"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 06:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Hrrm... so the universe couldn't have existed in another form? In the beginning was God, and god created the universe:
G -> G' + U
Where G is God in a state before the big bang, G' is God in a state after the the big bang, and U is the universe.

Are you saying this model cannot work because the universe could not exist in a prior form, such as the form "G"?

The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

So the following is possible:
G -> G' + U

But is is impossible?
U -> U'

Where "->" is the big bang, U is the universe in some state, and U' is the universe in some other state?

If God does not trigger infinite regression and does not have to comply with conservation of matter and energy, why does the universe in a prior form have to comply?

I'll help you out a little here: An eternal universe transitioning from one state to another does not breach conservation of matter or energy. The scientific law you are looking for is probably the second law of thermodynamics. However we do not know what laws would apply to the universe prior to the big bang, just as we do not know what laws would apply to God before the big bang.

Both the G -> G' + U and U -> U' models are pretty much scientifically indistinguishable. You can't rule out one without ruling out the other.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
11-03-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 03:19 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

First of all, infinite regression only is a problem if the universe is in fact temporally finite. An infinite, oscillatory universe does not have to worry about this since its an infinite chain of shifting states. There is no evidence this is NOT the case, there is no evidence it IS either. It's a speculation.

As for the conservation law somehow being relevant, that indicates what assumptions you are making. For starters, the conservation law applies to isolated systems, so right there you're making an assumption that the universe IS in fact an isolated system. Furthermore, your own answer to origins of the universe violates the conservation law; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but CAN change form. Please explain how a creator-being "creating" matter and energy is consistent with the conservation law without utilizing special pleading. On the other hand, an oscillatory universe that eternally changes states would be both consistent with the conservation law and not be struggling with an infinite regression problem since it would in fact be infinite.

And hence we arrive at the ultimate stumbling block for the cosmological argument. The reason everything I've been discussing about the grander scope of the nature of the universe in the hypothetical is because the observable universe in its current state is all we know of. Whether there is anything beyond the observable universe, whether it has only existed in this current state, whether there are other universes out there, whether the laws of physics apply to any of these other hypothetical universes or the other states of an oscillatory universe; we don't have an answer to any of that. We can't, the current scope of our knowledge is too limited to make supportable conclusions on any of these inquiries. We can form hypotheses and speculations, but that's it so far.

The cosmological argument disregards all of this and makes unsupportable assumptions about the nature of the universe in order to construct a nice little playbox for its creatorbeing to magically spring forth from. It's also obviously a reverse-engineered syllogism, the conclusion is already pre-supposed. If one doesn't start with its presupposition it immediately becomes apparent that God is NOT the conclusion one comes to from following the premises. This is because instead of acting like any other hypothesis (albeit an outdated one) it insists that its conclusion is obligate. Except the conclusion invalidates the premises, so either one must throw out the pre-supposed conclusion and actually follow the line of logical reasoning demanded by a syllogism, or one sacrifices logic and resorts to special pleading, as you have.

Is it possible God is the answer? Sure, I don't think it's very likely but you could label it a speculative answer to this conundrum like any other, but one will not come to this conclusion through the premises provided by the cosmological argument, as your overreliance on "biblical evidence" is testament to.

At the risk of oversimplification:

a) a banana that becomes an orange that becomes a banana over an infinite duration of time still requires causality - if the universe was always here in some other form then you have ascribed an eternal nature to something

b) from a) I do follow your logic and we need not presuppose any god but the universe is thus eternal and should be worshipped because it defied its own laws of matter and energy creation, disposition and conservation to come into being in its present state--that is, by disobeying the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy it acted in a super-natural manner

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 06:19 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

So the following is possible:
G -> G' + U

But is is impossible?
U -> U'

Where "->" is the big bang, U is the universe in some state, and U' is the universe in some other state?

If God does not trigger infinite regression and does not have to comply with conservation of matter and energy, why does the universe in a prior form have to comply?

I'll help you out a little here: An eternal universe transitioning from one state to another does not breach conservation of matter or energy. The scientific law you are looking for is probably the second law of thermodynamics. However we do not know what laws would apply to the universe prior to the big bang, just as we do not know what laws would apply to God before the big bang.

Both the G -> G' + U and U -> U' models are pretty much scientifically indistinguishable. You can't rule out one without ruling out the other.

No, I'm sorry, but in order for it not to breach conservation of matter and energy you must provide a demonstration of what it was before it was matter and energy, and don't tell me "spirit"!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(04-03-2015 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 02:34 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I'm sure someone already answered this, but it bears repeating until it gets through to them:

You cannot argue that someone (God) is self-existent while simultaneously arguing that something (the universe) cannot be. Either self-existence without "cause" is possible or it is not. The universe exists. There is no evidence that God does.

1. Of course you can argue that if God was created as a result of say, the Big Bang. But he pre-exists this universe.

2. Of course you can argue that if God existed in a space or time outside our own. Question of the day--our measuring tools can only see a universe that is approx. 16B light years across in any direction from Earth. Does it go on infinitely, forever? And since it is expanding (just as the Bible says it is) what is it expanding inside of or outside of? And there you have it.

My apologies, Q, but I don't interact with dumbshit. I find it aggravates me to an extent that is not necessary for me to maintain a happy life. I abandoned nonsensical thinking like yours, twice, and I have no intention of getting sucked into it again. Happy dumbshittery. Peace.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
11-03-2015, 03:44 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2015 04:12 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-03-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 03:19 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  First of all, infinite regression only is a problem if the universe is in fact temporally finite. An infinite, oscillatory universe does not have to worry about this since its an infinite chain of shifting states. There is no evidence this is NOT the case, there is no evidence it IS either. It's a speculation.

As for the conservation law somehow being relevant, that indicates what assumptions you are making. For starters, the conservation law applies to isolated systems, so right there you're making an assumption that the universe IS in fact an isolated system. Furthermore, your own answer to origins of the universe violates the conservation law; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but CAN change form. Please explain how a creator-being "creating" matter and energy is consistent with the conservation law without utilizing special pleading. On the other hand, an oscillatory universe that eternally changes states would be both consistent with the conservation law and not be struggling with an infinite regression problem since it would in fact be infinite.

And hence we arrive at the ultimate stumbling block for the cosmological argument. The reason everything I've been discussing about the grander scope of the nature of the universe in the hypothetical is because the observable universe in its current state is all we know of. Whether there is anything beyond the observable universe, whether it has only existed in this current state, whether there are other universes out there, whether the laws of physics apply to any of these other hypothetical universes or the other states of an oscillatory universe; we don't have an answer to any of that. We can't, the current scope of our knowledge is too limited to make supportable conclusions on any of these inquiries. We can form hypotheses and speculations, but that's it so far.

The cosmological argument disregards all of this and makes unsupportable assumptions about the nature of the universe in order to construct a nice little playbox for its creatorbeing to magically spring forth from. It's also obviously a reverse-engineered syllogism, the conclusion is already pre-supposed. If one doesn't start with its presupposition it immediately becomes apparent that God is NOT the conclusion one comes to from following the premises. This is because instead of acting like any other hypothesis (albeit an outdated one) it insists that its conclusion is obligate. Except the conclusion invalidates the premises, so either one must throw out the pre-supposed conclusion and actually follow the line of logical reasoning demanded by a syllogism, or one sacrifices logic and resorts to special pleading, as you have.

Is it possible God is the answer? Sure, I don't think it's very likely but you could label it a speculative answer to this conundrum like any other, but one will not come to this conclusion through the premises provided by the cosmological argument, as your overreliance on "biblical evidence" is testament to.

At the risk of oversimplification:

a) a banana that becomes an orange that becomes a banana over an infinite duration of time still requires causality - if the universe was always here in some other form then you have ascribed an eternal nature to something.

Yes I have, so what? There is nothing saying that in an oscillatory universe the same physical laws that apply in any one state must transfer over to the next as well. The physical laws of causality as far as we know are only applicable to this universe in this state. If there were other states of existence previous to this one there is no means of knowing what physical laws it was subject to. Hence presuming a causal chain must have a beginning since it must in this universe is another unfounded assumption made by the cosmological argument. Hell even in this universe not everything is restricted to causal laws. You are aware that the current evidence indicates that uncaused events dictated by probability rather than antecedent conditions occur all the time in the quantum realm, right? Even referring to an oscillatory universe as an infinite causal chain may be inaccurate, there just isn't really a better way to describe it so we can comprehend it as a concept.

Quote:b) from a) I do follow your logic and we need not presuppose any god but the universe is thus eternal and should be worshipped because it defied its own laws of matter and energy creation, disposition and conservation to come into being in its present state--that is, by disobeying the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy it acted in a super-natural manner

No, because as I've already stated those laws only apply in the current state of the universe. If there were previous forms the universe existed in, those laws are not guaranteed to have still applied.

You can't insist causality is an absolute and then in the same breath provide an answer that transcends causality. And causality isn't an absolute in this universe, how are you managing to confidently state it would be in others?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-03-2015 01:29 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  
(04-03-2015 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Of course you can argue that if God was created as a result of say, the Big Bang. But he pre-exists this universe.

2. Of course you can argue that if God existed in a space or time outside our own. Question of the day--our measuring tools can only see a universe that is approx. 16B light years across in any direction from Earth. Does it go on infinitely, forever? And since it is expanding (just as the Bible says it is) what is it expanding inside of or outside of? And there you have it.

My apologies, Q, but I don't interact with dumbshit. I find it aggravates me to an extent that is not necessary for me to maintain a happy life. I abandoned nonsensical thinking like yours, twice, and I have no intention of getting sucked into it again. Happy dumbshittery. Peace.

If you think it is a waste of time to conjecture why laws of matter were suspended when the universe was incepted, and you are unwilling to either commit to saying "scientists will figure it out" and put science in this gap or god in this gap, then neither TTA nor I will be of benefit to you. You're in the wrong forum unless you can heartily to commit to sticking god or "unknown mystery science" in this gap IMHO.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-03-2015 03:44 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  At the risk of oversimplification:

a) a banana that becomes an orange that becomes a banana over an infinite duration of time still requires causality - if the universe was always here in some other form then you have ascribed an eternal nature to something.

Yes I have, so what? There is nothing saying that in an oscillatory universe the same physical laws that apply in any one state must transfer over to the next as well. The physical laws of causality as far as we know are only applicable to this universe in this state. If there were other states of existence previous to this one there is no means of knowing what physical laws it was subject to. Hence presuming a causal chain must have a beginning since it must in this universe is another unfounded assumption made by the cosmological argument. Hell even in this universe not everything is restricted to causal laws. You are aware that the current evidence indicates that uncaused events dictated by probability rather than antecedent conditions occur all the time in the quantum realm, right? Even referring to an oscillatory universe as an infinite causal chain may be inaccurate, there just isn't really a better way to describe it so we can comprehend it as a concept.

Quote:b) from a) I do follow your logic and we need not presuppose any god but the universe is thus eternal and should be worshipped because it defied its own laws of matter and energy creation, disposition and conservation to come into being in its present state--that is, by disobeying the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy it acted in a super-natural manner

No, because as I've already stated those laws only apply in the current state of the universe. If there were previous forms the universe existed in, those laws are not guaranteed to have still applied.

You can't insist causality is an absolute and then in the same breath provide an answer that transcends causality. And causality isn't an absolute in this universe, how are you managing to confidently state it would be in others?

I'm not trying to disseminate. I'll ask you instead, when did the fundamental laws of matter begin to be inviolable laws? For example, if you say 1 Billion years ago, you've got some "splainin' to do" about cosmology and evolution. If you say, "6,000 years ago" we might even get along just fine...

...So I here you that our imaginary pre-universe universe didn't have matter and energy in it, so when did these laws go into effect, do you think? And how and why?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(12-03-2015 10:41 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 03:44 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Yes I have, so what? There is nothing saying that in an oscillatory universe the same physical laws that apply in any one state must transfer over to the next as well. The physical laws of causality as far as we know are only applicable to this universe in this state. If there were other states of existence previous to this one there is no means of knowing what physical laws it was subject to. Hence presuming a causal chain must have a beginning since it must in this universe is another unfounded assumption made by the cosmological argument. Hell even in this universe not everything is restricted to causal laws. You are aware that the current evidence indicates that uncaused events dictated by probability rather than antecedent conditions occur all the time in the quantum realm, right? Even referring to an oscillatory universe as an infinite causal chain may be inaccurate, there just isn't really a better way to describe it so we can comprehend it as a concept.


No, because as I've already stated those laws only apply in the current state of the universe. If there were previous forms the universe existed in, those laws are not guaranteed to have still applied.

You can't insist causality is an absolute and then in the same breath provide an answer that transcends causality. And causality isn't an absolute in this universe, how are you managing to confidently state it would be in others?

I'm not trying to disseminate. I'll ask you instead, when did the fundamental laws of matter begin to be inviolable laws? For example, if you say 1 Billion years ago, you've got some "splainin' to do" about cosmology and evolution. If you say, "6,000 years ago" we might even get along just fine...

...So I here you that our imaginary pre-universe universe didn't have matter and energy in it, so when did these laws go into effect, do you think? And how and why?

The intellectually honest answer is "we don't know."

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
12-03-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(12-03-2015 11:46 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 10:41 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm not trying to disseminate. I'll ask you instead, when did the fundamental laws of matter begin to be inviolable laws? For example, if you say 1 Billion years ago, you've got some "splainin' to do" about cosmology and evolution. If you say, "6,000 years ago" we might even get along just fine...

...So I here you that our imaginary pre-universe universe didn't have matter and energy in it, so when did these laws go into effect, do you think? And how and why?

The intellectually honest answer is "we don't know."

I apologize, but the intellectually honest answer is "We don't know how or why fundamental, universe-wide immutable laws of physics were abrogated, but it peaks our curiosity that the matter somehow got here ex nihilo." Creation from nothing is precisely what the Law implies.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(12-03-2015 01:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 11:46 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  The intellectually honest answer is "we don't know."

I apologize, but the intellectually honest answer is "We don't know how or why fundamental, universe-wide immutable laws of physics were abrogated, but it peaks our curiosity that the matter somehow got here ex nihilo." Creation from nothing is precisely what the Law implies.

If one were to follow the standard laws of causality, sure. But since we don't know whether those laws were reality "before" the universe began its not possible to say that ex-nihilo is a forgone conclusion.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: