We do not know what this “thing” is exactly. But, every time we perform an experiment, we prove it exists. We prove this because science assumes that results will not change due to a "first cause". 2+2 will always equal 4 because something exists that makes this true. Otherwise, if the universe happened by chance, then 2+2 could equal anything at any time. It could change. In this way, science needs a hypothesis for God. If we say, “There is no God,” then we have no grounds or basis to make any other claim.


Blake Kidney
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Show me anything

Quote:
Show me anything within the universe that was caused to exist. Come on, anything. Show me one single thing that isn't simply a rearrangment of matter or a conversion of matter to energy or energy to matter. You can't can you? Until you can to claim that everything that we now of exists due to a cause is wholly unsupported. In truth we know of nothing that is caused to exist. We simply know of things that are restructurings of already existing things.

Good point. However, has not science proven that the universe itself and the physical laws within existence have a beginning? This would suggest that the universe (and physical laws) have not existed infinitely. This suggests that the universe is variable, as anything that is truly constant never changes. If the universe is variable, then what is the constant behind it that gives it existence?

 We know of things that already exist, but we also know what already exists had a beginning. Therefore, at some point, the universe came into existence and something caused it. 

Quote:
evolved with the goal of survival.

If humanity evolved with the goal of survival, then how do you explain aging? Would not the "aging" gene have been the first to be dispensed from the gene pool, and those without it would have survived? So what happened? And why do people follow a particular pattern in aging. Why don't people live to be 500 or 1000? Why isn't there more variations?

Quote:
could be interpreted as having been formed by chance, which it can

If the universe can be interpreted as having been formed by chance, then how can we make any scientific claims?  Chance is "the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled" (Random House Unabridged Dictionary). If that is true, then how can we make any scientific claim and say that it is proven? On what basis? 

Quote:
Evolving within this set of physical laws that exist in this universe your definition of an ordered universe is one that operates under the physical laws within which you evolved.

I suppose this leads into an argument of "what is order?" Is order something percieved or something that exists apart from humanity? Do we apply order to the universe because we see order? 

I would argue that order exists apart from humanity on this basis: things that exist within the universe have unique characteristics and properties that while humanity may observe, are not dependent upon our observation. For instance, the properites of light will not change no matter what we think about them. We may apply symbols such as the word "light" to light, but light will always bear the same properties no matter if we call it "light" or something else.

Because light bears these properties that do not change, we can observe them and prove the existence of "light." However, "light" happened by chance, then how do you prove it? There is no reason to believe the properites of light will remain constant, unless light is caused by something that keeps it constant. 

 

Quote:
Your perception of this universe is wholly perspective reliant as you can only process the external stimuli you receive through the data processing unit available to humans, your bean.

 Indeed, this is true. Which means, more likely than not, more exists in and above the universe besides what we can process in our limitations. We do not make the universe what it is, we observe it. This is becoming more obvious with the introduction of things like "dark matter." 

Quote:
When you look at the universe you will see it as being set up for humans because we have come to understand it from our perspective. It is easy to allow this perspective based illusion to lead one to belief that human's are the reason for everything.

I do not believe humans are the reason for everything. I believe quite the opposite, that humans are subject to the reasoning of something higher than ourselves. We are subjects of the universe, not creators of it.

Quote:
This is why we tend to project ourselves onto it and call this projection a god.

In this particular case, I am not arguing for the projection of "God." A projection is an image. We project a picture of what God looks like. I am not arguing for the image of a God in this particular case. Religion studies the image of God, the identity of God, and who God is. 

This particular discussion is on the existence of a power greater than humanity that is the first cause of the universe. 

Let us say we found some bones in the ground of a man who lived thousands of years ago. We could conlude this man existed, but we could not say anything about who he was based upon a pile of bones. This is the difference here. I am not discussion the "personality" of God. I am simply saying that science needs a hypothesis for a being or power greater than humanity as the basis or "first cause" of all things, or else science is contradicts itself.

Science must first establish there is a reality or truth that exists apart from humanity, outside our perspective and "bean" as you say. Or else science has no basis for making any claims because all of science is simply the invention or perception of humanity on the universe.

Is science objective or subjective? Does it explore and analyze a world that exists apart from humanity, seeking to find the objective truth? Or does it simply percieve the world and create it's own version of it, seeking to create a subjective truth?

 

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
And the winner

And the winner is....Argument #2, the cosmological or first cause argument version 1.

And I quote:

(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney wrote: Good

Blake Kidney wrote:
Good point. However, has not science proven that the universe itself and the physical laws within existence have a beginning? This would suggest that the universe (and physical laws) have not existed infinitely. This suggests that the universe is variable, as anything that is truly constant never changes. If the universe is variable, then what is the constant behind it that gives it existence?

Why do you require a constant to give it existence? Why do you even assume anything is required of a pre-universe existence including the whole notion of existence itself? Even if the universe is only 14.5 billion or so years old why does the question of before the universe, or the cause of the universe, necessarilly require an answer? Is it not possible that the universe is simply all that there is and all that there ever has been even if it is not infinitely old?  

 

Quote:
We know of things that already exist, but we also know what already exists had a beginning. Therefore, at some point, the universe came into existence and something caused it.

We know there was a 'Big Bang', or more appropriately, an expansion, but to jump from that to a necessary cause is unsupported. I see no valid reason to assume that there is any necessary requirements pertaining to the beginning of the universe. The fact that scientists claim known physical laws break down when we get as far back as the singularity would seem to make it impossible to suggest that anything within the realm of our understanding is necessary in this scenario.

Besides, if I have to go this far back, to the point where nothing we know or have ever experienced makes any sense whatsoever, to find evidence for a god, doesn't it seem more likely that where I am invoking this god concept is really just where my ability to understand fails?

Quote:
If humanity evolved with the goal of survival, then how do you explain aging? Would not the "aging" gene have been the first to be dispensed from the gene pool, and those without it would have survived? So what happened? And why do people follow a particular pattern in aging. Why don't people live to be 500 or 1000? Why isn't there more variations?

Aging is in no way detrimental to the survival of life. What we term the individual is simply a piece of the natural process we call life. By the time one piece gets old and dies it has had the opportunity to aid life in evolving and meeting its 'goal' of survival.

Even if it were beneficial, only mutations that occur can be selected for. There is no necessity, no matter how beneficial something might be, that a genetic mutation will occur that leads to it.

As for why there isn't more variation in life span among people, we are all basically the same. Why would there be more variation? If you mean along the whole spectrum of life, there is quite a bit of variation between the fruit fly and the Redwood. All coming from a common ancestor I would guess that one would only expect so much divergence in a given amount of time. 

These are just a couple of points that don't require n education in genetics. I am sure if you asked this in its own thread deludedgod or another with formal education on the specific topic of genetics and evolutionary theory could answer more in depth.

Quote:
If the universe can be interpreted as having been formed by chance, then how can we make any scientific claims?

By examining what exists, the way in which it exists, and seeing how it interacts with other existing things.

Quote:
Chance is "the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled" (Random House Unabridged Dictionary). If that is true, then how can we make any scientific claim and say that it is proven?

I don't understand where the problem arises. It appears that things that exist within the universe operate by a set of laws. These laws are basically ways we describe the manner in which the things in the universe could be said to exist and the ways they interact with another.

If this universe happened to arise by chance, how would that necessitate that the things that exist as part of the universe would have no properties by which one could predict their behavior? For x to exist it must exist as something. This is to say it must have some properties. If it does not, we can not say that it exists as this is what we mean by existence. To claim that if something came to exist by chance then we should not be able to discovery its properties and understand the way in which it exists as best we can understand it is an assertion that seems to me to be baseless.

 

Quote:
I suppose this leads into an argument of "what is order?" Is order something percieved or something that exists apart from humanity? Do we apply order to the universe because we see order?

The universe simply is as it exists, as is everything. The manner in which the universe exists is what we term 'ordered'. The universe exists apart from humanity in its normal state and this is the state of things in which we base our conception of what it means to say that something is ordered. One could call this our applying order to the universe or the universe exhibiting order and not be incorrect either way as the only distinction between the two statements is perspective. Aside from perspective, they are saying the same thing.

Quote:
I would argue that order exists apart from humanity on this basis: things that exist within the universe have unique characteristics and properties that while humanity may observe, are not dependent upon our observation. For instance, the properites of light will not change no matter what we think about them. We may apply symbols such as the word "light" to light, but light will always bear the same properties no matter if we call it "light" or something else.

Because light bears these properties that do not change, we can observe them and prove the existence of "light." However, "light" happened by chance, then how do you prove it? There is no reason to believe the properites of light will remain constant, unless light is caused by something that keeps it constant. 

And if light is natural and it is the nature of natural things that they have constant properties (which is saying nothing more profound than that they exist as they exist and were they to exists in some other way they would be something else (basically the axiom of identity)) then why do we require a 'keeper of the constants' that is above, or removed from, nature?

Even if we are to put the responsibility of keeping the constants constant onto some entity, being, god, whatever, by what should we expect such an existence to be constant in its keeping things constant? You see, you appeal to an outside source as the answer to what you see as a problem but then can not answer the same problem applied to your outside source. To answer the problem you must simply state that it is the outside sources nature which can be done without envoking the unnecessary and infinitely more problematic non-solution in the first place.

 

Quote:
Indeed, this is true. Which means, more likely than not, more exists in and above the universe besides what we can process in our limitations. We do not make the universe what it is, we observe it. This is becoming more obvious with the introduction of things like "dark matter." 

Of course more exists than what we presently know, or very likely could ever understand, from our perspective. However, this should not be taken as lisence to believe in things for which we have no evidence as such beliefs know no bounds.

Quote:
I do not believe humans are the reason for everything. I believe quite the opposite, that humans are subject to the reasoning of something higher than ourselves. We are subjects of the universe, not creators of it.

Of course we aren't creators of the universe. I wouldn't say we are subjects to it either though. We actually seem to simply be part of it.

From a thiestic perspective, however, it would seem that the universe exists only as a means created to support us. If the theist doesn't see us as the reason for the universe then they must suggest some other reason their god might have created everything and that would seem to take away from the importance of our relationship with the creator.  

Quote:

In this particular case, I am not arguing for the projection of "God." A projection is an image. We project a picture of what God looks like. I am not arguing for the image of a God in this particular case. Religion studies the image of God, the identity of God, and who God is.

I do not mean project ourselves as in our physical image. I am referring to projecting our understanding of how things come to be, i.e. created object analogies, and projecting our sentience or intelligence onto nature in search of an explanation for what we term 'order'.  

Quote:
This particular discussion is on the existence of a power greater than humanity that is the first cause of the universe. 

Many scientists have their own hypothesis on this matter that envoke no sentient or intelligent entity. Still I would imagine that if one answers the question of the existence of the universe with any type of existence it would have to be considered of greater power than humanity. Even though I see no reasonm to attempt to answer the question either way as it see it as not necessarilly having an answer, a first cause is by no means an avenue directly to a god.

Quote:
Let us say we found some bones in the ground of a man who lived thousands of years ago. We could conlude this man existed, but we could not say anything about who he was based upon a pile of bones. This is the difference here. I am not discussion the "personality" of God. I am simply saying that science needs a hypothesis for a being or power greater than humanity as the basis or "first cause" of all things, or else science is contradicts itself.

But it doesn't need such a thing. Science does not contradict itself whether it answers the origin question or not. Science is a human tool for understanding the universe through the means available to humans; their brains and their sensory organs.   

Quote:
Science must first establish there is a reality or truth that exists apart from humanity, outside our perspective and "bean" as you say. Or else science has no basis for making any claims because all of science is simply the invention or perception of humanity on the universe.

Even if the latter were true that would be all that could possibly be of any importance to humanity. But, in truth, the existence of a reality apart from human experience is a matter for philosophy not science. Science can only operate under the assumption that there is such a reality. 

Quote:
Is science objective or subjective? Does it explore and analyze a world that exists apart from humanity, seeking to find the objective truth? Or does it simply percieve the world and create it's own version of it, seeking to create a subjective truth?

Being as that humans perceive reality in a fundamentaly similar way and by acting as if what we experience is an objective reality we can manage very satisfying lives, whether our perception is objective or subjective is wholly unimportant. I would think it is objective and see no way to doubt this without falling into an abyss of incoherence. I see no reason to envoke a god in order to support this view or even how a god can be used to support any other view. All any god claim can accomplish is to push questions a step further back and in the process add more and infinitely more difficult questions.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney wrote:1)

Blake Kidney wrote:
1) Science itself proves the existence of God. Every time a claim is made through experimentation, science is proving the existence of God. However, where debate arises is in the definition of God, and this is where science struggles. Science cannot develop a definitive hypothesis for God, as God is not natural or testable. This, however, does not mean science cannot develop a hypothesis for the existence of God.

Actually, it does mean that. And your suggestion that science proves god daily is false and unsupported. Science disproves god daily.

Blake Kidney wrote:
2) Humanity does not control the universe or make it what it is. No matter what we think, say, or believe; facts will still be facts, laws will still be laws, and the universe will still exist as it is. A person could command gravity to “stop”, however, despite what is said gravity will still continue to function regardless. We are not the cause of the universe.

Obviously.

Blake Kidney wrote:
3) The universe does not lack a cause as science has claimed the universe has continuous physical laws and a beginning. Science has proven the universe has a date of origin whereby physical laws were put into effect. These physical laws are labeled “laws” as they remain constant throughout the life of the universe. For a constant to be created, an eternal constant would have to sustain the created constant. A constant is something that never changes, and thus, for anything to be constant it would also have to be eternal.

Self contradictory. If a non-constant was created by a constant than the constant is no longer constant as of the creation of the non-constant, making the constant suggestion impossible on multiple levels.

Blake Kidney wrote:
Being the laws of physics had a date of origin; this would suggest the laws of physics are not constant but rather variable. At one point in time, the laws of physics were established. Therefore, for the laws of physics to remain constant, there needs to be “something else” in control that is eternally unchanging.

No there doesn't. Also, just because the laws of physics appear constant to us does not mean they will always be or always have been. We have recorded irregularly and uneducatedly on observations of existance for about 5000 years. Out of 13.5 billion years of the universes existance, and a completely unknown factor of time of existance itself.

Blake Kidney wrote:
4) Since humanity does not control the universe, “something else” apart from humanity does.

Says who? You? Not remotely good enough. Demonstrate the universe is controlled. Go for it. You'll get a nobel prize I assure you.

The remainder of your post is based on a faulty and groundless premise, which was destroyed by proxy when I destroyed the origins of the erroneous conclusions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
You fail to note that one of

You fail to note that one of the "laws of the universe" that this creator would have created would have been causation. The law of causation does not exist (to our knowledge) outside the universe. The universe, therefore, is exempt.

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Here's an incredibly simple

Here's an incredibly simple question:

If God is infinite, why can't the Universe be infinite?

This whole arguement is absolutely stupid. It's no different than earlier theistic ideas of the world. I.E. Rain Gods and Love Gods and all that crap.

"If there is lightning, there MUST be a lightning God!" This is exactly how the Greeks, Romans, and other ancient peoples thought. The entire "There is a painting gives 'scientific proof' of a painter" is absolute garbage and holds no ground in modern conventional thinking UNLESS you are a theist.

Simply because we don't know what existed before the 'big bang' (or the expansion) does not mean that BEFORE this point stuff did not exist.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
person132 wrote: You fail

person132 wrote:
You fail to note that one of the "laws of the universe" that this creator would have created would have been causation. The law of causation does not exist (to our knowledge) outside the universe. The universe, therefore, is exempt.

Ooo. I like that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I should first start off by

I should first start off by saying that I earned my MSc in physics and PhD in molecular biology, so I am a scientist and I spent a very long time studying the scientific method. It is clear to me that you know nothing about it.

1) This claim is a direct non sequitor from your premise. Science cannot prove the existence of God, because science can only deal in what has data or . This is why materialism is a fundamental assumption of science. You have made little more than a naked assertion, utterly unsubstantiated. You've made a premise, but you have made no points to back it up. An argument looks like this:

Premise:

Point:

Conclusion:

However, you are evidently a little confused as you have only completed step one

Premise: Science proves God

Claim 2)Another non sequitor, physical law does not indicate an entity which created such laws. This is a stolen concept fallacy. And it rings of TAG, since this is also what Bahnsen insisted. Need I remind you that your "solution" to the "problem" of the laws of logic existing is little more than skyhookery and unsubstantiated assertions. To postulate an entity "outside" of logic is a stolen concept fallacy. I showed that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/7720

a) Not compatible with the scientific method, which invalidates your premise that science proves God. Science must presume that logic is all encompassing, otherwise it cannot make deductions. Actually, to state "outside of logic" at all is incoherent. Anyone with education in basic set theory should realize that.

 

Unfortunately, to state that evidence could turn up to invalidate the laws of nature is to reason in a circle.

Any evidence we gather must be based on such laws of nature, and to attempt to invalidate them is thusly to attempt to invalidate your own conclusion. Its a self-refuting concept, better known as a stolen concept.

The Laws of nature are axiomatic. The scientific method depends on them and them alone, nothing else. To state they could be falsified, or rather that something is outside them is to imply that they were gathered by experimentation. To imply they were gathered in such a way implies induction, when axiomatic logic is the epitome of deduction.

For example, when someone says that "God is outside the laws of nature" I always feel obliged to point out the following

Major Premise: God is outside the laws of nature

Minor Premise: Therefore, God's existence is not bound by any axiomatic law of nature, such as the law of non-contradiction.

Conclusion: Then God can exist and non-exist simultaneously, agreed?

To state that something could be "outside" natural laws is impossible, since by that same token, we should be able to draw the relationship via set theory. But since the box in this case would be existence itself, we would have to place God outside natural laws, and then he would not exist.

Quite simply, you are forgetting that science cannot and does not work with anything outside logic (outside logic is incoherent sicne "outside" implies sets, which is a logical concept). Anything outside logic is dismissed under the laws of parsimony. Where did you study the scientific method?

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. To state that an intelligent entity created the universe is a stolen concept fallacy. Trust me, I spent hours studying the information/entropy laws, so I am versed in this. Read this to understand why:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

Please read it. don't pass over it thinking "Oh, fuck it, another link.

3) Again, to postulate an entity outside the laws of logic based on such an argument is to invalidate your own conclusion. I pointed this out at least a dozen times in the noncognitivism paper:

I wrote:

To claim God based on any a posteriori observations is a Pot/Kettle fallacy. By deducing (or usually inducing) a property of the natural world, one attempts to draw the existence of an entity which transcends these properties, not realizing this is hypocritical and a stolen concept fallacy. Everything needs a cause? In that case we will assert an “uncaused cause”, and they argue this with a straight face, not realizing this is a giant epistemic black hole. (It could be described as a “special pleading” fallacy). Same for design. Complex entities require design? In that case we will assert an “undesigned designer”. To invoke an entity which transcends natural laws based on observations of natural laws is a stolen concept fallacy which contradicts itself, seeing as the only way it could hold water as is to treat the induced laws as fixed, yet positing an entity which breaks these laws. This is a special pleading fallacy. There is no epistemology for concluding in the existence of a being transcendent of naturalism based on observations of naturalism, this, I hope everyone realizes, is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Invoking a law of logic merely to attempt to disprove said law of logic. This commits multiple logical fallacies: Stolen concept, Pot/Kettle, special pleading and circular reasoning. It just cannot be done. You would be attempting to disprove your own referent, which in turn would invalidate your conclusion.

A simple way to observe this is to write it in formal logic, as such:

Major Premise: All things need a cause
Minor Premise: Infinite Regress is not possible
Conclusion: There must have been a first cause, which is God

Which I always felt should be written like this:

Major Premise: All things need a cause
Minor Premise: Infinite Regress is not possible
Conclusion: There must have been a first cause
Absurd Conclusion: Which is God

Anyway, anyone should be able to blast a hole in it by pointing out that it invalidates itself. We can show this by rewriting it again
Major premise: There must be have been an uncaused cause
Minor Premise: Then not all things need a cause
Conclusion: If not all things need a cause, then a God is not required to break the infinite regress

The problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it is attempting to deduce a conclusion which is contradictory to its premise. If the conclusion is that there must have been a first cause, we are asserting that our premise (all things need a cause) is a falsehood, and then the whole argument is invalid.

So where did the universe come from? I discuss this in an essay called Lies, Damn lies, and Misconceptions about Ex Nihilo

A special kind of stolen concept fallacy is one in which the theist steals from naturalism by invoking an entity with properties that are necessarily natural (or at very least, for which there is certainly no, nor can there ever be, a positive ontology) and that the subsequence of the creation of this entity is necessary for the properties which apparently the “entity” itself holds. This is absurd. You can argue for a conscious creator of the universe not realizing that a universe is necessary for consciousness. You can argue for a sentient creator of matter, and not realize that matter is needed for sentience, you can argue for a…etc ad infinitum. The natural state of the universe in terms of complexity is bottom-up, not top-down.

Frankly, sir, thus far I am utterly unimpressed. You are twisting the scientific method to fit your own assumptions.

4) Why do you assume the universe requires conscious control. I've wrestled with quantum theory for a while, and there are several theories which suggest your premise (as a requisite for wavefunction collapse) however, I dislike that particular interpretation due to lack of parsimony

And the points I made above apply to this too. "Outside logic" means nothing.

5) False dilemma. I swear next to the phrase "breaking Occam's Razor, your picture will be smiling up at me. This hypothesis of yours is utterly incompatible with the scientific method. Furthermore, I do not believe that any physicist I know believes the universe to be a product of pure chance, however, your false dilemma would be to assume that in the abscence of divinity, chance rules. Clearly, you missed the day in the school where they covered basic probability theory.

This sounds distinctly like a rehash of all your other arguments, TAG-like whinings which suggest the laws of logic require accounting for, seeing as I have already pointed out the epistemic black hole in that, we can move on.

Also, if you are getting into an argument against evolutionary mechanisms, which it sounds as if you are, you should know I am vastly more qualified in biology than in physics, so I took the liberty of refutating that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7918

6) Colossal stolen concept fallacy. This was already covered above. Read the M/I conjecture to understand why. You clearly are not versed in information/entropy, or you would realize that your statement resounds of appalling incoherencies. Let me explain to you how the scientific method works. The scientific method requires iron-hard stone-cold definitions and concepts, precisely laid down and carefully tested, based on tautologies that can be worded into truth tables. What you are offering is deliberate obscufication, broken concepts, statements without referents, notions which break the logic of set theory by positing "supernaturalism", which as I showed you, absolutely forced you to steal from naturalism. Even you could not avoid using words like "power" "entity" and "intelligence" without realizing these concepts are inherently naturalistic.

7) again, as I showed in the Matter/Information conjecture, clearly it is impossible for God to be intelligent. Please verse yourself in information/entropy. On how shamelessly this asurdity steals from naturalism I wrote:

I showed (in a treatise that got disappointingly few responses) that the conditions for which we are forced to accept for “God” are necessarily incompatible, or that such attributes are forced to steal from naturalism. It can be read here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

A summary of the concept would be:

I zeroed in on sentience, but it can be applied to any attribute we care to name, perhaps that the ancient prophets, ignorant of all things, thought to be less processes of natural cause and effect but rather phenomenon of the spirit, that we now recognize as falsehoods. Even if we granted (very leniently) the possibility of the notion of "non-material" despite the fact that this has no meaning, there is no attribute of classical theism which can coincide with it, especially classical theism, which describes God in anthropomorphic terms and concepts which are definitely empirically demonstratable to be physical. Omniscience? But surely "sight of any form requires photon processing which requires some sort of physical grounding at very least? What about notions like heaven and hell? Surely to be tortured forever in hell, you would need some sort of physical body, because pain is a neurochemical evolutionary function? Surely to even comprehend the notion of fire and brimstone, you would need to have physical sight? How can God have emotions like love and anger when these are chemically based?

These arguments all fall under one category. They accuse the existence of “God” of committing the stolen concept fallacy. Namely, a specific kind of stolen concept, positing an entity whose attributes require the existence of system which is subsequent to its existence. An example of this (albeit a very silly example) would be:

1. The Earth appears to be designed by intelligent entities
2. Humans are intelligent entities
3. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that humans built the Earth

The first example of a false a posteriori is to insist on God due to apparent design (seeing as entity capable of design merely posits the same questions which the designed entities do). Fixing design with design leads to an infinite regress of design.

Any a posteriori argument for God will and always will commit the stolen concept fallacy. It is reflection of a discredited philosophical school called "trickle-down creation", the notion that a constructed object has to be created by a constructer more complex than the constructed object. And yet, counterintuitevely, scientific philosophy goes in totally the opposite direction. The necessary creative intelligence to create objects and put the trickle-down theory into practice can only arise from evolution from simpler origins.

So to conclude this point, God as described would break this by committing the stolen concept fallacy, as it too would require design thusly leading to an infinite regress of designers. The more obvious solution is to reverse the equation, from long-since outdated top-down creation to the new, more sensible philosophy of bottom-up evolution, which is firmly established scientific fact from all fields of scientific discipline, I can confirm the solidity of this philosophy.

[A short digression]

A common criticism is that this is hypocritical. Clearly complex machines like jet engines and nuclear reactors are “designed”, so why is it that much more complex biological machines (myosin-driven molecular motors, rotating ion-gradient flagella, serine cascades, neurogenesis, transcription, to name a very small sample) do not need design? This is the basis of Ray Comfort’s, er, ahem, “arguments”, as well as many assertions by Intelligent Design proponents starting from William Paley and continuing today.

So what makes biological systems special? Why is it they, while very complex, do not need design, while jet engines do. The answer is evolution, of course. Biological systems are special because the very definition of a biological system is a chemical self-replicating system. The very notions of biology and blind-guided evolution are inherently linked, intertwined, forever joined. Systems of information which self-replicate with random errors non-randomly selected for accumulation of adaptive functions is the very basis of the whole of biology. Biological systems do not need design because the very concept of biology is fixed to that of the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. Biology and evolution are lockstep concepts. Biology cannot exist without evolution. It needs no design, it cannot have design. The very notion of a designer is antithetical to the whole field of biology.

See this for a better explanation:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7918

[End of Digression]

Biological systems, arising from the “bottom-up” system of complexity, give rise to entities, like us, which can put into practice the trickle-down philosophy. This is why evolution is so seemingly counterintuitive, because we are very used to trickle-down creation. Yet this, as I have shown, is riddled with logical fallacies.

Likewise, the Cosmological argument also commits a prior requisite fallacy because to account for natural laws, it has to posit an entity which is not bound by natural laws, but any attempts to explain the existence of such an entity are ultimately incoherent (given especially that human epistemology is limited, obviously, to the natural world).

To take another example, the Kalam Cosmological argument, instead of appealing to infinite regress, appeals to universal cause. The universe could just as easily have not existed as opposed to existed (a statement which every physicist on the planet would decry as utter falsehood), the existence of the universe demands an explanation, according to Kalam (and Craig, who might as well be ghosting his spirit).

Yet to fix this intractable, they posit a solution which fixes no more problems than it creates further problems, all of which are defended as being inherently unknowable. Why should such an entity terminate the regress? The universe demands an explanation, thusly there is an entity of maximal intelligence and power not bound by the universe? Presumably this entity demands an explanation for its existence as well? Perhaps a better explanation considering that such a being is highly improbable? God runs in direct opposition to natural laws, which state that simplicity begets complexity. The complexity of the universe could only have sprung from simplicity, and complexity increases in accordance with natural laws that provide systems with free energy, better known as evolution. A creative intelligence, not bound by these laws, but being the solution which does not demand an explanation, not having started from simplicity, and working up, but always existing in maximally perfect form, is more improbable than the quantum tunneling prisoner experiment.

When we observe the universe’s history, it clearly goes from simple to complex, driven by free energy. Let us look at it in reverse order:

1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)

Now, why not look at the same list, except with God inserted into it, in reverse order again?

1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)
13. Consciousness

It’s absurd. Utterly absurd. Far from being an explanation of the universe, it merely creates superfluous epistemic baggage, unnecessary questions on the existence of the entity against the grain of natural law. So it should come as no surprise that it gets swiftly eliminated via Occam’s Razor.

Everything else is pure garbage. Quite simply utterly unsubstantiated assertions, like the unvirse requires some sort of lord and master to ensure everything is in order. I propose your hypthesis gets immediately eliminated by Occam's razor and posit instead that the universe simply exists, which is at least coherent and presumes far less. You commit so many special pleading fallacies (special pleading ie "God is not bound by this rule" that the parsimony of the explanation os overruled. Clearly you never took the time to study the concept of parsimony in the scientific methodm, since your implication is ultimately a hypothesis which science utterly cannot work with. Your premise and hopeless attempt to postulate otherwise via skyhookery fails disasterously. Saying "well, God is not bound by this rule" does not do. Every time you say this, you are counting a stroke against the parsimony of your argument, and since you did that about a dozen times, your argument is to be tossed int othe gutter. I pointed this out many times in the noncognitivism treatise.

10) False dilemma. The laws of logic are absolute. To say otherwise is stolen concept (breaks set theory). Todangst was the one who wrote on that here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney

Blake Kidney wrote:

Quote:
What evidence is there for a god?

Simply this: Did you cause the universe? Did you set the physical laws into motion? Did you make the universe what it is?

 

Fallacies of Argument from ignorance.

and

Begging the question.

 

Quote:
 

This means that something else did. 

Fallacy of non sequitur.

Why not read a book on cosmology before trying to comment on cosmology?

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney wrote: Sorry

Blake Kidney wrote:

Sorry I have not had time to reply, I have been busy.

Quote:
weather which seemingly has logic to it, we can predict it to a certain degree of accuracy, does not have a conscious creator.

How do you know? Weather is a system. We observe this system, not from the point of origin, but already in progress.

If you say, "weather has logic", then you have already suggested an intelligence. Logic and order can not be produced from something random. It is either entirely random or it is not. For instance, if I roll a set of dice continuously, they may randomly make a sequence. However, this would not happen consecutively. For anything to be random, it would have the absence of logic. Therefore, if there is any order or logic in the universe, it cannot be random.

 

uh uh, the sequence is pushed into order by external parameters. The number of dice you have is an external parameter of the sequence so forget escaping the notion of parameter it need not have a definition other than the mere number of variables for order to eventually occur. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Blake Kidney

Blake Kidney wrote:
Quote:
So how do you then solve the problems of a non-physical being creating a physical universe?

This question contradicts itself. There is no problem in a non-physical being creating a physical universe as the creator always exists on a plane above the created. Think of the virtual world inside computers. Does humanity exist inside the virtual world? No, we exist above and outside it. We wrote the code that causes the virtual world. As creators of the virtual, we may create a simulation of ourselves. In essence, we could create a virtual caricature that represents us. However, it would be impossible to exist within the virtual world as we are physical.

I wasn't going to respond to any of this rubbish, but this particular attempted analogy really cheesed me off (as I am a programmer myself).

There is no 'virtual world inside computers'. Some programs may be written to simulate certain natural mechanisms (realistically or fantastically) to produce results based on the rules the programmer defines, but inside the computer there is no difference between this sort of program and the one you use to write your emails. All of the information that represents the program and it's current state of execution exists physically as magnetic charges and electricity but could be just as accurately be written down on paper and be executed in your own brain. THE COMPUTER AND THE PROGRAM ARE PHYSICAL. And quite besides this, code comes from a programmer's head - either as new combinations based on learned rules, or verbatim from memory (just like using a spoken language) - not ex nihilo. Coding a 'virtual world' as you put it is no different a process than writing a book or making a pot from clay. Don't try to draw a parallel between a supernatural agent interacting with the natural realm.

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine