jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Arguments with the religious reviewed.

  1. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 4 years ago

    These are some arguments Pcunix presents in one of his threads. Trying to prove God can't exist.

    "A thing cannot be self created

    That should be axiomatic, but some theists want to argue it. Any such arguments are, of course, circular: A god can self create, therefore my god is possible.

    Self creation implies that the power and intent exists prior to the "god". That's circular, so we can dismiss that immediately. If we want a "god", it is either created by something else, or it has existed forever."

    This is only an argument against the idea of a God who created him/her/itself out of nothing. I really don't have a personal problem with it, but the entire argument is based on our assumption that matter cannot be created or destroyed(including energy). If it did turn out to be possible for something to create itself out of nothing, then that would be an area that we have no precedence, no rules, and no experimental data for. In other words, we would have no idea.

    Any other type of creation other than 'from nothing' doesn't really qualify as self-created. Self-evolved would be a better term in that instance.

    "Turtles all the way down

    A common response for the self created problem is to move the god to some other place - another Universe, an alternate physics.

    This doesn't help and is only a variation of "turtles all the way down", which plainly deserves no more discussion."

    Actually, the thought of other dimensions or universes fits much better with our understanding that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Let's imagine that God is a person with the technological ability to gather pure energy, compact it, place it in an empty place, and create a Big Bang. That would provide an explanation for a way in which God could create the universe(not from nothing, just forming it). This doesn't break the requirement for matter always existing(in energy form in this case). Pcunix would say 'Well, where did that God come from?'. That God could have come from chance, in a universe that always existed. Or, he could have been part of a group of Gods that always existed. Because we know matter and energy to have always existed, then there is no requirement for a 'first'. Trying to ask 'where did the first God' come from is the same as asking 'where did the first matter come from'. Neither came from nothing at any point. They always existed.

    In simple terms, you can't put a stipulation on defining the first moment when God was created if you don't also put a stipulation on defining the first moment when matter was created.

    "Eternal existence

    This is where theists usually land when trying to escape logical paradoxes.

    Unfortunately, it does not help.

    A thing that has existed forever cannot be composed of other things because that obviously means THOSE things existed before it. Such a creature is no god, and it plainly it has to obey the physics that make its parts work. It could ONLY be a physical creature."

    Pcunix moves into this eternal mode, and makes an egregious error. He states that a God could not exist for ever, because the particles that make up God must have existed before him. This is logically false. If God existed forever, then all the matter/energy that makes him up also existed forever. You can't go to the moment before God was if he existed forever.

    Otherwise, Pcunix would have to define where the matter that made up God came from.

    If A is capable of having always existed, then it is possible for B to have always existed.

    "This IS the simple argument: any sentient thing HAS to be composed of simpler parts, and those parts MUST obey some physics - it doesn't have to be OUR physics, of course, but physics is necessary.

    Please remember: moving your god to some alternate physics doesn't help. It needs a physics, it needs rules. It is bound by those rules, it can ONLY be a natural product of those rules."

    Pcunix further confuses himself stating that everything must be a natural product of natural rules. So, at what point was matter and energy created from these rules? The answer is, of course, that it wasn't. It always existed. If it didn't, where did those rules come from?

    Pcunix requires both that something exists forever, and that it be created from natural rules that existed before it. His arguments are based on a double-edged framework.

    I apologize, I don't have time to finish right now and this is in a very rough format. I look forward to Pcunix's reply, or anyone else's thoughts.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago

      I told you already:  I went up and down this last year in this forum.  I have no interest in doing it again.

      1. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 4 years ago in reply to this


        Just making sure, as you know so much more than I do.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago

      Gees I remember that hotly debated thread. We all know Gods existence cannot be proved or disproved but it was one of the most popular threads at the time. Especially when one claims they can prove God does not exist. Everybody wants to know whether they believe or don't believe in God.

      Anyway your post bought to mind a theory..

      How do we know we are not a universe within a universe? Scientist do not know what came before the big bang even though that in itself is a theory. Assuming they know what they are talking about its not too outrageous to ponder over whether or not we could be the result of what is known as a black hole. A star collapses into itself and the big bang occurs within the black hole creating a whole new universe. Perhaps that is why our universe is expanding.