Fluid,
Your claim that there is a god who created the universe is just one of a vast number of speculations about origins. The difference between your claims of a god and Hawking's hypothesis is that you believe your claim is true and Hawking's understands his is just a hypothesis. Your's is irrational (no evidence) and Hawking's is a logical hypothesis where there is no assumption of truth.
The potential existence of a god does not follow from the assertion of a boundless universe. Unless you maintain that Universe=God, in which case we can dispense with the redundant and meaningless term God.
Finding the beginning of time gives no evidence of how it began.
If there was no beginning then the universe has always existed, i.e. it was not created. If it wasn't created then there was no creator.
But close. If we find the beginning of time then we will have found the point at which the universe began. We can reach no conclusion about an alleged creation.
We certainly have significant evidence to strongly suspect that indeed every cause is dictated by the laws of physics. But it doesn't follow that those laws were created or defined by anything.
It doesn't follow that any such laws were defined or created by anything.
Incidentally I don't use alarm clocks.
It is an informed hypothesis that indicates that it is not necessary or inevitable to conclude that a god must exist.to quote Stephen Hawking's irrational debate about, if this, then that, really...no room for God.
Yes this is good. You understand the issue that there can be multiple speculations for any given effect. It is only when we have the proof of the cause that we can answer the question.If my coffe pot doesn't come on, the power must be cut off.
1) It could be unplugged.
2) It could be broken.
3) I could have blown a fuse.
Your claim that there is a god who created the universe is just one of a vast number of speculations about origins. The difference between your claims of a god and Hawking's hypothesis is that you believe your claim is true and Hawking's understands his is just a hypothesis. Your's is irrational (no evidence) and Hawking's is a logical hypothesis where there is no assumption of truth.
Non sequitur.If the Univere is boundless, then God must be boundless.
The potential existence of a god does not follow from the assertion of a boundless universe. Unless you maintain that Universe=God, in which case we can dispense with the redundant and meaningless term God.
I think I just said most of that. Why did you set yourself up with a nonsense statement and then argue against yourself?This statement is far more rational; even an Atheist can see the connection. There is no connection between dimensions of the physical domain of the Universe and its creator, or whether this Universe is in fact God, or not.
Non sequitur.If the Universe is infinite, its creator must also be infinite.
Non sequitur.If the Universe is finite, its creator made it so.
Non sequitur.If we find the beginning of time, we have found the time it was created. (In this case, the creator created the Universe, thereby setting forth the chain of cause and effect we now witness...initial cause of initial cause).
Finding the beginning of time gives no evidence of how it began.
Non sequitur. And false.If we find no beginning of time, its creator has always been.
If there was no beginning then the universe has always existed, i.e. it was not created. If it wasn't created then there was no creator.
Non sequitur.If we find the beginning of time, we have found the time it was created.
But close. If we find the beginning of time then we will have found the point at which the universe began. We can reach no conclusion about an alleged creation.
Non sequitur.Each and every cause and effect is dictated by the laws of Physics defined by the creator at the time of creation.
We certainly have significant evidence to strongly suspect that indeed every cause is dictated by the laws of physics. But it doesn't follow that those laws were created or defined by anything.
Non sequitur.The discovery of each new physical law defines the laws set down in the Universe by the creator.
It doesn't follow that any such laws were defined or created by anything.
This is gibberish. The definition of 'super-natural' specifically excludes everything natural. If Nature=Supernatural, then one side is redundant.Nature and the super-natural are one an the same thing, not unlike relativity, general relativity, and special relativity.
And your point was what?These laws are natural laws, but they define separate frames of reference.
Gibberish.The relavence of believing God is the Universe goes beyond the physical realm.
There is no evidence to suggest there is anything else hence it would be irrational to believe otherwise.I don't know if you believe in anything besides the physical realm, or not.
Well OK, but without any evidence for that all you have is a personal fantasy.Here is a fundamental difference between atheists and theist. I believe the Universe is a part of the consciousness of God, and me. I believe that I possess some knowledge arbitrarily, some proprietarily, and that a great deal of my creative nature is part of the consciousness of God. The reason this is so credible for me, is because I am composed of the same fabric as this Universe.
OK. It is good you understand there are many facts. But now I strongly suggest you improve your logic.Religion is a separate context of belief. I subscribe to no religion; I find them unnecessary and peculiar. I live in a world of facts.
I don't see how you could reach that conclusion from my statement. Knowing something implies the presence of facts. Believing something may or may not involve facts.So when an atheist mentions the lack of evidence for gods then the assumption here is that it is impossible to claim to know something when evidence is absent. "
>>>The reason the logic is flawed in this statement is that you assume knowing something and believing something are the same thing.
It isn't assumed, it is specifically declared in my statement.You also assume the person has no evidence for what they believe.
This depends on the type of evidence and the issue at stake. If the event can be decided by a deductive conclusion then evidence and proof is the same thing. If we are considering an inductive argument then the quantity and quality of evidence will be an issue.I make another point, that evidence for believe is much different than evidence for proof.
The expectation that an alarm will sound is based on inductive logic. Induction always assumes an element of doubt. Most things in life are based on inductive thinking, and even most of science follows these methods.When you set your alarm clock at night, I assume you expect it to go off the next morning and wake you. You have only circumstantial evidence to believe this. It could break in the middle of the night, the power could go off, or, it may not wake you up at all. You believe it will work, but you don't know it will. Yet, you function normally each day, depending completely on the alarm clock without fear. Or, do you?
Incidentally I don't use alarm clocks.
Last edited: