|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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.
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.
I told you already: I went up and down this last year in this forum. I have no interest in doing it again.
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.
by chasemillis5 years ago
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Ok that's easy.So that means that the Universe has been around forever. That would be great, except there are no real world examples of infinity. If infinity is not a quality of...
by Debra Allen9 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
by CosetteClareese2 years ago
Why is it so hard to believe in an everlasting God when so many believe in everlasting nature?Something does not come from nothing. That being said something MUST be an everlasting thing whether it be God or nature. Is...
by casey_wlkr8 years ago
I am currently dealing with a number of issues with Christianity and I have to say that they're very hard for me to get past. I am a Christian and firmly believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins but I...
by Tanmoy Acharya6 years ago
Scientists keep their silence when asked the biggest questions of life, like: "Where does the laws of Physics come from?", or "What is biological life", or "Why we are here, and who created us...
by Pachomius6 years ago
I am a Christian.I have this idea that if atheists and Christians will from both sides propose propositions and work to come to agreement on them, then they might come to agree on the big proposition that God exists.So,...
Copyright © 2018 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.