"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(03-03-2015 02:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The "proof" I see are by now several dozen threads where I had the last post because I pointed to sources, invited further discussion, built bridges, and was ignored.

That's because nobody likes you. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-03-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(18-03-2015 10:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 12:33 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, that doesn't follow. Conservation of Matter/Energy is violated when a universe springs into existence out of nothing, as you claim it did. It is not violated at all by an eternal universe. So you are the one claiming that the conservation law is violated.

Huh.. never claimed it came from nothing.. I simply am giving you the choice of ex nihilo or a special explanation.

Protip: ex nihilo means "from nothing". That is your claim, not mine. I believe that the universe has always existed in some form or another (the "Big Bang" was not "nothing"). This presents no problem at all for conservation of matter/energy. If there was no matter or energy at all, and then all of a sudden there was ("creation" by God or whoever), that violates conservation. No such problem in my version. I have nothing to explain. You do. Why do you think an eternal universe violates conservation of matter/energy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(18-03-2015 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 10:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh.. never claimed it came from nothing.. I simply am giving you the choice of ex nihilo or a special explanation.

And that is a false dichotomy.

In no way is it a false dichotomy. The known universe has a cause or doesn't, along with the matter inside it. It is the Law of Conservation that informs us that matter may become energy or matter may move from Brooklyn to Manhattan or Mars but not from non-existence to existence. Consider

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
19-03-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(19-03-2015 10:28 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  And that is a false dichotomy.

In no way is it a false dichotomy. The known universe has a cause or doesn't, along with the matter inside it. It is the Law of Conservation that informs us that matter may become energy or matter may move from Brooklyn to Manhattan or Mars but not from non-existence to existence. Consider

There is insufficient information to propose your dichotomy, unless by 'special explanation' you mean 'every other possibility'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(11-03-2015 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 06:19 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  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"!

So you take conversation of matter and energy to be an absolute rule even before the big bang, and you rule out "spirit" as a source of the matter and energy... but you think the universe was made out of god's substance somehow? I'm not following how your model is supposed to work.

We don't know if there was a "before" the big bang, but again assuming that there was there is no particular reason to think that conservation of matter and energy are requirements. If we accept the rule we can certainly entertain the possibility that the matter/energy existed prior to the big bang. Why would not we not? You seem to by trying to build a contradiction as follows:
1. Matter/energy is conserved over time, including from before to after the big bang
2. Matter/energy was created at the big bang
Therefore the big bang never occurred?

We don't know that (1) holds across the boundary of the big bang, and if we accept (1) there is no reason to also accept (2). We know the big bang occurred so both premises cannot be simultaneously true assuming that there is a "before" the big bang to argue about. But what about this next form?
1. Matter/energy is conserved over time except from before to after the big bang when a special creative process took place
2. Matter/energy was created at the big bang
Therefore, God? Why not a special creative process that was not caused by a god? Why not consider the creative process rather than leap to the additional conclusion that a god triggered the process?

As I said above, the God model and the no-God model of caused big bang creation are essentially indistinguishable. You can't disprove one without disproving 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
20-03-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(31-01-2015 08:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Occam's Razor handles this nicely.

If the "created universe" relies upon a god that always existed ----

it is simpler for the universe to simply have always existed (in whatever form before the big bang) - and eliminate the middle man - this supposed "god" person.

Wouldn't this still entertain the proposition of Pantheism?

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 08:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So you take conversation of matter and energy ...

I think we need to have a talk...
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 09:36 AM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  
(31-01-2015 08:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Occam's Razor handles this nicely.

If the "created universe" relies upon a god that always existed ----

it is simpler for the universe to simply have always existed (in whatever form before the big bang) - and eliminate the middle man - this supposed "god" person.

Wouldn't this still entertain the proposition of Pantheism?

Only if you're easily entertained. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-03-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(19-03-2015 10:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:28 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  In no way is it a false dichotomy. The known universe has a cause or doesn't, along with the matter inside it. It is the Law of Conservation that informs us that matter may become energy or matter may move from Brooklyn to Manhattan or Mars but not from non-existence to existence. Consider

There is insufficient information to propose your dichotomy, unless by 'special explanation' you mean 'every other possibility'.

Yes, indeed, please feel free to LIST every other possibility or the ones you can think of besides these:

*The universe was created or incepted by other beings or forces from other universes/dimensions

*The universe, in some form, oscillating or steady has always been here

God, an unknown force that cannot be a physical force per the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, or eternal. "Whadda else do you-a gotta'?"

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
20-03-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 08:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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"!

So you take conversation of matter and energy to be an absolute rule even before the big bang, and you rule out "spirit" as a source of the matter and energy... but you think the universe was made out of god's substance somehow? I'm not following how your model is supposed to work.

We don't know if there was a "before" the big bang, but again assuming that there was there is no particular reason to think that conservation of matter and energy are requirements. If we accept the rule we can certainly entertain the possibility that the matter/energy existed prior to the big bang. Why would not we not? You seem to by trying to build a contradiction as follows:
1. Matter/energy is conserved over time, including from before to after the big bang
2. Matter/energy was created at the big bang
Therefore the big bang never occurred?

We don't know that (1) holds across the boundary of the big bang, and if we accept (1) there is no reason to also accept (2). We know the big bang occurred so both premises cannot be simultaneously true assuming that there is a "before" the big bang to argue about. But what about this next form?
1. Matter/energy is conserved over time except from before to after the big bang when a special creative process took place
2. Matter/energy was created at the big bang
Therefore, God? Why not a special creative process that was not caused by a god? Why not consider the creative process rather than leap to the additional conclusion that a god triggered the process?

As I said above, the God model and the no-God model of caused big bang creation are essentially indistinguishable. You can't disprove one without disproving the other.

I appreciate the effort but you are talking against points I never intended to make.

These last few posts have been my response to "Of COURSE there's a gap, but let's not put God in the gap." So what do you propose we put in there?

I'm aware that matter and energy are conserved in terms of finite limits, they can neither be removed nor created. So HOW DID IT GET HERE?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: