jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (8 posts)

This has to be bunk, right? (See details)

  1. Joseph O Polanco profile image39
    Joseph O Polancoposted 2 years ago

    This has to be bunk, right? (See details)

    According to this page: http://bit.ly/10j5YgK, not only is the existence of God plausible but necessary. That can't be right, can it?

  2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 2 years ago

    For me, the problem with that argument is step four:

    "The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being."

    It assumes an awful lot about what could have caused the universe to exist. The most glaring of which is the 'good personal being' part. A cause needn't be a sentient being, and assigning it a label of good or evil is pointless. Considering how much pain and suffering life endures, the creation of the universe could be argued as an act of evil. And how would we judge the goodness/evilness of an event anyway? Until humans existed, there was no way to perceive morality, so what makes our interpretation superior to any other?

    The second problem is the word 'unchanging'. If there was a singular cause for the universe, why would it have to be unchanging? The universe is constantly changing. I can be the cause of something, yet I continue to change after the cause is set in motion. So, again, the writer is taking huge leaps in assumption.

    Perhaps a more accurate way to present this argument would have been to say "The cause of the universe might be a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, thing." But notice I said 'might'. We don't know what happened prior to the big bang. 13 billion years isn't the age of the universe, it's just as far back as we can see. What came before could just as likely be a million other universes that lived and died.

    Perhaps the argument isn't that something came from nothing, but rather, something was always there, always changing. You might say that's god, but why couldn't it be the universe itself? Why couldn't the components necessary to create us always be here?

    1. Joseph O Polanco profile image39
      Joseph O Polancoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Because of the BGV theorem.

    2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If we use the BGV theorem for the universe, then so too must we use it for god. Why does one need a beginning but the other doesn't?

    3. Joseph O Polanco profile image39
      Joseph O Polancoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Because the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

    4. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Again, that age is just as far back as we can see. Something could have existed before it, or beyond our sight. Even if that was god, there is nothing to suggest he would be exempt from the BGV theorem.

    5. Joseph O Polanco profile image39
      Joseph O Polancoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Read the theorem for yourself and see how and why it cannot possibly apply to God.

    6. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The reason that it cannot apply to god is because he can't be measured (neither can Zeus or Voldemort). The theorem relies on time and movement of the universe to declare a beginning. It does not give any evidence what that beginning might be.

 
working