There is no scientific and logical evidence of self existence of universe, therefore,only logical conclusion is the creator of universe not proving its self existence .
But there is. Sorry. This is not logic - this is repeating the same thing again. You will now ignore the scientific evidence presented to you.
But - let's for the moment assume there is an Invisible, Undetectable Creator (which I don't) - there is an infinite number of possible Invisible Undetectable Creators.
Logically your Allah is therefore infinitely improbable.
What are you trying to prove by repeating the same illogical, irrational statements over and over and over while ignoring all logic presented to you?
Mark Knowles,we must also discover limitations of our reason while defining creator, our logic concludes a creator under the universe not proving its self existence but it can never define completely the creator ,but if we try ,He is infinite supreme and absolute ego whose oneness never makes Him lesser in number and whose invisibility is actually confinement of our reason and senses, Who is not being observed but His power is being observed ,His will may be observed by the circulation of our blood,systems of our hearts and kidneys etc., which are working without our will and determination .How can we define and limit Him whose universe has not been defined and limited by our scientific research. How can we define Him who is not being seen but his realm, his creations, His worlds, His planets, His superb creature the human being, His workings, His systems,His wisdom and His kingdom is being observed .
"our logic concludes a creator under the universe not proving its self existence"
No - your logic goes from an expression of ignorance ("we can't if prove the universe created itself or not") to a declaration that god exists, created the universe and thus the universe did NOT create itself. No one else is making that logical mistake - only you.
Just preaching nonsense. Sorry - no logic here.
Why would there be, ipso fact, an infinite number of possible creators?
What is self existence?
The universe exists by the only know way to determine things exist, agreement of multiple observers.
psycheskinner, Self existence is existence by self, without support of external,a universe without beginning, an eternal universe, universe for ever, we observe the existence of universe,therefore, we can not presuppose that its existence is for ever and eternal and self existing, we are not observing a self existing universe,we are required to prove it for avoiding creator but we have no scientific evidence for the same for time being, consequently, we can never avoid the logical conclusion of a creator .
Okay. So what makes you think the universe could not come to exist spontaneously?
psycheskinner, I am just making the point that there is no tangible scientific evidence to the effect of self existence of universe,therefore, the only conclusion is the existence of universe by creator , if universe is not created by creator it must prove its self existence .
Um, To the extent something vastly removed in space and time can be studied, yes there is.
How would you explain the universe rapidly expanding if not that it originated explosively from a single location?
Why would God make a rapidly expanding universe rather than a stable one?
1. There is scientific and logical evidence for a self existing universe. Open a book.
2. Claiming there is no evidence for a universe without a creator and concluding that a creator must exist because of the lack of evidence of self existing universe is absurd. It's like claiming big foot exists because we can't prove he doesn't.
Perhaps if we did not use logic at all to conclude any thing at all we might not feel we have to prove any thing and just be. Oh well....
Then we could go back to burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy, you mean? Like that.
Why would you think that then? Just because one cannot use logic to prove or disprove a creator what must you be thinking?
We can easily use logic to disprove a creator. You are the one suggesting that we stop using logic to conclude anything. When we didn't bother with that, we all believed the sort of things that led to burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy. At least I seem to be thinking.
Does it not make sense to your logic to discontinue trying to prove or disprove what cannot be proved or disproved? It shall be fascinating to hear your logical argument disproving a creator, seeing as for you it appears to be easy.
Sure - here are some logical arguments for you.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … gical.html
But - as you already know it cannot be disproven - will you bother reading any of them?
Love to hear your arguments as to why a Creator cannot be disproven or proven.
The problem here is you have believers who have come to an illogical position that they are trying to prove by logic and reason. Which is why they are failing so badly.
A god cannot be proven, because there doesn't seem to be one. Same reason the Tooth Fairy cannot be proven.
So you have no logical argument of your own?
Anyway..very briefly...as I see many flaws in the argument I was most interested in.
There are many perceptions of God so the logical argument presented of 'one' perception of God fail miserably at disproving God... sorry to say.
One of the logical arguments seems to be saying that in order for God to exist there has to be a beginning or an origin. The logical mind cannot grasp no beginning and no end because that is how it is designed and that is how it has evolved by default. Logic therefore cannot think beyond logic. At least by itself it cannot.
God cannot be proven or disproven using logic as I have said earlier.
Aww. Why on earth would I waste my time offering you any of my own arguments? You already know all the answers. LOL at the word salad. There are logical arguments that do disprove a god. Funny seeing you saying word salad and calling it logic though.
As I always say to people who use that argument that you stole from some one else, - "You define it, I'll disprove it. "
I often ask myself the same thing lol. Why do you waste your time replying to posts you seem to have no intention of having or supplying your own answers to? I can understand if they articulate what you want to say better, however, it makes no sense to me that you do not have an opinion of your own.
That's just it! God cannot be defined wholly or completely. Therefore there is nothing to prove or disprove end of story.
Really? How do you know it exists if you are incapable of defining it?
I said God cannot be defined, I did not say God cannot be experienced.
So very funny seeing you argue for the existence something that it is not possible to define, prove or argue for.
Might want to try reading what you started out saying.
The original reply I made was all together different to how you seem to be understanding it. Selective reading does not help ones cause whatever that may be for you?
So - let me just sum up.
1. You are of the opinion that using logic and language is absolutely NOT the correct way to communicate about this subject.
2. You are going to go ahead and do it anyway.
3. Anyone who points out the nonsense in everything you say simply did not read it properly in the first place.
That about it?
pennyofheaven, Mark, Existence of universe logically conclude the creator for its being as scientist have failed to prove self existence or existence by self , further atheists present a magical universe evolved by a unconscious and blind law or biological process that even never knows it self, a blind man can never operate a small computer but a blind law is operating the great and infinite universe? this is the'' logic'' of atheists , moreover, a creator can never be defined completely because He is not subject to our space and time,He is creator of this space and time and not within same , every thing with in time and space is creation.It is correct ''logic can never think beyond logic''.
Keep on repeating the same nonsense and ignoring anything said to you is rude. Do you do this in the real world? Or just online?
It's always interesting to me when someone thinks the entire universe was planed and created just for us humans. I think this is where you problems start, sure they certainly go on from there, but the very first thing you need to learn is that we are nothing to any part of the universe. And we are a by product of the evolutionary process. We have come and we will go. Enjoy the ride with a clear mind.
We are. It's a very slow process for the most part.
Serious question: proof? The fact that the average human is taller in the 21st Century than they were in the 19th Century would not be evolution. (And I'm not saying that you would have used that example, I'm just pointing out that not all change is proof of evolution.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien … l&_r=0
If all changes in human beings is not evidence of evolution, which is defined as change over time, I'm not exactly sure what its evidence OF to you
The changes would need to be sustained for longer than a few generations and not revert back quickly in the absence of what caused them in the first place to fit the definition of evolution that I have been taught. I hope I have been very clear on that. The definition of evolution that I learned in public school is that these changes become permanent and last even when the necessity for some of these things is gone and they may even hinder humans. That may not be what they teach at the college level and if so, then I'm certainly open to being shown what is, but in my public school education that was pretty much the definition.
And let me be clear, again, that as far as I can tell from what I've read and heard, height changes are actually an across the board result of dietary and other healthcare changes, not a process of the tallest man getting all the good breeding women.
We're getting taller, we're living longer, our "pinky" toe is growing smaller, our brains are expanding...
It's still happening. You just won't notice any difference unless you compare us now to us thousands upon thousands of years ago.
Again, none of these are conclusive proof of actual evolution as most of them can be explained by environment and if the environment were to revert, then so in all likelihood would we.
Or to put it another way, by that token, the expanding waistline of your average individual would therefor also be a sign of evolution.
Congratulations! That's exactly what evolution is: Creatures adapting to their environment over time!
In which case, evolution actually does not and can not disprove the Biblical theory of Creation!
congratulations - no one ever said that it did.
I've corrected you on this point several times now, Chris. Evolution has nothing to do (at all) with the origin of life. that's something else. You were surprised the first time, - but here you are again with the same thing all over again.
I know you never said, but plenty of people have. Now, I will grant that in college this line of thought may have nothing to do with evolution at all. And I have no doubt that most evolutionary biologists are really not all that concerned with proving or disproving Creationism. But I'm dealing with people on Facebook right now who are unconcerned with how contemptuous they sound when claiming that evolution proves that God is just a sky fairy myth.
Why would you not be held in contempt exactly? Only a fool goes around warning people that an Invisible Super Daddy in the Sky that only they can see will punish them for not believing and then spouts irrational nonsense that they need to believe in order to avoid the Super Daddy punishing them like you say it will.
I hope you wouldn't do that..... Oh wait.
In any case - evolution most certainly does disprove the biblical account of biological existence
On the second day satan created dinosaurs
On the third day god killed them evil, sinning dinosaurs with a big rock
120 million years later, the first ape stood upright and eventually humans emerged
JM was saying that no one was saying that. Glad that you and I can agree on something (being that yes, someone was indeed saying that.)
Try reading what she wrote and what I said. Did I mention "creation"? No - does that constitute you lying about me?
No, it does not. It might mean that I misunderstood something, but only the most draconian system would equate that with a deliberate lie and accuse accordingly.
And also, just because you didn't use the word doesn't necessarily mean anything, unless we are parsing out legalistically and equivocating to death. Creation is the Biblical explanation of biological origin.
I am careful with my words Chris. I did not use the word "origin," or "creation," for a reason. Now try addressing the meat of what I said instead of getting into a semantic argument.
"In any case - evolution most certainly does disprove the biblical account of biological existence"
Which it does. You do know about evolution - right? No majiking things into existence in their current form. Everything evolved from some other species. Definitely disproves the biblical account of how the wide variety of biological forms we see came about - doesn't it? It also disproves that Adam and Eve theory and the Noah's flood theory.
All myths. Sorry.
We are still evolving.
Humans of the future may lack wisdom teeth
Race differences may disappear
Humans of the future may have less hair
Humans of the future may be more resistant to diabetes and heart disease
Humans of the future may be physically weaker and more susceptible to pathogens
Humans are certainly becoming smarter and as such the IQ test scoring has to be adjusted every few years.
Humans are certainly becoming better looking because we have more choices for partners.
Humans are becoming much taller.
Humans in from Northern Europe and a section of Africa are able to drink cows milk, but both groups developed the ability separately using different genes.
The native people are the far north of North America have developed ways of fending off frost bite
The majority of that sounds more like de-evolution than evolution.
Gadzooks! Mark Mothersbaugh has been right all along! We ARE Devo!
I'm confused. Are you saying all these people walking around with different traits that developed for different reasons were not the result of evolution?
Perhaps we are in natural selection phase of evolution. Those of us who do not adapt to the ever increasing polluted environment may not survive. Then again, perhaps nature is wiping us all out earlier than our ancestors and or changing our bodily functions etc because of what we do to our environment. The maybes are endless.
It makes no sense we are nothing to any part of the universe since we reside within it. Perhaps part thereof....but still in it.
Are you saying that the said creator is not within its own creations and therefore cannot be defined?
Mark, this'' nonsense'' is not for your ''intelligence'', it is for others intelligence whom you are briefing your'' great logic''.;p
Yes in my view, just not wholly.
An experience of love for one may be completely different to another. You may have yet another who has not experienced love as whomever 'experiences' love to be. Does not mean love does not exist however. It just cannot be defined to one who has not yet experienced it at the intensity (or not) to the other.
Trying to describe such an experience with logic cannot give another the same or similar experience.
Good answer. However, love can be explained and translated from one perspective to another. The experience and feeling of love is related to and equated with different perspectives. One love language is different from another, but I can replicate what I feel into what you feel by speaking your love language..
Have you read "The Five Love Languages" By Gary Chapman?
If you don't know what god is (if you knew you would be able to define it) then how do you know that the experience is from god?
Same way you know when you experience love.
Many have tried to define God (or their experience of God) since day dot. This is the reason we have so many different religions/philosophies/beliefs. Defining what cannot be defined makes no sense to the logic. Each persons experience is never exactly the same. Conflicts from within then arise when the logic tries to fit an experience into what it thinks it already knows. If rejected by the logic, the experience then, is more often than not discarded.
But one can define "love" and love is an emotion so one can feel it. SO is god like an emotion?
A definition is describing what you mean by that term. Different people define it differently doesn't mean the term does not have a meaning[for you] if you use the term. When people are asking you to define god, they are asking you what you mean, by using that term. If you do not know what you mean by that term then how can you say that you experience it. I know what love is and hence I know when I experience it.
No doubt about that I agree love is an emotion and is a highly subjective experience. No the God experience is not an emotion as we know emotions to be.
If your definition is not completely the same as mine does that mean love does not exist and is a figment of my imagination or yours? No it doesn't, you simply define your experience as you experience it. Will one understand an experience if an attempt to describe what is indescribable for the most part if they only understand God as a concept rather than an experience?
For instance, God is present within the logic and the creative processes yet cannot be defined via the logic. God is present within both evil and good yet the logic will resist that premise because it makes no sense. God is within the tangible and intangible. Makes no sense right?
Yup - it makes no sense. Basically because it is nonsense. But - I know you really need to try and prove it. Odd you try using language to do so. I would get the bongo drums out if I were you.
Perhaps not what you are seeking no, but I did just prove what I have been saying along. Logic cannot define God.
No - all you proved is you are speaking nonsense. Logic doesn't define things. Sorry. Say some more word salad to prove your point.
You make no sense? How do you mean logic does not define things?
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense (as does romantic poetry, which is an attempt to quantify what many people find unquantifiable.) The idea that every experience that can be quantified is logical and an experience that cannot be quantified (at least sufficiently for the person hearing it) is therefor nonsense and a figment of the imagination is not so much an exercise in logic as it is an exercise in a need to control.
Correct, it makes no sense for a very good reason. It's nonsense, but yet some hold on tightly to the afterlife.
You get a set of emotions and you ascribe it to god, my question is why?
I cannot experience your experience but I still can understand what you mean when you say love. There are people who cannot "experience" pleasure but still we can define it for them to understand. The definition serves the purpose of me understanding what you mean when you say love, not "experiencing". Similarly I have to understand what you mean god when you say god and unless you define the word how am I supposed to understand you? [studies show that 90% (of the same religion and denomination) defer in their meaning of god.] Now what do you experience in fact? Say love, when you see your mother you get a feelings towards your mother which you call love towards mother. Do you see god to experience anything? You might have escaped from an accident and you got some feelings including relief which you attributed to god, other than that is their any stand alone "experience" from god?
No, do not make sense. For creation to occur god has to be present before hand, so you are exempting god from your first premise -everything has to be created, logical fallacy of special pleading.
Good and evil are human constructs, there is no absolute evil or absolute good but only human actions, so where is god present in an action?
If god is within tangible and intangible, what is god, a molecule?
riddle666, you know your self ? Or You have seen your self? But you have experience of your self .We have experience of God in the same way as our self is reflection of absolute self .
I have experienced the tooth fairy in the same way as you say you have experienced God.
Try to read the meaning of 'self' I laid out in a previous post, then you might probably understand that what you wrote is nonsense.
And if you experience nonexistent beings as part of your self or as yourself you do have a problem.
Rad Man, There are reasons to believe that universe is created for human beings ; 1] Life conditions are found only in one planet 2] Food, water, oxygen and all requirement for evolution of life anf human being are found in one planet3] In the whole universe , for the time being, and in the world especially, only man is blessed with two powers ,knowledge and justice,he has conscious of the same,and for that reason he has been assigned an important position by the religion and for this capability he is dominating the nature, evolution was for the development of ego and this ego has blessed him with the power to obey or disobey nature and God, animals are submissive before the nature, therefore,they can never change their history, history of jungle is same, but man is capable to sacrifice his life, his existence for his self, for his ideals because he is more powerful than nature..
1] We don't know if this is true or not
2] We don't know if this is true or not
3] Several animal species clearly have this as well, as do females of the human species. And ultimately nature is more powerful than man--as we will eventually discover I suspect.
Let's not forget the moons of Jupiter and Saturn right here in our own solar system.
So you think this God made this universe for us and put us on the outer arm of one of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and planets. And, you think we are in control of nature?
Would you like to see a list of human parasites? Did your God create those as well?
What incredible arrogance!!!
As with nearly everything you post, this is crammed full of both falsehoods and opinions stated as fact.
1] Life conditions are NOT found only in one planet. As we cannot possibly know what life conditions are (only what works for carbon and DNA based life found on earth) we cannot make that statement.
2] You cannot know what other life considers as food, so cannot make this claim either. Neither can you claim that both water and oxygen are requirements for evolution of life. In addition, other planets are known to contain both - Mars has both as does Venus and some planets around other stars.
3] The claim that only man, even on earth, has both knowledge and a concept of justice is a complete fabrication. Learn to speak dolphin, whale, chimpanzee or a dozen other animal languages and I might believe you. Until then you cannot know that to be true for earth based life; to know about life on other planets you will have to check every planet in the universe to know for sure.
Evolution is not for the ego; evolution is to maintain the species or, if that cannot be done, to change the species into something different that can survive. Nothing to do with ego. Nor has man ever disobeyed nature in the slightest - 100% of what man has ever done is in line with what nature allows. Similarly, man is not, or ever will be, stronger than nature. Man can only do what the laws of nature permit; nothing more. If you believe otherwise, please provide examples where man has violated the natural laws of the universe.
Knowledge and power for the most part are the very reasons man is not fully aware of man's true nature.
riddle666, I have not discovered your previous post , therefore, I will like to understand your ''great'' and ''logical'' definition of self . Have you discovered your self from your biological existence?
Definition means the description of the meaning of a word that the meaning is understood precisely and unambiguously, nothing to do with logic, don't you know that much?
You didn't find? Don't worry, do a simple google search or buy a dictionary, it seems you don't understand the meanings of most words you use.
You said that you could use logic too prove a creator. The only thing you've said is a giant, circular argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Your attempt fails.
Saying (repeatedly) "I don't know else existence could have happened, therefore god" is not logical, nor is it proof. Please try again.
riddle666, I want your definition , you know your self or your biological being ?
What do [i]you[/] mean by self or biological being?
A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.
Oneself, in particular.
(of a trimming or cover) Of the same material and color as the rest of the item: "a dress with self belt".
wilderness, your reply to the post of life conditions is contrary to facts and is ridicule .i] Air, water and food are not life conditions ?2] you may mention one planet where these three conditions collectively available ?3] you may mention only one planet where you have discovered man like creation ?4] Every knowledge is subject to time,the laws of science are also changing,therefore, our knowledge is for the time being.5] history of jungle is same why? because animals have not the self conscious or ego ,therefore, they have no power of knowledge nor power of justice,therefore,they have no creativity nor they are more powerful than nature, they are submissive before nature, consequently, they can never sacrifice their life for their ideas or ego, they only do struggle for existence according to nature , therefore, their history is same,jungles are not socially changed,but man having ego changes its history and has a power of movement ,difference is so clear that an ignorant man may understand but you are not .
wilderness, If evolution is only for change of species, then how man has evolved ?, the man was to be only different species like other animals having no ego and living in a jungle? it was the evolution of ego that created a creation having power to pray God or rejecting him by arguments as you are doing,I have never seen any animal praying from God or rejecting Him like you ,what is this?, this is ego, I have never seen any animal sacrificing his life for his ideas ?, you have seen ?, what is this, this is ego that powered man to do against struggle for existence, and started a new struggle, a struggle for self which made man creator and he changed history .
Every animal is like no other and humans are not the only disobedient animal. My dog sometimes jumps up on the sofa when he thinks no one is looking. Humans are also not the only self aware animals. Perhaps it's not our intelligence that makes us like we are, but our ability to use tools and humans are not the only tool using animal.
*sigh* Evolution is not "for" anything. Evolution is the result of several factors operating on biological entities. Why this continual insistence that everything has some kind of supernatural "purpose"? Evolution is certainly not for the purpose of producing new species. It is the result of random mutation and change in environment; sometimes there is a result, sometimes there is not.
Ego: Have you ever watched a male lion attempting to enter an existing pride? Or male walruses during mating season? Or any of the fights in the wild that are not for an immediate food supply? It's called "ego" when one animal (including homo sapiens) tries to dominate another.
You have never seen an animal praying to it's god? Have you searched, making sure that you understand what is going on in that animals mind at every moment of it's life? Have you ever watched a cat whimpering at an invisible "something" in the corner? Is it praying? Does your dog worship its god (you)? By barking and wagging its tail when you show up? How do you know (and if your claim is that dogs cannot think or pray, be prepared to prove your claim!)?
wilderness, it is interesting method that when you have no reply, you use plea of knowledge as defense ? Perhaps, you have seen any animal like dog or cat going to place of worship and also making arguments against existence of God, therefore, you are making such kind of statement,The creation of man is itself the great evidence that evolution is for the development of ego but perhaps, you suppose the man as others animals living in jungle barking upon each other and not building the great empires of democracies where, the ''right is might governs '' . Further ego is power of independence before God and nature , it is not action under the natural struggle for existence as you mentioned,you are unaware of ego and are making ''nonsense '' like me .
wilderness, you stated about fight between animals, animals have not developed independent personality like man ,this is ego for your learning,animals never fight for the establishment of their govt. over others, they fight for avoidance of danger to life as struggle for existence, the kingdom of unicellular organisms was living over the struggle for life,kingdom of animals developed the self to the extent of struggle for existence along with struggle for life and the man developed ego, an independent personality before nature and God, therefore, he developed religion,art,science,democracy as these all are symbols of creativity and independence of man, this development is under evolution and was not possible without evolution,therefore,God evolved ego through this great process and by his guidelines, if you want to disprove this,you must establish that man is like other animals and not more than them,but who will believe you?
"animals have not developed independent personality like man" Proof, please, beyond the statement? You may leave out insects in your proof, and single celled organisms, but I do expect exhaustive proof that the statement is true for all other organisms.
"animals never fight for the establishment of their govt. over others" A very obvious falsehood as anyone observing a lesser animal challenge an alpha male for supremacy will attest to. Or a group of chimps attacking another group for territorial rights. Any animal that lives in groups (including man) has a government, and a government that will fight to maintain itself.
Once more a statement that "godunnit" with the claim that it has to be true unless I prove otherwise. I weary of that foolish statement and do not choose to name it the lie it is again. Repeat it to your heart's content if it pleases you to do so - I shall not respond to it.
Rad Man , Man is the animal that has developed the independent personality, ego, before nature and God through the conscious of knowledge and justice,therefore, he has build up religions,democracies,art., and science but your dog has failed to do it.This is the difference between you and your dog , Your dog can never do against nature,he can never sacrifice his life for great ideas, he can never amuse you by his poetry, he can never argue you for denial of God, he can never pray from God along with you, he can never discuss you the problem of democracy and rights of humans and dogs,this is because he is submissive before nature and has not developed ego through evolution,he is at the learning stage of evolution and therefore, he goes to pic the ball you have teached him , he tries to copy you by sitting on your sofa like you,as he has self and he is struggling for existence but he has not developed ego like man at this stage of evolution.We must wait when he will do this all with you .
Mark, who is fool?, the believer of the self existing magical universe or the believer of the logical universe of an ''Absolute reason''?
I know you think anyone who doesn't believe your irrational claims is a fool. I would have more respect for that if you actually responded to anything anyone has said instead of repeating your silly claims. Logical? Oh - you mean an invisible, self creating god that goes not appear to exist?
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
Mark,you also believe invisible self creating universe,we have not seen self creating universe,it means you are testifying your foolishness yourself.
Seriously - please stop repeating yourself. I know you think anyone who does not accept your illogical claims is a fool. There is no need to repeat it.
Sure we have... you're in it. What we have not seen is the God that you think created it.
pennyofheaven, I am saying that it is impossible to confine creator within our time and space and creations,therefore.the laws of our space and time can never be applicable to Him.
riddle666,''Do you see god to experience anything'',this is not the problem of you only this is the problem of the atheism,why do you presuppose before beginning the discussion over logic that only things being observed are facts ? an unproven premises you believe like a religion and then close your eyes from all evidences.
Without observing you experienced? Such an experiences are called hallucinations which require professional help.
And if you had cared to read and understand what I wrote you could have understood by now that god doesn't exist not because we cannot "observe" but creator is an illogical and irrational (self-contradictory) explanation.
wilderness, animals have not developed independent personality before the nature and God ,the proof is the observation of the life cycle and the evolution level of the animals, they show never the behavior of interdependent ego, perhaps, you have different types of animals showing creativity,knowledge, logical discussion of dis proving God or praying with you before God,or making poetry with you or sacrificing for animal rights ,therefore, upon the basis of your'' personal'' observations you are making this nonsense without any logic .
The tooth fairy can be proven! The tooth fairy looks like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
No. I know what you're talking about but I've never watched the movie. Was it any good?
I have to agree with Mark, to an extent. God is not the only logical conclusion. My understanding of the current model of the universe is that we only have it because the team working out the mathematics only came up with it because the lead scientist had them continue on and come up with high improbabilities, along with all other calculations. So, we are working with what was a high improbability model. Which means the argument that God is highly improbable does not make it impossible.
Although, I will add I see no logic in the argument for Allah, God as argued by Christianity and a lot of other ideas on the existence of a God.
Mark Knowles, I am repeating my argument because I am not finding its logical reply from any one , my question is very simple and clear ''Have you any logical and scientific evidence that universe is self existing or exists by self '?' If answer is ''no'' ,''Then what is the logical conclusion of the same''? answer is '' Universe not proven to be self existing is existing by creator'' ,Any one can reply it ?
Ah - I think you are getting confused. I made a logical argument and you chose to ignore it instead of addressing it. Why not try addressing it instead of repeating your illogical claim?
The answer to your question is "yes." I even suggested some learning for you to do on one of your other threads. Why have you not done so?
Looking at your op,it appears that you are saying that since there is no logical evidence to support a self existing universe the only logical conclusion is there is a creator. I really hope you have the logical evidence that you are asking atheists for to support your logical conclusion, otherwise you will be viewed as being as dishonet as you apparently accusing Mark of doing. I do not agree with Mark on a lot, but in this case, since you are refuting logical evidence then throaing a logical conclusion of your own, you must be ready to supply the same evidence to support your stance that you are asking others to supply to support theirs.
(Yes, Mark, I know this would apply to me as well. Luckily for me, I keep my belief as simply a belief and know I do not have sufficient evidence that would convert that belief into absolute knowledge. No evidence is needed for a belief right? )
Deepes Mind, you have not completely understood my argument , the logical conclusion of universe not proving its self existence is that universe is existing by creator , non self existence of universe, as we are observing the same, is the ample proof of creator , we are observing existence of universe , now if it will prove its self existence ,this will reject the logical conclusion of a creator and we will have to prove separately the existence of a creator but in the presence of universe not proving self existence ,the existence of a creator is established under logic as we have no other logical conclusion of the existing universe.
Untrue. Everyone is completely understanding your argument, including Deepes Mind. They are simply pointing out that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premiss. That a failure to prove something is not the same thing as proving it false.
Everyone that has replied to your posts on this matter have said the same thing; your logic is flawed. Isn't it about time that you accepted that?
It appears that he may be thinking that we are totally refuting his claim as false rather than pointing out the flaw in his logic. Flawed logic is not always false logic
Perhaps, although I have repeatedly said (different thread) that there is no proof either way, that such "logic" neither proves NOR disproves anything.
I understood your argument. At the same time, The lack of evedince does not mean evidence of lack. Even if there is no evidence to prove that the universe is self fulfilling this doesn't mean that the only logical conclusion is that there is a creator. Toy must be able to have that proof in order to jump to that conclusion. As it stands, there is no evidence available for a creator as well, but as i stated earlier, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since you are pointing to the lack of evidence for self existence and jumping to the logical conclusion, then you must have evidence of a creator (and no, "creation" itself is not evidence.
Everything we know or ever will know remains within a system we call the universe. We may attempt to “Think outside of the box” but any conclusions we make about those things can not be proven with proofs from within the box (universe).
We are taught that within this system, matter can not be destroyed, it only changes form. Do we actually know that this is an absolute? I have read articles concerning quantum physics experiments stating matter suddenly appeared and then mysteriously disappeared.
I don’t think we live in a closed system. I think the Black Hole at the center of our own galaxy is proof of this. This black hole swallows up vast amounts of matter and energy. We can not imagine how much energy this hole has consumed during the time of its existence.
We don’t know where it went. We can only imagine.
The point of this post is … Until we can think and understand things outside of this little box which we live, how can we presume to know who and what we are when we do not know how our little box affects and is affected by all them other little boxes which we are unaware of?
There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe. Sorry. Other than what you imagine to be there of course.
Awesome that you think the Universe is a "little box," because I can barely grasp it's immensity. What was your point again?
Off topic, but I did see a while back that someone had detected an unusual "clumping" of galaxies at one side of the universe (although I'm not sure about there even being a "side"). Speculation was that there was another universe "rubbing" up to ours, and that gravity was drawing our galaxies towards theirs.
One day perhaps we'll know. Or at least our descendents; for sure neither you nor I will be around then!
The problem isn't with anyone not thinking "outside the box". The problem is the thinking that goes on "inside the box". It is not necessary to think outside of any boxes, only to change the thinking that goes on inside.
I agree our bigest and foremost problem is how we are thinking inside the box. But I would think our ultimate goal should be to think out side the box we find ourselves, and "IF" that could be acheived, looking back inside the box from which we have excaped, we would see everything diffrently than they now apear.
I don't like the box. Why do we insist on climbing into it in the first place. The problem isn't even about changing our thinking, in my opinion, but about learning to DO it.
When you allow yourself freedom of thought, you realize that the universe isn't as neatly "boxed" as some would have us believe.
Mo ..You are right. Does the box really exist or is it something we blame for our small thinking. Im not talking about any individual thinking small but our species as a whole.
Jerami, it's like the dot inside the circle on a sheet of paper. The dot is what we know. The circle around the dot is what we don't know. The rest is what we don't KNOW we don't know.
All a matter of perspective about our place in the universe and how we think and act in relation to it.
This is not about the little Universe. It is about the majikal stuff outside the little box that is our Universe. We cannot detect anything outside it, therefore there is something outside it. lol
Why is it that you put the "Majik" lable on everything you do not understand?
I didn't mention anything about religion or "God". or "Majik"
You put this belief in Majik lable on me and everything I post. Why is that?
Is it because you know that I believe in a few things that you don't? Therefore "everything" I believe is bogus?
You believe in things that don't make sense. Is it not Majick to believe in things that exist outside of reality?
Tell me where this thing you call reality is that I might see it as YOU do. Is YOUR reality the only one?
Can you see touch smell or hear reality? How big is it? Does it fit in your pocket? Do you have any pictures of reality? When following scientific methods can you prove reality exists? Or is reality majical that some see it while others can't?
The whole point of reality is that a random group of biologically normative people can all see it and agree it is there.
No - I think we can both agree on the reality we experience. Reality is reality. (Except when you are spouting word salad to defend your irrational beliefs ). We may perceive it slightly differently, but - are you claiming there is more to it that you can experience and I cannot?
You are the one making claims about the Universe being "little," and there existing things "outside," it. That is Majick! as far as I am concerned.
I agree with this statement. The events that occur is reality. Whatever happens simply happens. That reality is shaped by the perception of the individual experiencing it as well as their feelings on the event and their beliefs on the reason for the event.
That's the point I was making!
Jerami, you have tried your best to observe the reality from out side of box but it is very difficult or almost impossible for the people living and confined inside the box.Perhaps, their, reason, can never work so extensively.
Mark said, ... There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe.
ME ... That is what I said, we can't see outside the box. Therefore according to some people, nothing outside the box exist cause, we can't touch it.
Mark said, ... There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe.
ME ... That is what I said, we can't see outside the box. Therefore according to some people, nothing outside the box exist cause, we can't touch it.
Mark said, ..
Awesome that you think the Universe is a "little box," because I can barely grasp it's immensity. What was your point again?
ME ... Because we are so small ... everything larger than us appears SOoooo BIG. But, look on the bright side, from the prospective of everything smaller than us, we may appear to be as enormous as you think our universe is.
Oh - it is not me that thinks it is enormous. It is enormous. Only people such as yourselves with such vast intellects consider it small and know better than all the physics we understand.
You need for there to be something outside existence, therefore there is and anyone who doesn't agree is thinking small. There is no box. You have made that up to defend your irrational beliefs.
This is why your religion cause so many conflicts,.
wilder, mark, deepes Mind , you all have only one problem, that is the strong belief over the self existence of universe, therefore, my argument is not acceptable for you ''intelligent'' and ''honest'' people , more interesting is that you blame me for believing irrational and unscientific things but you all are having blind faith over the self existence of universe without tangible scientific evidence to the effect of same,perhaps, it is necessary to have such belief to avoid existence of creator, I am not making any claim, I am just offering you that this your claim of self existing universe is required to be proved scientifically, otherwise, your views of absence of creator are nothing but ridicule. .
And yet...none of us has presented any claim about the universe being self created. None of us has shared their belief of that. The only claim has been that an unproven premiss cannot result in knowledge, and that your claim that lack of proof of self existence is somehow proof of a creator is faulty logic.
Go back to your premiss and either prove it to be true (you're going to have a really hard time proving that ignorance results in knowledge) or find a different premiss to start your proof of a creator with.
Because from the very start you have tried to use lack of proof as proof of the opposite. It isn't, no matter how hard you try or how many times you complain about a belief in others that isn't there. If necessary, start with your statement that "if proof of the universe's self creation is unavailable then we know it was created by a god", and show it to be a logical necessity, because no one else agrees that it is.
wilderness, you have not understood my argument, you have made two points, my premises is unproven and I am trying to present lack of proof as the proof of opposite, I have explained my point of view many times ,and it is clear that thee two objections never apply to my proposition, universe has only two options in respect of its explanation, first that universe is self existing, therefore, no creator, secondly, universe is not self existing, therefore, it requires creator for its existence, it means if we fail to prove the self existence of universe, it will logically and necessarily conclude the requirement of creator for its existence as it can never self exist,therefore,it is logical necessity and not the application of disproof to proof, moreover, it is fact that we have no evidence of self existence of universe , therefore,how it is false anf unproven premises?
But lack of proof is not proof of the opposite.
Or as the classic saying goes: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
1) There is in fact evidence the universe arose spontaneously, and
2) Even if there was not, this does not make any of the alternative theories any more or less likely -- including by not limited to the universe being made by any particular god, aliens from another dimension, or indeed the spontaneous self-creation of a God in belief systems where God is not seen as eternal e.g. Aztec Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl
Psycheskinner said it:
"But lack of proof is not proof of the opposite"
Specifically, lack of evidence that the universe is self created is NOT proof (or even evidence) that it is not.
Now if you could prove somehow that the universe did not create itself then I would agree that a god did it (at least I would if you will agree that anything that could create the universe is a god). But you don't do that; you just say that because self creation is unproven that god IS. Still doesn't work.
Wilderness,Why I will be required to prove that universe is not self existed ? We are observing an existence of universe requiring a creator,now you will be required to prove self existence for proving that it has been existed by self and if you fail to do the same,then, universe is existing not self existing requiring creator .
No one is required to prove anything. But lack of proof for one thing is not evidence for another.
And before saying their is no evidence for spontaneous creation (big bang) maybe you should google it and look at the evidence there is.
Or response to the one example I briefly mentioned (expansion).
(Or you could write some hubs about it which is the primary purpose of this site. But if you do I suggest you use words everyone knows the meaning of. "Self existence" is not as self-explanatory as you seem to think?)
If you can prove that a god created the universe, that will automatically prove that the universe did not self create - you indicate this yourself as being true. So yes, in a way you must prove that it did not self create.
Similarly, if I could prove that the universe DID self create it will automatically prove that a god did NOT create the universe. Same reasoning, in reverse.
Now. Is it reasonable to declare that if you cannot prove that the universe did not self create, then the only possible conclusion is that god did not do it? Again, this is the same reasoning you are attempting to use, except in reverse. Do you accept the statement as true?
Obviously you will not accept the statement, and for good reason. That you cannot prove there was no self creation does not mean that there WAS self creation - it means only that you cannot prove there was not.
Similarly, that I cannot prove self creation does not mean there was not; it means only that I cannot prove there was.
Wilderness,riddle666,Mark,Deepes,Psycheskinner ,More simplified and logical form of my argument;'Every'existence requires its creator for its being'' ''Universe is a being''''Therefore,universe requires its creator for its being'' ' [Existence of universe is evidence of creator and it will work if you will not prove self existence of universe,therefore,absence of evidence is not my evidence ,existence of universe is my evidence and it will continue until you prove self existence] [further,existence means,being not eternal or forever being as you presuppose under the definition of existence]
Please prove your statement that "Every existence requires its creator for its being". In the world of quantum mechanics this is well known to be a false statement, and the top physicists of the modern world tell us it is not true for a singularity about to produce a universe, either.
I accept the next statement, "Universe is a being" as true whether "being" is being used as a verb or noun.
The conclusion is logically correct as well.
Unfortunately, the premiss is badly flawed and results in a conclusion that is not show to be true even though logically correct. Without a premiss known to be true, any conclusion cannot be known to be true, either.
Wilderness,existence,if not defined as self existence or eternal existence,as atheists presuppose illogically, is impossible to exist by self and will require creator for its being.therefore, it logically requires creator.Existence is ample proof of creator for time being but if you prove the existence of universe is self existence, you may prove false my argument,but you can never do it ,therefore, you make illogical statements.I am not only making argument but also telling you the only logical way to disprove the same, try it gain if you can do .
If it's your assertion that everything needs a creator then that must include a creator. The creator must have been created, which raises the question, who created the creator of the creator? Then who created the creator of the creator of the creator?
If it's your assertion that the creator doesn't need a creator then we assume that if only one thing needs not creator than many things may not need a creator and the universe may be one of those things that don't need a creator.
Start by proving a creator exists that needs no creator and your argument is lost that everything needs a creator.
Here we go again. I ask that you 'prove your statement that "Every existence requires its creator for its being" ' and your reply is "...is impossible to exist by self and will require creator for its being.therefore, it logically requires creator".
Me: Please prove: that existence requires a creator.
You: The proof is: that existence requires a creator.
Can you see a small problem with the logic inherent in the request/reply?
wilderness, you forgot ''Existence is impossible to exist by self '' D o you think it is possible ?
And yet you claim the creator exists by itself without creation?
I have no reason to think it is not possible, so yes it might be. No reason, that is, outside your claim that it is impossible, but as you refuse to support the claim with evidence I reject the statement.
As evidence I give you the keyboard I type on. I can find no creator (for the atoms in the keyboard, not for it's current physical shape), so deduce that it may be possible that there is none. You cannot find the creator either, giving slight support to the possibility that there is none.
You on the other hand, also find no creator but because I cannot prove that it doesn't exist conclude that it not only could exist but that it does exist even though you can't find it. Fallacy.
Rad Man,these are your arguments not mine, I am simply stating that existence not self existence nor eternal existence logically conclude creator for its being as existence is impossible to exist by self in our time and space,therefore, creator is out of our space and time ,therefore,laws of our space and time will not apply to Him.He can never be confined by the application of our laws ,self existence is possible for creator out of our space and time .
I give up. The errors in that thought process have been pointed out multiple times, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that.
You have not even tried to engage with the points
1) There is proof for the big bang
2) There is not proof for the creator, ergo by your logic the big bang is true
Please explain to me why anything outside our space time needs no creator? In other words what do you know about anything outside our space time?
Rad Man, self existence is not possible in our time and space but we can never apply this impossibility of self existence over the space and time of creator.Therefore, possible logical conclusion from the existence of universe is the creator self existing .
Fascinating, you start with the assumption that everything in the universe (universe(s) included) needs to be created and you assign a creator that needs no creation because you assume that he is outside our universe and you assume that the laws you gave to our universe doesn't apply outside our universe. This makes sense to you? That's a lot of assuming to keep you God illusion in tact.
psycheskinner,There are some developing theories of science like big bang theory but these are not scientifically established laws of science ,they provide just some possible ideas in this respect ,therefore, these theories can never be regarded as the conclusive evidence for existence and creation of universe .
These are decades old theories and I already gave one one kind of proof, the expanding universe.
You just ignored that. You are clearly rejecting theories you know nothing about.
a.k.a. you believe in God and creationism based on faith and any pretense of an evidence-based approach is disingenuous.
Rad Man, it is very simple, our laws are only applicable in our time and space but can never apply out of our space and time,there may be different laws which we never understand for out of our space and time,therefore, it is our observation that we have existence of universe before us which can never exist by self ,therefore a creator is required out of our space and time for existence of universe, He can never be within our space and time otherwise he will be subjected to laws of our space and time and he will be no more than creation but being out of our space and time he can never be subjected our laws and consequently, may have self existence which is impossible in our space and time .
You know nothing about anything outside our space and time therefore everything you say is an assumption.
You assume our universe needs a creator.
You assume that the creator of the universe doesn't need a creator.
You assume the laws outside our universe would allow for a creator to have never been created.
All this to hold onto your God illusion.
Where is your evidence that the universe needs a creator?
Where is your evidence that he needs no creation?
Where is your evidence that he exists?
Where is your evidence that anything can exist out side space-time?
Does wind need a creator or does it just happen for understood reasons?
Do raindrops causing ripples in water need a creation or does it just happen for understood reasons?
Can a tree grow from a seed or does it need someone to create and plant the seed?
Do the Sun and planets need a creator or did they appear for known reasons? Both science and math explains our solar system (no God required).
Can science explain the origin of the universe without a Creator? Yes, no God or creator required.
Open a book.
Wilderness,interesting, you are demanding the evidence more than bigger the existence of universe ?and for what you are giving a very doubtful statement that there is no reason to think it is not possible or it is possible to exist by self as reason can never think it impossible ,further your statement is that you can never see or find the the creator of atoms of key board, therefore possibility of none, you further stated that I am negatively arguing but it is clear that this time I am completely giving positive argument in the shape of existence of universe .It is clear that existence by self is not possible under our observation, scientific evidence, logic therefore, the existence will require logically creator, My argument and evidence is not absence of evidence , my evidence is existence of universe,if you want to prove my evidence [existence of universe] false,pl. prove existence of universe is false and it is existence by self .
You are the one making the positive statement that the universe has a creator therefore it's you job to prove your point. The science, logic and math states otherwise.
If that post were translated to another language, it might sound absolutely lovely, but it would still make no sense whatsoever.
That post was brought to you by years of heavy indoctrination and isolation.
It wouldn't even sound pretty in another language.. Nonsense in any language is nonsense.
"It is clear that existence by self is not possible under our observation, scientific evidence, logic..."
My experience is that when someone says "It is clear that..." what is actually clear is that they are about to present opinion with nothing to back it. Common sense tells me that if they had evidence they would present it, not just say that it is clear.
And I'm right, too - your logic is false to fact, your observation is missing entirely and your scientific evidence is nearly as outdated as flat earth. All that is left is to declare that "It is clear that..." in lieu of providing anything of real value, which is what you now do.
As you've failed miserably to produce anything at all, you're now back to the first statement you made; If I can't prove otherwise then that inability is proof of god.
Didn't work then, doesn't work now and won't work in the future. The ONLY person you will convince with that reasoning is yourself, and you don't need convincing of the myth you've chosen to believe. You already believe it.
So I give up. A dozen people have tried to help you understand how logic works and what might be considered evidence. You persist in mouthing nonsense, insisting that everyone should take your unsupported word as truth even in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. There is nothing more I can do to help you - may you be happy with your chosen beliefs and reasoning processes.
You're using the Kalam cosmological argument - and it fails. Horribly.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The distinction between this and the traditional cosmological argument is that it distinguishes effects in general from those that have a beginning. This qualification leaves open an interesting possibility that some things in the universe might exist that never began to exist. But Craig is not that sloppy, so before we jump on this observation, we need to address the kalam argument's second premise and its support.
The kalam argument's second premise—"The universe began to exist"—is a claim that seems more of a presupposition than a fact, but watch how it is supported:
An actual infinite cannot exist.
A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
The important term here is, of course, "actual infinite." Wikipedia has the following to say about actual infinities:
"Actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in any sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set together. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity is the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an arbitrary sequence of rational numbers, as given objects."
"The mathematical meaning of the term actual in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, completed, extended or existential, but not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature."
Overall, this argument is an example of a proof by logic, where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" god with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence. Even if the premises were proven true (which has not been done), there would still be the following problems:-
Any pre-existing entity/entities that caused the universe do not have to be personal with a mind and will.
Any cause of the universe does not have to be the god of the Bible. No reason is given why biblical mythology should be taken more seriously than other bronze age mythology.
Let S1 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist, and S2 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did exist.
The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe. In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2. In order to do that, they must show that S1 and S2 are distinct. The possibilities are:
The Universe never began to exist
The Universe never existed
S1 and S2 follow each other in time
Some agent in S1 is the atemporal cause of S2
If we can eliminate all four examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. If that is the case, then there is no "beginning" - no state at which the Universe began to exist, thus undermining the conclusion.
If we try to prove by contradiction that the Universe never began to exist, the contradiction becomes evident. By assuming the Universe began to exist, it rules out (1). The Universe exists, so that rules out (2). (3) is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. (4) can't be true because Craig defines "atemporal causation" as follows:
To borrow an illustration from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion is the cause of a depression in the cushion, even if the ball has been resting on the cushion from eternity past.
However, this cannot be used to distinguish between S1 and S2 because it requires cause and effect to be simultaneous. S1 and S2 cannot be simultaneous, as the Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction. By assuming that the Universe began to exist, we have ruled out all explanations for how it could have begun to exist. Thus, we cannot distinguish at the moment between S1 and S2 - undermining their conclusion.
There's nothing in the laws of physics which demands that the law of cause and effect be more than generalizations for interacting with the world above the quantum level.
Within quantum mechanics there seems to be real counter examples to the first premise of the argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." For example, when Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12 the radioactive decay is a perfectly random causeless event and thus though the Carbon-12 began to exist it wasn't caused to exist. Likewise, when matter and antimatter (particle-antiparticle formations) such as electron-positron creation, they can be said to have started to exist but not to have been caused to exist. While radioactive decay of particle-antiparticle formation can be predicted and serves a function, such as stabilizing the atom and equaling out the energies from two-photon interactions, there is no reason why such a thing should happen at those specific space and time coordinates. The underlying probabilities can be calculated and are extremely accurate, but alien from the classical sense of cause and effect.
Further, similar quantum considerations could have direct analogies to the Big Bang which might be causeless as well. Resolving other issues like the atemporal causality seen above as quantum phenomenon does force us to consider simultaneous instances of X and ~X, for example where X is "Schrodinger's cat is dead". Ignoring this speculative cosmology, the counter example suffices to disprove the premise (things can begin to exist without being caused) and thus demonstrate that the argument is unsound.
In Dan Barker's article Cosmological Kalamity, he writes
The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.
In other words, the set of items that do not begin to exist must be pluralized - otherwise it is just another word for God.
Kalam also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that comprise people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed in some form, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game and the fallacy of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist" to try and draw a parallel between wildly different things.
In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".
Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:
1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.
Additionally, while the term "universe" is commonly understood to mean "the sum of everything that exists," Kalam represents an attempt to establish the existence of something outside the universe. This is conceivable only in the case of a non-standard definition (which presumably involves some kind of distinction between a physical universe and some other realm external to it). In this case, the first premise becomes even more tenuous; how can one assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause when one believes in the existence of a realm outside of our universe with properties unlike anything we can discover through mere observation? A commonsense version of causality is not applicable here...meaning we now have a problem defining "cause" in this context!
There is a further type of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist". Premise 1 refers to things that begin to exist within time. In other words, there was a time when a thing did not exist, followed by a time when it existed. This is not the case with the universe, since time is part of the universe. The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. It has existed at every point in time. Rephrasing the argument to accurately include this information, we get something like this:
Let X = "a thing which began to exist a finite time ago after a point when it did not exist"
Let Y = "a thing which has existed for a finite time, but which exists at every point in time"
1. Everything that is X has a cause for it's existence.
2. The Universe is Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Once again, equivocation is at play. Premise 1 and 2 are comparing apples and oranges. The universe has existed at every moment in time and did not begin to exist in the same way that every object in P1 began to exist, so the argument is invalid.
The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes. The kalam arguer will simply state that God didn't begin, and so no regress occurs and no Creator of God is necessary.
However, this is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice.
If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe? To answer this, we must look at a further problem. This problem concerns the definition of god used in both arguments. A theologian might reply this counter argument and insist that the decision is not arbitrary, and that god must be allowed to have these attributes that the kalam argument seems to imply. He may say that the argument is an attempt to show the need for there to be a God that has the attributes that we cannot find in the universe. He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is nonsense, there must be this being with these unique attributes. That is, there must be this being that does not begin, has no creator, and is thus able to create the universe. But this is just a bald assertion. The lack of human imagination when it comes to solving mysteries at the boundaries of current knowledge is not a good reason to invoke a hypothetical entity with mysterious powers that enable it to be immune from paradoxes.
The God hypothesis is not only unnecessary, it is not parsimonious. In order to explain something apparently designed and which cannot create itself, a being is conjured into existence which would require even more unlikely explanation.
The kalam argument attempts to circumvent the problem of infinite regress but steps right into the problem of special pleading so is no better off.
Why only one cause?
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place. Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.
However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.
Fallacy of Composition
In the first premise, Craig declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.
In an article titled Cosmological Kalamity, Dan Barker writes:
The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.
See Russell's paradox for issues that arise from allowing a set to be a member of itself. Also see the Fallacy of composition for issues with properties of all of the parts being true for the whole. Describing the way physical objects within the universe behave relies on induction and physical laws, neither of which apply in the absence of a spacetime universe. Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to assert that the properties of things we are familiar with (objects within the set) are also properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Example: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately we are stuck inside the universe, so any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole.
The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, rather than a natural one. More nature (and natural processes) plausibly exist beyond our current ability to perceive.
See also: Which god?
Although some other variation of the Kalām argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalām argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.
Even if you accept Kalām, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe.
Now it is you that misunderstands me. Anything that I have told you has nothing to do with me arguing against your position. I am merely explaining to you that if you are going to claim a logical conclusion with knowledge you must be prepared to submit evidence to prove your knowledge. It appears that you are demanding evidence from Mark or others, but you are not willing to supply evidence of your own. I personally don't know and as such have no opinion one way or the other. I was actually offering you advice as to how to get along in the forums. I am not ridiculing anything of yours.
On another note, Any ridicule that may be here (which I don't really see any) is directed toward your beliefs, not you as a person. You have accused all of us of not understanding you. We all understand your position, it's just that those that have an opinion of your position (of which I am not one) simply disagree with your position. I neither agree or disagree with your position, but if you're going to claim absolute knowledge then like everyone else, I would like to see your evidence. I'm always looking for more information in an effort to increase my knowledge.. Now the question is.. Do you have evidence of a creator? If yes, then share it. If no, then admit that you don't and accept that your position is merely an opinion instead of a fact
Sibtain, your premise to conclude the existence of God because the alternative cannot be proven may not be wrong but it is weak. A unified and all-powerful God’s existence, in my opinion, is a powerful argument by reason and logic in itself and works better than seeking a lack of proof on the opposing thesis. Below are a few points to support this:
> In science there is something called the “fundamental constants of physics”. These are dead-set rules that have never been known to waiver. An example is that at 100 degrees Celsius liquid water will turn to steam, the strength of iron and when biological production commences, stays or decays. The rules apply across the spectrum of physical laws and attributes of matter. It is not logical that a tremendous variety of such rules many of which are able concert and construct with each other happened to land arbitrarily.
> Cosmological, geological and biological phenomenon are also pointing to a degree of concert that is so highly complex and tuned that again it is almost absurd to think that it is unguided or unregulated by a specific authority with such capabilities. Earth’s distance from the sun, the tilt in its axis, the trees recycling carbon-monoxide back into oxygen, calibration of atmospheric and blood-pressure, vegetation and fruits nutritious to our biological organisms. Scientists themselves have oft stated that the rules of the physical universe appear to be highly ‘rigged’ to generate life and cast its attributes.
> Intangibles and spiritual phenomenon in fact have no explanation in physical or scientific terms--things like love, hate, anger, evil, chastity, morality, forgiveness, inhibitions, and even speech and articulation. These can only be logically explained as imparted by a God or such authority.
amer786, thanks for supporting and increasing my knowledge,no doubt,a unified and powerful existence of God,is sufficient and logical argument but the same ,perhaps,can never be accepted, by a present logical mind requiring scientific evidence for existence of God,therefore,existence of universe requiring a creator for its being is the ample proof of the existence of God and in the absence of the evidence to the effect of the self existence of universe,the existence of universe will continue as evidence for creator,it is very difficult for an atheist to overview this type of argument but,perhaps, I am having problem in communicating the same.
There is a position that the proof for God does come through scientific knowledge and logic. This is established by the fact that many scientists are very religious and even become religious through their scientific knowledge, still some go the other way. Atheism is a dogma in itself and hardly rooted in scientific knowledge. Science does give the illusion that it is explaining phenomenon. It is really only explaining a set of discovered rules and processes behind the phenomenon but hardly addresses the fundamental questions.
Can anyone ever really explain how a series of nine spherical planets just happened to land impeccable orbits around a light giving and heat-emanating sun through a complex process of gravitational forces? Science can explain a lot about how it is working and theorize about how it possibly came to pass BUT GOODNESS, how in your right mind do you think it was driving itself? What does that even mean that it is self-driven? It is not even a logical statement, nor scientific. I don’t think scientific principle contemplates anything to be driving itself.
The Holy Quran says that in the Heavens and Earth and in our own selves are plenty of signs and evidences, for those who reflect with sincerity.
Who claimed atheism is rooted in scientific knowledge? It is rooted in lack of knowledge if anything.
And how is not believing something a "dogma"?
You sure you are not just here to cause conflict and hatred?
There are "Plenty of signs and evidences that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god."
As long as you already believe it.
Mark, my apologies if I even caused the inkling that I was causing conflict and hatred. Perhaps my tone was patronizing. If so, I am sorry for that. I was only saying that logic and rationality weigh on the existence of God, which is for the consideration of one asking the question, where as we are probably merely arguing.
As for atheism and scientific knowledge, certainly many atheists I have spoken to or heard do tend to point to scientific explanation as alternative validation to religion. You may not agree but I believe it is a theme with atheism.
Not believing something is not dogma. But believing or faith in something is. Theism and Atheism are both understood to be dogmas. Question is which one is the correct one.
No, there no signs and evidences on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Best to leave it as an unseen God, or one whose image we can perhaps only manifest per what we can see of His creation and know of the rules we have discovered of it. Ridicule often surfaces in the absence of substance, rationality and logic—as I believe it has here.
Of course. This would be why your religion causes so much ill will.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.
Mark, I did not adopt ridicule, you did. And now by attacking my religion you appear to be withdrawing rahter than offering any substance or valid tenets to the argument, which is fine I suppose.
Your choice of the word 'lack' is interesting. 'Lack' denotes a deficiency. But perhaps that is not what you meant.
Yes. I lack irrational, illogical belief in a god.
If you propose illogical nonsense as fact you are likely to be ridiculed. The solution to this is to keep such illogical nonsense to yourself. As you have offered no "valid tenets" it is reasonable to point that out.
You did indeed ridicule me for not believing garbage. Please stop lying at me. I know that is a "valid," approach according to your beliefs, but my moral stance is that I do not value liars.
No Mark, if I propose something 'illiogical' and 'nonsense' then you expose it by the merits of your tenets, not by ridicule. If you are confident you should be composed. Ridicule and reacting with subjective innuendo and by attacking religion and calling names like 'liar' represents that you are in a state of loss.
Sorry - I have already done that, now you insist on repeating it, so I must resort to ridicule. As it is clearly a waste of time offering reason and logic. If you propose ridiculous (and unprovable) somethings, you will be ridiculed. I only call people "liar," if I believe they are telling lies. This is stating facts as I see them, not being at a state of loss. You ridiculed me for not believing garbage. Please stop lying at me. Thanks. I don't like to be lied at.
Believing in a god is irrational and illogical. If it was logical and rational, it would be called "knowledge," instead of "faith."
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
I thought this was a debate and argument. I did not expect to be accused as a liar because I am presenting an argument. Nevertheless, if my argument is offensive and disturbing to you and you prefer that I would cease, then I shall honor thy wish. Peace be unto you.
No - you are lying that you did not ridicule me for not believing. Nothing to do with you repeating the same irrational nonsense over and over and over, ignoring everything said to you and calling that "presenting an argument." Sorry. . I do find your willful ignorance, self righteousness and lack of tolerance offensive though. I also find the tenets of your religion offensive, but - I don't care if that is offensive or disturbing to you. Yes - please do keep your irrational beliefs to yourself in future. The world would be a far better place if more religionists did that. Thank you very much for your consideration.
No need to hold everything in like that Mark. Just let it out and tell amber what you really think. All that beating around the bush is not good for your health.
I can honor your request not to speak to you, but certainly not to others if they wish to speak with me. Let others decide for themselves.
amer786,I appreciate your arguments and indeed,there are great meanings in the verses you quoted, it is also clear that atheism is also like a belief but I am interested in the logical scheme of creator and perhaps, it is the time to discover the same to some extent so that the confusion may be clarified.
Sibtain, there is a sound logical and rational argument for God. I would urge you deeply undertake a study of The Holy Quran. The Quran also offers a great logical argument for the unity and undivided power and authority of God. It says that if there were more than one God, we would see much commotion and disturbance in observable universe and here on earth. The constant, consistent, and unwavering concert of physical laws logically points to one unified authority behind them. Dr. Abdus Salaam, the Nobel laureate scientist whose work on electroweak forces lead to the discovery of Higgs-Boson of ‘God’ particle said that he followed this guidance of The Quran in his scientific discovery. Freeman Dyson the famous Quantum Mechanics scientist once said, “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming”.
The stage that we find ourselves upon is one that is clearly crafted, and sustained. To suggest that it is random, mindless or bizarrely self-drive, I am very sorry to say so, is just utter nonsense.
Would it be nonsense to say random waves and tides brought a shipwrecked person to an island or do we assume the waves and tides purposely guided the person to the island and also purposely guided another person to perish?
The Holy Quran states that the Earth is egg shaped and sperm in generated from somewhere behind a mans ribs. That is not how a logical argument starts.
I say in both cases it is guided, or ordained, or willed or any other notion that implies that logically nothing would escape the will and knowledge of an Almighty creator who has the means and capabilities to create the Heavens, Earth, biological organism and intelligent sentient beings like us.
Seeking shelter with events (shipwrecks) that occur and yet seemingly defy logic or purpose is well and dandy, but why are you shifting ground? Are you conceding that at the cosmic level you are not able to defend the notion of randomness somehow stumbling onto a breathtakingly cohesive concert?
If you are suggesting that The Quran has fundamental inaccuracies in statements, that’s not quite the realm of logic. But nevertheless, please post the verses in question. I would like to cross-examine.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to logically imply that nothing would escape the will of a creator. One can imply it easily enough - you did so - but not logically.
My good man, the logic is based on the premise that this creator owns the power to create the all that we know to exist. As such power exists because we can see it and know it, only then, by logic and reason, does it behoove to extend . . . that no event or matter would escape the authority (or will) of the creator.
You may not agree with premise or demand a certain kind of proof, but this pattern of thought is what is understood to be ‘logic’.
No, the "logic" is based on the premises that:
The creator exists
The creator has the power to create the universe
The creator did create the universe and everything in it
That nothing else can create
While it is true that logical conclusions can be drawn from either false OR unknown premises, such conclusions cannot be declared to be true. They may or may not have any connection to either truth or reality.
As your premises are all unproven, the conclusion cannot be declared to be true. It is unknown whether it is true or not.
You are right. Logic is based on premise and that is also how we develop theory. And depending on the strength or weakness of the premise or assumptions we get good and bad theory and the logic that follows.
In fact my logic is based on the premise:
- The creation exists, hence the creator must also
- The creator has to have the power to create the universe because we know the universe exists along with all its energies and materials, binding forces and physical laws
- Only the one who has the power could possibly create it. The unison of the rules and physical laws of the universe and their constructive and purposeful discourse points to a unified and all-powerful creator, therefore other objects or beings could not have done it.
The proof can be a matter of conviction based on the more convincing premise and integrity of logic.
May I ask, what is your position and how do you articulate the premise and logic-train for it?
Basically and simply your premise is that a god exists and created the universe. You mention logic but don't make use of it, depending on the acceptance of the premiss instead.
"The unison of the rules and physical laws of the universe and their constructive and purposeful discourse points to a unified and all-powerful creator" No, it does not point to a creator. Rather it points to this universe being the only possible result of natural laws and energy. That is not to mean the specific grain of sand on the beach or even the shape of your leg, but the overall characteristics and physics of the universe are inevitable. A direct result of the laws of the universe.
I would go on and say that were those laws to be different there would be different characteristics and theorize that any intelligence would marvel just as much at the "uniqueness" of their universe and how it manages to exactly fit what they need.
And that's a major problem. The assumption that the universe fits humanity. It's not that way; humanity fits the universe and will do so no matter what the laws are. You have cause and effect reversed; the universe was not designed to fit humanity - humanity was "designed" (by the natural laws, not an intelligence) to fit the universe.
My premise is not “God exists > and thus created the universe”. For us, the premise for logic would be “The universe exists, and thus would have to be created by God”. Your premise appears to be “Natural laws and energy existed > thus the universe came to be”. You should also clarify what you mean by ‘natural’. I believe this mean inane, random, unconscious, mindless etc.. So let each premise be judged on its merit by one who would judge it.
Ok, fair enough. If the laws of nature were different the universe and its inhabitants may have carried a different form and processes and we may have just as well marveled at the awesome concert of these laws and their highly rigged nature. Still, the logic would stand that such concert can only be put into motion by an all-powerful God capable of doing so. Let me elaborate . . .
Let’s say that some, as you put it, ‘natural’ law of the universe causes planets to form spherical shapes and make their way into impeccable orbits with a concert of centrifugal force and centripetal gravity that also happened to ‘naturally’ be there. The sun has its features and so does the earth and as you say this is what caused the life-generating environment, not vice versa as Freeman Dyson suggested. Now, whereas the set of laws here on earth have remarkably generated life and even sentient and highly intelligent beings why have not the laws and environments on other planets in the solar system done the same? By your definition, this ‘nature’ would still craft life but with an alternative shape and form. Even if you say that we have not explored all the universe yet, still this premise of yours should work on other planets in the solar system if it’s true. Also, if the earth is able to grow fruit that is tasteful to us and vegetables that are nourishing and grows trees that recycle the carbon dioxide out of our lungs back into oxygen, your premise is suggesting that these links and bonds among others that are even more complex and remarkable just came about as sheer coincidence and a random stumbling. That geological and biological evolutionary discourse just happened to land this amazing agreement.
Again, let each premise be judged by its merit.
Your premise has been judged. It has no merit. I can sum it up for you if you like:
"I can't believe things could come into existence without a majikal Super Being, therefore there is a majikal super being."
It is extremely likely that sentient life exists on other planets.
"Also, if the earth is able to grow fruit that is tasteful to us and vegetables that are nourishing and grows trees that recycle the carbon dioxide out of our lungs back into oxygen, your premise is suggesting that these links and bonds among others that are even more complex and remarkable just came about as sheer coincidence and a random stumbling."
You didn't read very closely. Plants and vegetables did not develop in such a way that they are tasty and nourishing to humanity. Humanity does not have the power to force that development and it was never needed anyway.
Instead, humankind developed in such a way that it could use the plants for nourishment. Simply put, humans are the way they are because a banana is the way it is. NOT the other way around. And because it is nourishing and eaten, a banana tastes good. Eat enough of nearly anything and you will learn to like the taste; again we see evolution in action as that is a survival trait.
It's how evolution works, and it doesn't need a god to work the system backwards. It works just fine the way it is.
Granted, the human evolutionary process is the one adopting itself to find bananas palatable. Would you please present us with some premise or support on how such a complex and productive process of evolution come about to be? How did the process compile and regulate itself?
Some insight would be helpful. Thanks.
That is how evolution works. Natural development and selection.
Hope that helps.
Open a book or click on the link.
It's doubtful that anything I could ever say will be helpful - I highly doubt that you are actually that ignorant of the concept of evolution. But I'll play the straight man anyway:
It is not particularly difficult to understand that those individuals most fit to survive in a particular situation will, on the average, be more likely to do so. Having survived, they will also be more likely to reproduce themselves. Having done that they will be more likely to pass along any genes that contributed to being more fit to survive. This is not a premiss, prelude to a logical conclusion, just an observation that anyone past the 6th grade should be able to understand.
There are several methods whereby genetic mutations can occur; radiation, errors during gene replication in forming gametes, chemicals, etc. Should you wish a long list, study biology for additional information. This, too, is merely a statement of fact, not a prelude to a logical conclusion.
While these two things are the root of evolution, neither is complex and neither needs to be "set in operation". Neither is similar to a computer program or other long series of instructions to be followed. Both began occurring with the first living organism to come along, and did so without any extra-universal intelligence pushing an invisible "start" button somewhere.
Does not help. Not asking how it works, but . . .
How was it set into motion?
How does it perform the selection?
How does it read other organisms and environment to respond to?
@Wilderness, There you have it! That was the answer I was looking for . . . . “It is not complex . . . does not have to be put into operation . . . some original organism came along and it took off . . . you are ignorant of evolution”
Our positions are defined and supporting arguments have been admitted. Now we wait.
On complex, operations, (and ignorance) . . .
As evolutionary process moves with genetic mutation, these mutations are in fact the result of genes that are either muted or potent when a genetic combination occurs as a result of male and female copulation. The potent ones are known as Alleles and correct me if I am wrong but it remains a scientific mystery why certain ones get muted and other do not but the course of evolutionary adaptation does occur. Also, during the process of biological production once the code is dispensed and the original cell that holds the new genetic combination has multiplied into several billions of cells by virtue of yet another remarkable process, all these cells hold the exact same code. Now, another almost unbelievable process is unleashed where ‘control-genes’ pass instructions to each cell as to which pieces of the DNA code to suppress and which ones to turn on. So, a hair cell become that. A heart cell becomes that. A toe-nail cell becomes that. An eye-retina cell becomes that. Then, certain strands of the DNA known as MRNAs dislodge and dock into a structure known as the Ribosome complex. As the MRNA strand moves through it, the DNA code is read and proteins are issued that will be used in the biological production and development of that cell, and in complete harmony and spectacular concert with billions of other cells.
Just presenting my case . . . now we wait
Wilderness,riddle666,Rad Man,Mark ,Psycheskinner,deepes Mind,amer786, thank you all for sharing the valuable discussion and providing important information,I respect your ideas and thinking but disagree with the same except that of amer786 who shared the great message of Qur'an and after these discussions I have come to a great conclusion,perhaps,you do not agree and become more angry but this is fact and now instead of logical proof of God ,I may become more interested in finding out the reasons for rejection of creator by the ''creation'', it is evident, by all these discussions and in light of all other discussions between believers and non believers , even scientists are divided on this question and have different opinions ,that this is , actually, not a problem of logic but of psychology, all non believers of creator have problem in accepting the concept of a absolute supper natural being,perhaps, they are interested in supper physical being if possible, and for this reason they reject the concept of creator for the cost of any argument , it is impossible for them to accept a creator of supernatural and therefore, they some time regard creator as a'' thing'' in their arguments, and some time as limited as being subject to laws of our space and time, they , some time apply laws of Mathe and mechanics upon the series of infinities, they use some developing theories of science describing only phenomena of nature for proving the eternal universe for avoiding such'' illogical,'' ''unscientific'' and ''irrational'' supper natural creator , it becomes more interesting when they apply their ''logic'' upon the absolute supernatural being by raising the questions of ''creator of creator'' '',time less universe'','' from nothing to thing'', '', time before the universe'' ,'' unseen creator'', ''God is nothing'',all these ''arguments'',if for the sake of argument I suppose these confusions as arguments, refer the canvas of mind of unbelievers and their psyche regarding a creator of absolute supernatural and meta physical being, for this reason they become ready to say ''nonsense'' the great , tangible,rational, logical, observable,experimental and living evidence of existence of infinite universe, of infinite creatures, of infinite life , of reason, of intelligence,of conscious,of morality, of conscience,of uniformity of universe,of cause and effect of light having photon of zero mass, of zero sum of total energy,of vital elan, of practical reason, of duration theory of time, of intuition,of self and ego and ultimately give preference the unscientific presumption of existence by self, eternal existence and try to support the same by the,developing theories of big bang, of nature, evolution of energy etc, just for satisfaction of their psyche for avoidance of the supernatural creator , therefore, this is the problem of exclusion of supernatural being by the confined reason and not logical problem .
Mark, no my dear, this time atheism,your belief.
Ah - not believing in Invisible Majikal Super Beings is a belief now?
I guess lacking belief in something is the same as believing the opposite
Really? Do you hold a belief that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Interesting. You must have an awful lot of beliefs in that case.
I know that a lack of belief is not the same as a belief in the opposite. Believe it or not, I pay attention in the forums
Okay, you're bringing my name into this again as being on the side of those who are arguing against a creator. I have not taken any sides in this discussion. What I attempted to do was to helpfully advise you on what anyone and everyone else in the forums would ask you to do when you make a statement of knowledge of evidence of a creator: provide the actual evidence. No more, no less. However, instead of heeding my advice, you have chosen to not only make a stand without providing anything to back it up, but also to attack others and accuse others of the anger that it would appear you are actually showing. As a result, your credibility (as I advised) continues to be lessened. But hey, I have nothing else to say that could help you other than what I have already said... Prove it
Sibtain, well said. This is all about psychology and psychological defense of convictions, as well as ego I would add.
on 79:30 I checked a few different translations including Pickthall and keep getting 'Earth spread forth' - not seeing egg anywhere, perhaps reference the translation you are using.
On 86:5-7, I am getting "from between the loins and the ribs". This is not even worth a debate.
[079:030] He made the earth egg-shaped.
I'm told the quran also says the earth is flat.
So let man observe from what he was created.
He was created from a fluid, ejected,
Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
No reference to the woman's involvement and sperm does not come from anywhere between the backbone and ribs.
amir786, indeed, there are great arguments in Qur'an and also scientific evidences and also invitation for observation and experience, therefore, existence of universe logically concludes creator for its being and if atheists want to disprove this they must prove self existence of universe but they have failed to do the same but problem is that this argument and argument of uniformity and existence of your also have been declared as ''nonsense'' by the atheists .
Okay, for the sake of argument let's play by your rules:
1) There is no proof God created the universe
2) Therefore the universe occurred spontaneously.
Already tried that, several times. No response - presumably it is not considered fair play to make such a statement.
How about OP engages with our ideas in the same way that we engaged with his?
Why is that too much too ask?
So far I have provided evidence of the big bang.
And demonstrate that his logic is pointless as it works equaly for big bang as for creationism.
How about some kind of response to that?
because talking to an inert wall is pretty pointless. It means we are not having a conversation, we are just being preached at.
psycheskinner, existence of universe is the evidence of creator as it requires creator for its being ,if you want to prove that universe occurred spontaneously you must prove that existence of universe is self existing or eternal but it is impossible.
sibtain bukhari. Existence of universe is evidence it is eternal as it requires that it be eternal. If you want to prove that it is not eternal you must prove when the end will be otherwise it is proven eternal but it is impossible to make such proof.
As universe is eternal, this satisfies your requirement of proof that universe occurred spontaneously and thus there was no creator.
Conclusion drawn from your statement that "if you want to prove that universe occurred spontaneously you must prove that existence of universe is self existing or eternal".
Proof completed. Required conclusion from inescapable logic is that there is no Allah.
wilder,how you suppose that universe is eternal?, existence of universe is a fact but this is eternal or not it is not fact ,now if you claim for avoidance of creator that it is eternal,obviously,you will have to prove.
The current theory is the universe will continue expanding indefinitely and at some point in time any inhabitants will no longer be able to see any other galaxies which means they won't be able to understand the expansion of the universe. All evidence adds up to this and nothing provides any evidence of an end to the universe.
So like your creator the universe existed before time therefore has alway been here and the universe like your creator will always be here.
No need for a creator.
maybe you're more up on this than I am, isn't the theory that the universe will expand to a certain point and then contract (again?)
I think we can both agree on the reality we experience. Reality is reality. We may But we may perceive it slightly differently, but -
= - = -
ME ... Yes I agree completely with this comment. For some of us, the reality which we experience in our own little environment can be totally different. Some of us are starving to death while others are sitting in the lap of luxury.
You ask … are you claiming there is more to it that you can experience and I cannot?
= - = -
Me … Some things yes and some things NOT! For some of us life is like constantly dinning out at the banquet hall while those in the kitchen would have a different prospective of reality. Those of us who are washing the dishes are thinking about things that would never cross the minds of those sitting in the dinning room. Our minds can never grow until we start thinking out side the box we find ourselves in.
You say … You are the one making claims about the Universe being "little," and there existing things "outside," it. That is Majick! as far as I am concerned.
= - = -
ME … Everything is large compared to something else which is smaller. I think the universe is the largest thing that we can think of. BUT , If the cells in our body had an awareness, they could not begin to imagine a universe outside of the body . There is no reason for them to.
To prove to you that there is anything outside of this universe we live in would be kinda like this … We see a jar with a label on it which says Peter Pan. I say that there is peanut butter in the jar. You say “prove it” I then open the jar and say “See, that is peanut butter” But if you have never seen peanut butter, its presence in the jar is only proof that “Something” is in the jar. I would have to look out side of the jar for any other proof concerning the contents of the jar or to explain the process as to how the peanut butter came to be in the jar. We find no evidence within the jar to prove exactly what is in the jar. I know a tractor was involved in the making of the peanut butter but there is no evidence of that fact to be found within the jar.
And until we see out side of the jar, we can only speculate about the size of the jar or if there is anything out side of it. I believe there are things out side of my perseption. What that is, I have no idea.
There is nothing outside the jar. And the fact that we perceive reality differently does not change reality or make your Majik happen. Sorry.
I didn't expect for you to understand. And if you did understand(?) I didn't expect for you to admitt it.
It it insights such as this which causes all of the troubles in the world.
And that doesn't require majik.
Ah. If I don't agree then I lack your understanding. Gotcha.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
I didn't say any such thing. I think you don't understand the prospective from which the point I'm attempting to make comes from.. We are all guilty of this same thing.
You usualy don't comment about the context of my posts, you just call it my beliefs in majik and dismiss it..
I disagree. Mark will admit when he feels that a good point has been made. This goes along with any understanding. Assuming that someone doesn't understand because they disagree with a point is also something that causes conflicts.
That atheists can smile is a miracle. Therefore a smiling atheist is proof of a self-generating creator.
Wilderness, And evolution works by self and by chance without any guideline? And by chance it has come to humanity,the most'' magical'' living being ?And by chance it has developed the ,the reason, conscious, self, conscience ,The miracles of humanity /
After a few billion years yes, not to worry in a few more billion we will no longer be here. You should also be aware human are not the only self aware, reasoning creatures. Evolution took a chance with us and we got lucky, these big, complex brains come at a price. We are physically weaker and need to eat much more often because of the human brain.
Rad Man, problem of evolution is that it is blind law,as Stated in an other post that it is for the development of ego as it moves towards perfection and ultimately it developed an interdependent ego in the man for willfully acceptance or rejection of creator,the problems of atheists is that they insist for automatic movement of evolution without any guide line and that is irrational as a blind law after billion years automatically and accidentally can never develop humanity,it is funny story.
What is funny is you think a few billion years of evolution was for the soul purpose of developing humans. It's rather like saying evolutions purpose was to create the cockroach, arachnids or crocodiles, all of which are more successful than humans. Your arrogance is blinding you from reality. Humans will if allowed, continue to evolve especially fast if we continue to contaminate the earth as we will have to adapt to a new environment.
Rad Man, you may suppose that cockroaches having all qualities of man are equal to human beings. perhaps, my ''arrogance'' is ''blinding'', therefore I can never observe equation of cockroaches with human beings.
They are more successful, have been around longer and will be around long after humans are gone.
Are you aware that Bowhead Whale's live 211 years. Are they further evolved because they live longer? We humans may or may not be smarter, but they live 3 times as long as us.
I'm sorry you are unable to understand evolution and our place in it however not to fear evolution will take care of you.
Rad man ,these whales are scientists like human beings?if not then evolution was interested in developing human beings.
I don't see that happening. We seem to be suffering as a result of contamination.
The premise is not "we are here, thus evolution happened."
The premise is "evolution happened, thus we are here."
Your religion blinds you into following an egotistical anthropocentric view of the world, when the reality is the exact opposite. Humans can only live on a very small portion of the only planet we can find that could support us. If we tried to go anywhere else, we would either be crushed, fried, frozen, torn apart, or riddled with millions of microscopic meteor holes.
How can you say the universe was created for humans when only a small fraction of one planet barely keeps us alive for the brief 80 years that we live? The universe hates you, and it wants you dead.
Zelkiiro, you and other atheists allege believers for blind faith and you and others themselves believe that a blind law of evolution automatically developed the humanity after billion years ? this is not funny? universe was created for human beings as no other creations except human have evolved an independent ego by the process of evolution and this was the purpose of evolution,further,we observe the rise of man to skies,moon and other planets because of power of knowledge and further we observe his power of justice,his justice systems,right is might,human rights,his individual evolution,his creativity,his capability of obeying , praying and disobeying God , his dominance over nature ,life conditions over only one planet, absence of any other creation for the time being dominating man,all this confirms the central position of man in this universe.for the time being.
Here is what we do know.
Of the two planets in the inhabitable zone of your solar system a self aware creature has evolved on one with the capability to support life.
There are billions of stars and other planets in the inhabitable zone in our own galaxy and there are billions of galaxies each with the potential of of billions of inhabitable planets.
So the next time you assume we are the only self aware creatures in our universe you may want to calculate the math and understand evolution of earth is not yet done and humans are not the only self aware creature even now.
We can safely say then that the odds of another self aware creature developing even on earth is 100% as there are numerous self aware animals on earth.
Therefore the number of other self aware creatures we should find else ware are as follows.
1 billion X 1 billion /2
So we can conservatively estimate given all available information that there are likely about 1 billion other self aware creatures currently in existence.
Rad man.these all are presumptions .
No, that math is based of facts that we know. There is no way you could know we are alone when we are not even alone on our own planet. Not to fear, evolution has a way of dealing with those like you.
Rad Man, I will request to evolution to help you in understanding it .
Ah, but evolution does have a guideline. One stronger than the strongest steel cable.
Survival of the fittest is the rule of evolution, and a very effective rule it is, too. It will work every time.
wilderness, guideline means an absolute conscious must protect evolution from dangers of world and for maintaining its working for billion years,this is impossible to work for billion years without any external reason and just automatic upon the basis of fittest of survival,without supposing an external conscious and reason it seems a magical blind law.
riddle, I do not understand evolution as as magical blind law working for billion years without support of external conscious or reason and maintaining by self upon the basis of genetic variations,natural selection,mutations ad fittest of survival,it is impossible miracle working of such law for billion years and its success and by chance its development to humanity.
What I find most interesting about any discussion of creation and evolution is that everyone focuses on the cause and the development of life as opposed to focusing on the reason for it. And because we will never know whether there is one or not, no one will ever win said argument.
Which is good because if we ever find the true answer, the forums will be quiet and boring...LOL
What I've found is that believers seem to think there is a need for life and the need seems to be to praise God, while the unbelievers are interested in the how and and not the why. The why is for us that we are simple the product of evolution.
Indeed. Focusing on the reason for life (other than reasons we create for ourselves) immediately excludes those who don't feel they are a work of premeditated, goal-oriented creation.
Maybe. I don't say it for that reason. The why isn't important for some. The how isn't impotant for others. But neither is an a valid argument against the other. Biological weapons...what's more important? To eliminate the reason for them or the ability to produce them? And doesn't focusing solely on the how exclude those who focus on why?
Yet nonbelievers get angry at the believers who say that the life of an unbeliever has no meaing apart from a creator...which gives the impression that some nonbelievers are concerned about the reason for their existence as much as anyone else.
In the end we are here. We can explain how but not why. Maybe there is no why. But life exists, deevelops, and perpetuates. No first cause and no reason can be proven so why so much animosity? Live and love and allow everyone else to do so.
Sure, as long as they all keep it secular. Why would a secular society have laws against homosexuality, abortion and shopping on Sundays? (My Catholic upbringing still has me in conflict with abortion, but the condom thing is ridiculous.)
Life does have meaning without a creator, I believe in even more so than any believer will tell you. Does humanity have meaning? Yes, to help others get peacefully through this life.
Will the universe care when us humans are no longer here? Nope.
I have no issues whatsoever with secular society. I also have no issues at all with what happens after I've shuffled off "this mortal coil." I just care about now. I know, I know, bad Christian! But I didn't make the world, and I've no power over its continuation or demise. I can only hope to make it a little better. And only what and who I leave behind can ever decide if I did or didn't.
We can explain why. We are here because we are here. This is not good enough for you? No problem - believe in a god to fill the gap.
Honestly, why not just fall back on the "faith" aspect. At least that is transparently subjective and experiential.
Today is the one-year anniversary of my wife's passing, an event many of you helped see me through. Although I'm grateful to you all, I will be taking the rest of today off from HP.
At the risk of self-promotion, I did this in her memory.
by David Bowman7 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from...
by David Bowman8 hours ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from...
by Rhonda D Johnson9 months ago
A Colorado school district is being sued for discrimination. The parents of six year old Coy Matthis, who they say has identified himself as a girl since he was a toddler, are incensed that the school will not...
by Sean Thomas Gartland4 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by Vapid Maven5 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with...
by SaiKit6 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.