08-20-2011, 07:49 PM
|
#1
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorm supports God's existence
Argument for God's Existence
1) If a non-physically based explanation does not exist for the ultimate existence of dynamic, interactive physical reality, then the constructs of such physical reality (including physical processes) must be past eternal - having no ultimate cause.
2) Our detectable Universe (of space, time, matter and energy) should therefore be at end state - i.e. heat death.
3) Our Universe is not at end state.
4) A non-physically based explanation is therefore required to explain an ultimate origin of dynamic, interactive physical reality.
5) This supports the hypothesis that God - as an initial creator or prime mover of dynamic/interactive physical reality, exists.
Note: This Argument is additionally supported by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm, and modern physics in general- which presently demands an ultimate beginning of cosmic space/time (whether universe or multiverse).
Note: The suggestion that dynamic/interactive physical reality ultimately first sprang from "nothing" (common Atheist response) is non intelligible. At a minimum even an empty space geometry (such as suggested in quantum tunneling models to explain the beginning of universes) must have at a minimum had the property of being governed by the laws of quantum mechanics - hence aer not truly "nothing" in the sense of non-physical being. Further, a quantum mechanical explanation for existence of our universe/ multiverse cannot apply as quantum mechanical fluctuations occur as a function of time, and there was no time prior to the existence of space/time!!. Quantum explanations are non starters.
|
|
|
08-20-2011, 08:09 PM
|
#2
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Wow! What an amazing authority to make such a pronouncement! It must be true!
Does God want us to use poisons on our food, and rape our planet of natural resources? I think you and Brick could and should have marvelous conversations about God.
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
08-20-2011, 09:06 PM
|
#3
|
The Original Rhinoqurilla
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somewhere Not-So-Cold with Mountains
Posts: 4,829
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
Argument for God's Existence
1) If a non-physically based explanation does not exist for the ultimate existence of dynamic, interactive physical reality, then the constructs of such physical reality (including physical processes) must be past eternal - having no ultimate cause.
|
Uhm, no. Current theory is that our universe came into it's current state of affairs a little less than 14 billion years ago. There are no current theories in cosmology that posits a past eternal universe.
Quote:
2) Our detectable Universe (of space, time, matter and energy) should therefore be at end state - i.e. heat death.
|
Uhm, no. With our current understanding of black hole evaporation, there is about 10^100 years left before heat death is something to worry about.
Quote:
3) Our Universe is not at end state.
4) A non-physically based explanation is therefore required to explain an ultimate origin of dynamic, interactive physical reality.
|
Uhm, no. Setting up a straw man argument doesn't make your argument right.
Quote:
5) This supports the hypothesis that God - as an initial creator or prime mover of dynamic/interactive physical reality, exists.
|
Sorry, again, no. Current theory is that the universe "began" about 14 billion years ago, understanding that "began" means existing in its current state. Prior to that the laws of physics as we currently understand them break down, so we are unable to make truth-functional statements about it. No eternal past, no creation out of nothing.
Quote:
Note: This Argument is additionally supported by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm, and modern physics in general- which presently demands an ultimate beginning of cosmic space/time (whether universe or multiverse).
Note: The suggestion that dynamic/interactive physical reality ultimately first sprang from "nothing" (common Atheist response) is non intelligible. At a minimum even an empty space geometry (such as suggested in quantum tunneling models to explain the beginning of universes) must have at a minimum had the property of being governed by the laws of quantum mechanics - hence aer not truly "nothing" in the sense of non-physical being. Further, a quantum mechanical explanation for existence of our universe/ multiverse cannot apply as quantum mechanical fluctuations occur as a function of time, and there was no time prior to the existence of space/time!!. Quantum explanations are non starters.
|
The argument that the universe sprang from nothing is not a common Atheist or scientific response, it's a creationist straw man used to make science look weak. Your argument is a God of the Gaps argument, and nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
Tell me, assuming a creator, where did the creator come from?
Wait just a minute-You expect me to believe-That all this misbehaving-Grew from one enchanted tree? And helpless to fight it-We should all be satisfied-With this magical explanation-For why the living die-And why it's hard to be a decent human being - David Bazan
|
|
|
08-20-2011, 09:09 PM
|
#4
|
The Original Rhinoqurilla
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somewhere Not-So-Cold with Mountains
Posts: 4,829
|
And 30secs of Googling has illuminated me to that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm is commonly misquoted by creationists to prove the existence of God. Fantastic.
Wait just a minute-You expect me to believe-That all this misbehaving-Grew from one enchanted tree? And helpless to fight it-We should all be satisfied-With this magical explanation-For why the living die-And why it's hard to be a decent human being - David Bazan
|
|
|
08-20-2011, 10:46 PM
|
#5
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Rhinoqulous
I was going to try to seriously reply to your statements, but they are so awfully flawed and you obiviously missed the point in the argument so badly - I would suggest just re-reading.
Your first point (ummm no) generally supports the argument!
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 12:12 AM
|
#6
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Ahh, it's quite refreshing to have a deluded fuckwitted thick cunt drop by occasionally.
Still clinging to the wreckage of well shredded failed arguments I see?
I wonder what Andrew's flavour of creation myth has to say about the creation of the creator?
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 03:03 AM
|
#7
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
|
This is gold plated, 100 per cent, crap. If such a being did exist then what possible connection could be made with humans. Why did he create billions of stars, billions of galaxies, wait 14 billion plus years before coming up with a planet destroying, dumbfuck superstitious maggot such as ourselves? Prime example of the species being the writer of the post.
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 06:05 AM
|
#8
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
This post is worded as fact with a tone that suggests arrogant preaching. I will, however, take it as Andrew merely offering an interesting opinion for discussion by knowledgeable people who may disagree.
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
Argument for God's Existence
|
Science, you understand, first collects data then seeks an explanation for that data within the context of the best current knowledge rather than positing an explanation then bending the data and even bending definitions to fit.
Quote:
1) If a non-physically based explanation does not exist for the ultimate existence of dynamic, interactive physical reality, then the constructs of such physical reality (including physical processes) must be past eternal - having no ultimate cause.
|
We do not know whether a non-physically based explanation exists or not. We do know that there is currently no data supporting a non-physical explanation for anything.
"past eternal" would be a physical characteristic and thus not part of a non-physical explanation.
Quote:
2) Our detectable Universe (of space, time, matter and energy) should therefore be at end state - i.e. heat death.
|
Well supported estimates are that we can detect only 1/100 or so the depth of the universe. When the density of the universe gets down to, say, one electron per gazillion cubic parsecs, it will still have far to go.
There is no end state for the universe so there is no impediment to having, within the single universe model, an infinite series of BBs, each with its own beginning of time and space. This would also be consistent with an infinite past for all universes collectively and a finite past for ours
Quote:
3) Our Universe is not at end state.
|
Unnecessary clause because it never will reach an end state.
Quote:
4) A non-physically based explanation is therefore required to explain an ultimate origin of dynamic, interactive physical reality.
|
This has not been demonstrated. Further, the characterization of reality is over-defined and I suspect it is to enable later unwarranted implications to be insinuated.
Quote:
5) This supports the hypothesis that God - as an initial creator or prime mover of dynamic/interactive physical reality, exists.
|
This is the classic jump outside of reason made by nearly all creationists. You trot out some kind of god before you have successfully established the first cause or prime mover.
However the universe arrived, neither effort nor intelligence was necessary because --
1) The sum energy of the universe (zero) is exactly the amount that could be created from nothing and
2) development of the universe following the BB completely erased any impressed information that could be a design or plan.
Hypothetically I have a book in Chinese that describes the inner working of my microwave oven. It was printed using ink made of the black material that soaked out of a copy of "Origin of Species". Now, how much of Darwin's brilliant intellect and descriptive talent can you detect in the new book? None. It is all gone just like any pattern that might have been impressed by a god or anyone else, on the BB and which, a short time later, suffered total shuffling.
Why call something with no power and no consciousness a god? If creation was done by a powerful and intelligent god, why is it your god and not any one of the other 10,000+ creator gods? Your agenda and confirmation bias is showing.
This is special pleading implying that God can be eternal but reality cannot.
The preceding items equally support a physical or a non-physical explanation for the existence of reality. Since we have many sound physical explanations for many physical things yet no validated non-physical explanation for anything, physical explanations are best.
Quote:
Note: This Argument is additionally supported by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm, and modern physics in general- which presently demands an ultimate beginning of cosmic space/time (whether universe or multiverse).
|
Modern physics does not demand an ultimate beginning. It admits that time behaves is such a way that information is unavailable prior to a point 13+BYr ago.
Quote:
Note: The suggestion that dynamic/interactive physical reality ultimately first sprang from "nothing" (common Atheist response) is non intelligible.
|
It is just as intelligible as a non-physical process.
Quote:
At a minimum even an empty space geometry (such as suggested in quantum tunneling models to explain the beginning of universes) must have at a minimum had the property of being governed by the laws of quantum mechanics - hence aer not truly "nothing" in the sense of non-physical being.
|
Please remember that the laws of nature are not legislation enforced as human laws; they are summaries of observed behaviors which have never deviated from their observed pattern.
Quote:
Further, a quantum mechanical explanation for existence of our universe/ multiverse cannot apply as quantum mechanical fluctuations occur as a function of time, and there was no time prior to the existence of space/time!!. Quantum explanations are non starters.
|
Quantum explanations, by being observed all the time and everywhere are much better starters than are unsupported conjecture.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 10:36 AM
|
#9
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
To put the argument slightly differently
1) If randomly controlled, blind physical processes are all there is and ever was (such as in a reality without a God - as defined as an ultimate creator or controllng influence on the evolution of the cosmos) then as something cannot come from absolute nothing then those randomly controled physical processes must have simply exisisted forever in the past without further explanation.
Atheist response - Yes, maybe the multiverse is infinite (Krauss said this in a debate against William Craig).
Theist response - OK - but I'm about to show you why this simply cannot be the case.
2) However, if (1) is true, than at any definable point in time a physical state would have experienced an infintie amount of time and changes of state proceeding it. This would place our present state in the universe at a state expected in the infinite future - which obviously isn't true - or even possible. Further, by both the Gorde Guth Vilenkin Theorm (pertaining to a hypothetic multiverse) and by empirical evidence (the Big Bang began at a definable space time boundary), modern sciences supports an ultimate beginning to physical based reality as we know it. Hence premise 1 is false.
Atheist response: Premise 2 is obviously supported in science, so I withdraw my statement wrt premise 1, and agree that it must be false - the cosmos began to exist. However this still doesn't deomonstrate that a God started it all, or controlled it.
Theist response: Yes, but it does demonstrate that more than a mere random, physical process is responsible for the beginning or controlling of the evolution of the cosmos. This suggests God.
Atheist response: Argument from ignorance, and God of the Gaps!.
Theist resonse: I am not attemptoing to prove the hypothesis that a God exists, I am just pointing out that given science, math and philosophy a proposed existence of God is not irrational. Such proposition in fact at the moment comprises the "best explanation" availalbe in terms of explanatory power.
Atheist response: Quantum fluctions started it all! That is at least as likely as a purposeful god starting things.
Theist response: Quantum fluctuations pre-suppose time to enable their probability functions to transpire. There was no such time available in explanation of existence of a first space time boundary.
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 10:40 AM
|
#10
|
I Live Here
Join Date: May 2007
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,193
|
Andrew66, when you just post and don't respond to comments in the thread, your contributions look like spam.
Never give a zombie girl a piggy back ride.
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 01:42 PM
|
#11
|
Thank God I’m an atheist
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Little Britain
Posts: 1,076
|
I'm not a scientist, but even I can see the logical holes in that, let alone the jumping to conclusions. You seem to be saying, because we think 1 thing can't be true, we think this other thing must be.
There may be no evidence for either, but we like this one, so let's go for that and not consider anything else.
Please answer questions that are put to you before deciding to post even more stuff, you will find that people communicate better when it is a conversation, not a lecture.
I would also like to object to your presumption of how an atheist might answer certain questions. Besides a lack of belief in your god, we don't share any ideologies etc. It is not a religion or a set of beliefs, rather just a lack of belief in one thing. Me personally, would not answer any of your questions with any of the replies you would attribute to atheists. Although I'm sure this is one of the less significant presumptions.
"Belief means not wanting to know what is true"
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 03:16 PM
|
#12
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
How do you know something doesn't come from absolute nothing, then where does god come from? we could be living on a multiverse, though there is no conclusive evidence of this, it is a plausable explanation to origin problems. Something may well have come from nothing, or always existed, we know this because we can see it, we cannot see your god.
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 03:47 PM
|
#13
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Hi Eternal
I like your name, it fits the subject matter of what we are discussing!
With regards to your objection, it seems to me that to pose
Either
1) Pysical processes governed only by the laws of physics existed eternally, or
2) Such physical processes did not exist eternally
This is a true dilema, hence if (1) can be shown by good reasons to be false, then (2) is more plausibly true. This is in keeping with logical principles.
Now if (2) is more plausibly true than (1) - which is generally conceeded in both scientific and philosphical circles- this points to a beginning of physical processes governed only by the laws of physics - Yes?
Now... it is generally accepted that something cannot simply be caused or come from "nothing", so Something other than a "physical processes governed by the law of physics" must have caused such physical process's.
What could this something be?
There is where Religion suggests hypothesis
The Something could involve pre-existing matter and energy which was non-interactive and then made at a first point in time to become interactive and begin to change states (Prime Mover Theory of God).
The Something could alternatively involve a pre-existing energy which at a select moment in time created the laws of physics, space, time, matter and energy(Creation Theory of God).
What is striking is that Science (not to offend by inserting the term Atheist) has not to my knowledge suggested an intelligible hypothesis to compete with the above religious hypothesis in explanation of an ultimate cause of the universe or multiverse. Without even a scientific hypothesis to compete, it becomes arguably rational to place once faith in at least one of the Religious hypothesis.
I have already refuted quantum fluctuations as a "first cause" in explanation of our universe, or multiverse, as as quantum fluctuations pre-suppose time, which according to the BGV theorm and Big Bang models did not exist prior to any first space time boundary.
If someone can pose a valid scientific theory or hypothesis which offers explanation for the ultimate orign of the multiverse/universe I would consider withdrawing the general argument!. If you use quantum theory you must explain how quantum fluctuations can occur in the absence of time as there was no time prior to a first space/tme boundary?
Thanks for listening
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 03:48 PM
|
#14
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
To put the argument slightly differently
1) If randomly controlled, blind physical processes are all there is and ever was (such as in a reality without a God - as defined as an ultimate creator or controllng influence on the evolution of the cosmos) then as something cannot come from absolute nothing then those randomly controled physical processes must have simply exisisted forever in the past without further explanation.
|
You have not established that "something cannot come from absolute nothing". You are using a common and ambiguous meaning for "nothing". When you write about the universe being created, your hypothetical creator will bring it into existence from the same nothing that the non-god hypothesis would use. Further, both the god and non-god versions require zero time, that is, no time to make the transition from nothing to something.
Quote:
Atheist response - Yes, maybe the multiverse is infinite (Krauss said this in a debate against William Craig).
|
That is not the only atheist response and every time you use this form of characterization you are building a straw-man fallacy argument.
A requirement for something outside of the universe to bring it into existence is a strong intuition that may be as wrong as the certainty that a stone is solid.
Quote:
Theist response - OK - but I'm about to show you why this simply cannot be the case.
|
Yes, tell us why your hypothetical creative force can be past-eternal but a physical universe cannot.
Tell us how an infinite, eternal and perfect, absolutely unchanging agent can do anything at all, ever.
Quote:
2) However, if (1) is true, than at any definable point in time a physical state would have experienced an infintie amount of time and changes of state proceeding it.
|
If something has always existed and consisted of a series of BBs then there is no problem with an infinitely old universe because time and space can bud and branch from an existing universe in completely natural ways.
You are using common and imprecise definition of time, otherwise, it would not be meaningful to posit a definable point on an infinite (time) line. Points on an infinite line can only be referenced with respect to other specified points. Thus one cannot identify the absolute cosmic date of the BB (accepting for the moment an eternal universe), but one can easily measure that the BB was 13.7 BYr ago.
Quote:
This would place our present state in the universe at a state expected in the infinite future - which obviously isn't true - or even possible.
|
Not at all sure what you mean by this. The present state is the universe at age 13.7 BY. It still does not identify whether there were any states before that or not.
Quote:
Further, by both the Gorde Guth Vilenkin Theorm (pertaining to a hypothetic multiverse) and by empirical evidence (the Big Bang began at a definable space time boundary), modern sciences supports an ultimate beginning to physical based reality as we know it. Hence premise 1 is false.
|
The BB did not begin a space-time boundary, it defined the space-time boundary.
Quote:
Atheist response: Premise 2 is obviously supported in science, so I withdraw my statement wrt premise 1, and agree that it must be false - the cosmos began to exist. However this still doesn't deomonstrate that a God started it all, or controlled it.
|
Straw-man. I do not accept premise 1, that an uncreated universe must be eternal and infinite.
There is no evidence for the assertion that something cannot come from nothing but there is ample evidence of things that do come from nothing. If, as we can see, nothing is an unstable state, its collapse into something would be the normal or default state.
Quote:
Theist response: Yes, but it does demonstrate that more than a mere random, physical process is responsible for the beginning or controlling of the evolution of the cosmos. This suggests God.
|
It demonstrates nothing of the kind. The examples we can show are mere random, physical processes to begin with and the universe develops according to the known natural laws.
Neither the beginning nor the development suggests a god, a Leprechaun or an AAA battery, any one of which would have sufficient power and intelligence to have brought our universe into existence.
Quote:
Atheist response: Argument from ignorance, and God of the Gaps!.
|
Straw-man. It is the theist who claims knowledge which is not available to humans yet.
Quote:
Theist resonse: I am not attemptoing to prove the hypothesis that a God exists, I am just pointing out that given science, math and philosophy a proposed existence of God is not irrational.
|
Proposing a god as creator of the universe or proposing a hot-dog bun as creator of the universe is not irrational (both are rather silly though). Believing that god created the universe, with insufficient evidence and in the face of contrary evidence, is irrational.
Quote:
Such proposition in fact at the moment comprises the "best explanation" availalbe in terms of explanatory power.
|
What exactly does a hypothetical god with no evidence for its existence, with no information on which to understand anything about it, explain? Does your explanation include the mechanics god used to bring the universe into existence; does it include any details other than simple natural law for the size, content and structure of galaxies? You reference a design or plan for the development of the universe. Please display it or admit that the development is merely a real-time exercise of natural laws and that there is no other guiding plan.
Quote:
Atheist response: Quantum fluctions started it all! That is at least as likely as a purposeful god starting things.
|
Quantum fluctuations in nothing are observed but no events caused by any god are. Therefore quantum fluctuations are much more likely than god to have been the reason the universe came into existence.
Quote:
Theist response: Quantum fluctuations pre-suppose time to enable their probability functions to transpire.
|
This has not been established in your post. No time is needed for the instant of the first quantum fluctuation at which instant time also began.
Quote:
There was no such time available in explanation of existence of a first space time boundary.
|
Similarly, if your god hypothesis was true, there was no time available for its existence prior to the BB nor for it to create anything.
In summary--
We do not know that something cannot come from nothing.
We have evidence that it can.
We do not know that every effect must have a cause.
We have evidence that some effects are uncaused.
We do not know whether time in some form existed prior to the BB, only that the recorded behavior of the universe stops at that point and we are unable to peer beyond it.
It has not been established that any intelligence is necessary for a design to be impressed on the material in the universe so the creator need not be a being or agent in any conscious sense.
Science does not claim to have proved the non-existence of this hypothetical god but it does show areas where a god is unnecessary and therefore reasonable to reject under the rule of parsimony. Science and reason have shown that any god defined with contradictory or impossible characteristics cannot exist.
Thus it is not valid to equate a (possibly small and weak and unintelligent) creative force for the universe with a highly detailed Jesus/Jehovah/Hoopy-spook being. It is not valid to select Jesus or one of the other two different "monotheistic" gods without justification. You have shown no reason to reject 10,000+ other gods in favor of your pet deity.
Part of your problem with this attempted demonstration that god exists is your apparent confusion between science and atheism.
Atheists do not assert as an absolute fact that gods do not exist. Atheists simply do not believe gods exist, due to non-existence of evidence that they do.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
08-21-2011, 07:15 PM
|
#15
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
Eternal wrote
I'm not a scientist, but even I can see the logical holes in that, let alone the jumping to conclusions. You seem to be saying, because we think 1 thing can't be true, we think this other thing must be.
There may be no evidence for either, but we like this one, so let's go for that and not consider anything else.
Please answer questions that are put to you before deciding to post even more stuff, you will find that people communicate better when it is a conversation, not a lecture.
I would also like to object to your presumption of how an atheist might answer certain questions. Besides a lack of belief in your god, we don't share any ideologies etc. It is not a religion or a set of beliefs, rather just a lack of belief in one thing. Me personally, would not answer any of your questions with any of the replies you would attribute to atheists. Although I'm sure this is one of the less significant presumptions.
|
Holes in his logic? Jesus H Leprechauns, what logic? There's a black hole where his brain should be. If the universe came from magic beans then there must have been somebody to plant the beans - therefore it must have been an angry god from the Old Testament. Oh, won't you believe in Him too?
How do they get so fucking dumb? I mean, really?
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:22 PM.
|