The gods concept and false arguments against it

[Norsefire]

Really? I find it makes perfect sense and is the only rational conclusion mo matter the way you "lean" on the subject. If the universe was not created, then it just is. It has no point of origin. Temporally, it just is. It goes through states (hot/dense, cool/dilute).

If you posit an intelligence behind it - a god - you always beg the question of gods creation and usually arrive at the exact same point as stated above. Theists like to call it a "first cause" which is just another way of saying just is.

The universe can have had a beginning, but simply this beginning might not have had an intelligent driving force behind it. Therefore it is possible the universe begin "naturally' but without intelligent causation

However, "just is" is impossible.

If we do propose an intelligent force of causation behind the universe, we don't necessarily have to answer the question of origin; remember, time began with the big bang, and might not have existed before then. Thus, chronological order would be unnecessary.

 

[SkinWalker]

I've seen varied definitions in this sort of context and they're usually regarding energy, order, quantity of particles, etc. But "complexity" is a value judgment which seems difficult to utilize unless you have something to compare it to.

How, then, does one compare a universe to... what, precisely? We would need something outside that universe.

Most arguments from complexity rely on intuitive definitions of "complex," but if we use that you end up with an infinite regression. For instance, one such complexity argument is:

• The universe is complex.
• Only something more complex (intelligent) can create something complex.
• Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligence more complex than the universe.
• Therefore, god exists.

But, for that to be true:

• God is complex.
• Only something more complex (intelligent) can create something complex.
• Therefore, god was created by an intelligence more complex than the god.
• Therefore, an Uber-god exists.

• An Uber-god is complex...

It definitely makes you think, regardless of which side of the argument you want to align with.

 

[Norsefire]

SkinWalker, that's assuming chronological order is necessary. It might be the case in our universe, but might not be the cause outside, if there is an outside, where time might not exist. Remember, time began with the big bang (or so some scientists think)

 

[superluminal]

However, "just is" is impossible.

You keep saying this. Please explain why it's impossible that the universe is temporally infinite, so to speak.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Time did not begin with the big bang. As long as anything exists, there is time.
I see no indication either way as to whether our universe was created by some higher power/intelligence. BTW, superior power doesn't necessarily mean superior intelligence or even superior knowledge. Posing the possibility of some "superior" being says nothing else about it. We don't know it's wise or sane or kind or consistent or honest. It could've caused the big bang then went off & never gave it a 2nd thought. It may be about to pour us down the drain. It may be having a ball playing with us.
It's good to consider possibilities. I wouldn't mind if everyone on Earth admitted the possibilities. But that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.
More advanced aliens are not gods. Having more power, knowledge, intelligence or technology does not make beings gods. BTW, more advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent.

 

[spidergoat]

Norsefire, that's the whole point. Since the celestial teapot and God have the same amount of evidence, the adsurdity of one can logically be applied to the other. The idea of God is just as absurd, unsupported, illogical, and not following from observed data, that He might as well be a whale falling from 10,000 feet directly above you. In other words, not 100% impossible, but so unlikely as to be beyond serious consideration.

 

[Norsefire]

You keep saying this. Please explain why it's impossible that the universe is temporally infinite, so to speak.

Time cannot be infinite, as there is always something prior. However, as with the concept of a creator, if time began with our universe, it might not be necessary for there to be something prior to this creator.

Time did not begin with the big bang. As long as anything exists, there is time.

I'm loving your evidence

I see no indication either way as to whether our universe was created by some higher power/intelligence.

Of course, it is only a suggestion; there is no indication for anything as of yet, creator or otherwise

BTW, superior power doesn't necessarily mean superior intelligence or even superior knowledge. Posing the possibility of some "superior" being says nothing else about it. We don't know it's wise or sane or kind or consistent or honest.

How could we come to those conclusions? Intelligence is the only supposition we can make based off we what know and understand

It could've caused the big bang then went off & never gave it a 2nd thought. It may be about to pour us down the drain. It may be having a ball playing with us

That's all irrelevant and there is no basis for that

The only thing we can suppose is intelligence. We can't really suppose anything further as there is no grounds for it

It's good to consider possibilities. I wouldn't mind if everyone on Earth admitted the possibilities. But that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.

Nor is there anywhere to go from supposing a "natural" beginning or supposing that our universe is infinite; it's for the sake of knowledge, narrowing the choices down.

More advanced aliens are not gods.

What makes a god?

Norsefire, that's the whole point. Since the celestial teapot and God have the same amount of evidence, the adsurdity of one can logically be applied to the other.

Is absurdity decided purely on evidence or lack of it, or is there another factor? The factor of basis, based on observation and logical inference.

The idea of God is just as absurd, unsupported, illogical, and not following from observed data

If you truly fail to see why the concept of a god is not absurd, or illogical, then this discussion is pointless.

Again, the intelligence-complexity observation does give credit to the god supposition. I'm not going to go into detail if you can't comprehend that. We know intelligence can cause things, therefore it always remains a serious possibility that intelligence caused our universe. How is that ridiculous?

that He might as well be a whale falling from 10,000 feet directly above you. In other words, not 100% impossible, but so unlikely as to be beyond serious consideration.

I disagree....intelligence is not so unlikely as to be beyond consideration.

 

[superluminal]

Time cannot be infinite, as there is always something prior. However, as with the concept of a creator, if time began with our universe, it might not be necessary for there to be something prior to this creator.

This makes zero sense to me.

Time is not something that begins or ends. It is a measure of duration between events. Things progress from one state to another and our concept of time as something that "passes" or "flows" is purely a mental construct/illusion.

So, it is entirely likely that the universe just is, and that events simply occurr, temporally unbounded. It's dosen't seem like such a hard concept to me.

 

[Norsefire]

The problem is we can always ask "what before that?" and we have to come to a beginning somewhere

 

[Michael]

This is what separates the concepts; sure, they both have no real evidence. However, one has logical basis, whereas the other has none whatsoever (santa)

Then of course the most logical would be Scientology. Because we humans exist, therefor we know that it is possible other aliens could also exist. And they might be more advanced than us and one of them may be an Over Lord named Xenu.

So, Scientology trumps monotheism in this respect,

All hail Xenu!
M

 

[Norsefire]

Then of course the most logical would be Scientology. Because we humans exist, therefor we know that it is possible other aliens could also exist.

Sure, why not?

However scientology goes further and makes claims not supported by any sort of underlying observation

And they might be more advanced than us

Sure

and one of them may be an Over Lord named Xenu.

What leads you to this conclusion?

 

[shaman_]

There’s been a few theists in this forum who try very hard to avoid understanding the point of the Santa or FSM analogy. It isn’t an ‘argument against god’.

It is merely the drawing of a parallel to illustrate to theists the position that they are defending.

They aren't comparable.

They most certainly are comparable. All are possible but have no supporting evidence. To believe in them requires faith. The Santa one is also interesting because, as far as a child is concerned, there is hard evidence for his existence. The Nintento Wii didn’t just appear under the tree on Christmas morning by itself. The child applying logic to the best of their ability, just as you are, would come to the conclusion that Santa exists.

Norsefire your argument (extremely) simplified seems to be that due to your bias you see Yahweh (or whatever powerful entity) as much more likely so it’s not a fair comparison. One being more likely, or as you say a real possibility as opposed to a normal possibility doesn’t stop it from being a valid analogy.

 

[Michael]

Scientology: The Video Channel

 

[Norsefire]

There’s been a few theists in this forum who try very hard to avoid understanding the point of the Santa or FSM analogy. It isn’t an ‘argument against god’.

It is merely the drawing of a parallel to illustrate to theists the position that they are defending.

I understand, but my point is that they aren't the same. The FSM falls under the god concept, which is an entire concept on its own, of intelligence, and Santa has no underlying observation behind it.

They most certainly are comparable. All are possible but have no supporting evidence. To believe in them requires faith. The Santa one is also interesting because, as far as a child is concerned, there is hard evidence for his existence. The Nintento Wii didn’t just appear under the tree on Christmas morning by itself. The child applying logic to the best of their ability, just as you are, would come to the conclusion that Santa exists.

Wrong. The child could, after observing that presents appear, come to several conclusions, but Santa would not be one of them unless he was told about what Santa was. More than likely, he may conclude that his parents gave him the gifts, or that someone did.

You are also making a simple mistake: you assume I am speaking of a specific religion with specific religious details. I am not. I am merely speaking of the concept that our universe was created by an intelligence

And is that a ridiculous concept? Of course not! We Humans are perfect proof that intelligence is possible, and that intelligence can be influential. That, alone, coupled with the fact that everything is either intelligent or not, makes it necessary to give serious consideration to the possibility that our universe was intelligently created. Why dismiss such a very real possibility? It'd be foolish and pointless.

 

[Roman]

Is absurdity decided purely on evidence or lack of it, or is there another factor? The factor of basis, based on observation and logical inference.

Preconception is not a very valid scientific investigative method when your preconceptions are continuously shown wrong.

Ie, you presume an anthropomorphic universe, but that's because of the way your brain works; not the evidence.

You pay too much attention to your feelings.

 

[superluminal]

The problem is we can always ask "what before that?" and we have to come to a beginning somewhere

Negative. This is where the limits of your intuition and imagination are showing. There is nothing inconsistent with the universe existing without origin. It's more problematic to postulate a "beginning" because it begs the question of what or how it was created, which assumes a "before".

No, the universe just is. No beginning, no end, just ever changing states. Anything else is a logically contradictory view. Unless you think that "nothingness" spawned the universe? From what? If it was something, then what spawned that? Ad infinitum...

 

[Roman]

Norse, your argument is not about reason- it's about justifying your feelings. That's all it is.

 

[Norsefire]

Preconception is not a very valid scientific investigative method when your preconceptions are continuously shown wrong.

How are they shown "wrong"? We don't have a clue how the universe originated, so why dismiss the possibilities? Especially when they are viable?

Negative. This is where the limits of your intuition and imagination are showing. There is nothing inconsistent with the universe existing without origin. It's more problematic to postulate a "beginning" because it begs the question of what or how it was created, which assumes a "before".

If it "always was", we can continuously go back in time, and therefore there had to have been a time before that and before that, at any points in time we choose; eventually we require origins.

Norse, your argument is not about reason- it's about justifying your feelings. That's all it is.

What feelings?

The reasoning is quite simple; either our universe was created by an intelligence or was some accident of nature. What else is there?

And if those two are the only two, why dismiss one of them out of hand for no reason when it has a very real chance of being the case?

 

[superluminal]

...eventually we require origins.

No, I disagree. This sticking point seems more to be a lack of imagination on your part than a logical impossibility. In fact, it seems like a logical requirement to me.

Again, if you find the "beginning" of the cosmos, what spawned that?

 

[Norsefire]

No, I disagree. This sticking point seems more to be a lack of imagination on your part than a logical impossibility. In fact, it seems like a logical requirement to me.

Again, if you find the "beginning" of the cosmos, what spawned that?

If we do find a beginning to the cosmos, we don't necessarily need to answer that question; remember, time might have began with OUR universe and therefore anything before might not require chronoligical order, or might have different mechanics

Regardless, I don't think our universe "always was" because we can always keep going back and back and back, and eventually we have to arrive at a point, which is the beginning. And I don't believe that our universe is the only universe.