if not God then who/what?

First of all there is absolutely nothing that would scientifically lead us to assume because a Universe exists therefor a GOD exists.

Secondly you can't say a individual who states the above is ignorant in any fashion and any individual who might state there is no evidence whatsoever that would either prove a GOD exists or even lead us to believe a GOD might exist.

When it comes down to it belief in a GOD is about Faith because one must believe in something that cannot be proven to exist.

AboveAlpha

 

So is the position that "We don't know, therefore God does not exist." people for whom science is their religion are as idiotic on the subject as Christians who claim dinosaurs never existed. That there is no proof for something does not mean that something does not exist. If that were the case, there would be no need to ever explore anything or ever have to have a new edition of a science textbook.

 

The issue is NOT if a GOD exists or not.

The issue is that those who so eagerly and adamantly state those who do not believe in a GOD or those who are Agnostic are ignorant or stupid for not believing in a GOD....cannot provide a single solitary shed of evidence to support or prove their claim.

AboveAlpha

 

There was a time when there wasn't a single solitary piece of evidence for the God particle, and now there is. It is stupid and unscientific to rule out that which you have no evidence for or against when even your theoretical basis for the universe relies on the unknown and currently unprovable because of mathematical regression that has an obvious flaw in it based on all that is currently known about math and matter.

 

OK...now YOU are showing a great deal of ignorance.

Just to let you know Particle Physicists did not even start looking for that particle/wave form until Quantum Physics specific mathematical calculations showed such a Particle/Wave Form should exist....and it did.

Also just to let you know it's name wasn't the GOD PARTICLE....it was called the *******N PARTICLE as it proved so elusive to be found and when a Physicist attempted to publish a book about it...the Publisher refused to publish the book until the particle was changed in name into the GOD PARTICLE as the Publisher knew such a title and book would not only be sold to those interested in or who were science or scientists...but all those Religious People who so desperately sought to find ANYTHING that could be used as Scientific Proof of the existence of a GOD did indeed flock to stores to buy this GOD PARTICLE BOOK.

As such religious people were just as ignorant about the reality of the Particle/Wave Form as you are.

AboveAlpha

 

So its then stupid and unscientific to rule out the possibility that God is The Flying Spaghetti Monster even though we have no evidence to prove that the noodly one exists? Are you open to the possibility that God is the FSM?

IMO its ignorance that allows some to think that science can prove the existence of a theological intangible.

 

No, that is not the position, and no such claim was made. A lack of proof may not prove that something imagined does not exist, but without proof of existence then everything imaginable exists, which is obviously not the case

 

To look scientifically at the possibility a GOD exists and do this properly we would have to look at and examine any existing physical or mathematical evidence of a GOD existing and as well read any claims of a GOD existing.

Since there does not exist and Physical or Mathematical evidence we are left with reading the claims.

After reading the claims and as well not being able to use such claims to find any physical or mathematical evidence we could then look at PROBABILITY.

When we come to Probability we find that although it is a FACT that there does not exist ZERO PROBABILITY that a GOD exists....the actual existing Probability a GOD exists is upon the same level as your. Flying Spaghetti Monster existing.

Thus any Scientist worth his salt is most likely an AGNOSTIC....but since the probability for a GOD existing is so low I can see why many people are Atheists.

I suppose the ONLY WAY many people are going to believe in a GOD existing would be the day such a GOD comes down and talks to people but even at that point how do we know such GOD is really just not some Advanced Alien Being?

We wouldn't know until we did some tests...and even then perhaps 100% Proof could not be achieved.

AboveAlpha...I would like Cheese on those Meatballs!

 

No, that's not true.

No sane person would make up fairy tales about how it was made.

There is no idiocy in saying, "I don't know".

The only idiocy is having no proof and saying, "I know".

 

Not sure why you wrote that in response to my post.

I'm not saying anyone is ignorant in general. I'm talking about something very specific. The definition of ignorance is "lacking knowledge." Therefore, if you lack knowledge of something, then you are ignorant of that thing. We all lack knowledge of what created the universe, if it was created. You, me, the OP, we are all ignorant of what created the universe (if it was created). There's no shame in admitting ignorance.

 

You are describing a position and individual that are not represented by anyone in this thread. No has said "we don't know, therefore God does not exist." Similarly, no one here treats science like a religion.

 

Well...here is the thing....by saying...what CREATED the Universe...you are ASSUMING without any evidence that the Universe was CREATED.

Most likely the Universe EVOLVED via Quantum Evolution.

You are also making the assumption that UNIVERSAL NON-EXISTENCE is possible.

It maybe very much a REALITY that Non-Existence is impossible.

You also assume that there must exist a beginning and an end as you perceive TIME in a linear fashion and in reality TIME is Concurrent not Linear....so because you assume that time has a beginning and an end you also assume that what exists must have had a beginning and an end when Universal Reality is most likely part of a Cyclical Multiversal System...as this is what the evidence is pointing to from Quantum Mechanics.

Thus you are ASSUMING A LOT!!

You don't really know these thing you assume exist.

And the evidence we have points toward them not existing.

AboveAlpha

 

No, I qualified every comment about a creator of the universe with "if it was created," or something similar. I mentioned a couple of times that we don't know if it was or wasn't created. You appear to have made a bunch of assumptions about my position without even really reading my posts.

 

I guess you don't understand.

There does not exist one shred of evidence that would point toward a CREATED UNIVERSE.

The ONLY reason you or anyone else even mentions this is because you and others have this creation concept ingrained into your head because of Religion.

AboveAlpha

 

There you go, making more assumptions. I don't have a "creation concept." I wasn't raised religious. I'm an atheist. I don't claim anything about the origin of the universe, created or otherwise. You're reading something in my posts that isn't there. I only mention it because it's part of the basis of the OP.

 

That doesn't matter as whether your an Atheist or not does not change the fact that you have put forth the proposition that IF the Universe is created those claiming the Universe was not created would be ignorant.

Now logically that would be true under your parameters but those parameters that a Universe could possibly be created would NEVER even exist if Religion had not said it did.

Basically it is like a person saying...we don't know if a giant 300 foot tall purple elephant lives behind that building I am pointing at!!! And thus IF that giant elephant did exist everyone who thought it didn't would be ignorant.

Now we can't see behind the building at the moment but a person told this KNOWS what the basic laws of the natural world will allow and 300 foot tall elephants don't exist in that category.

Now if a person was to say 100 years ago that GIANT SQUID AS BIG AS A BOAT lived in the Ocean....they might not have the proof but they basically knew since other large and giant aquatic animals existed that there was a POSSIBILITY such a squid existed.

Thus whether or not such a squid did exist...and it does....anyone that said it was totally IMPOSSIBLE would be the one IGNORANT of the possibilities.

AboveAlpha

 

You're mistaken about religion being solely responsible for the idea of a created universe. There are atheists, such as Brian Greene, who have suggested non-spiritual creation origins, like that the universe could be a computer simulation that we are a part of. Religion and superstition may have originated the idea of a created universe, but there are perfectly rational ideas for a created universe as well.

In your analogies, the people who are without knowledge of the particular events are ignorant of them, whether their claims are correct or not. Yes, someone claiming a giant squid could not possibly exist would be ignorant. But someone who had no knowledge or evidence of a giant squid, yet claimed that it existed, would be similarly ignorant. What is or is not true does not determine ignorance. What an individual knows determines what he/she is ignorant of.

None of us know if the universe was created or not. We are ignorant of where it came from.

 

Yeah..Brian Greene is a MORON...either that or he is smart like a Fox as he might be attempting to sell books! LOL!!!

I am getting a headache just trying to keep up with our current debate so I will just agree that we both understand the issue.

I hold multiple degrees and one of them is specific to Particle Physics so many times I get some member posting the most idiotic thing I have ever read and what is worse such a thing just happened again on another topic here as they actually posted to me that for people to say GOD did not exists was ignorant or they used another word because scientists didn't know whether a GOD PARTICLE existed yet they look for it and found it and that the GOD PARTICLE is all the evidence this person needed to prove GOD...or something like that.

I posted back as told them that the GOD Particle was first calculated to exist mathematically as the math and science TOLD US that such a particle existed and that this was different to this supposed SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE this member was crazily presenting saying that the GOD Particle was evidence and proof of GOD.

I admit I almost hate to tell Religious People that the GOD Particle was at first named before it was found the *******N PARTICLE as because it proved so elusive for so many years to find many a physicist would say...*******N PARTICLE!!! LOL!!!

Then I explained to this member the REASON why the name was changed to GOD Particle was because the Physicist that searched for it and named it was told by his Publisher the book he wrote called the *******N PARTICLE would NOT be Published unless he changed the name to the GOD PARTICLE as the Publisher knew if it was not changed they would have all sorts of issues to deal with as well they knew that if it was called the GOP Particle not only would science specific people buy it but as well a large number of Religious People would buy it...AND BUT IT THEY DID!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Which one?

 

The problem is God doesn't solve this problem to a degree better than the universe itself. Either he would have had to be created, or be eternal. The question still remains: why something at all, eternal or not, than nothing? In addition, we can talk about up and down because we're referencing a significant force - Earth's gravitational pull. It's completely possible that the same is true with respect to the flow of time and the big bang.

There's no way of knowing if the universe is eternal or not because plasma prevents us from detecting anything close to the big bang. In addition, there's no way of knowing if the universe we reside in is all there is.

[hr][/hr]

And that's really my point - we're all playing with questions nobody has the answer to. In any case, the universe as seen with our current knowledge does not imply a creator.

 

You shouldn't be so down on yourself. The PhD in the OT made some good points, you made none.

reva

 

PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>;

I wouldn’t say that. Ever hear this? ;

“The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.
Source: "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought”.


reva

 

Correlation does not imply causation. Everything with a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence does not prove that it was a God who is the cause. Here we see where reason ends and a leap of faith is required to make the correlation.

 

Those who have an emotional or political need to believe in a divine creation will continue to believe in creationist theories in order to satisfy those needs. Without them, they lose their identity.

It's much like the climate change issue. Except that the identity being threatened belongs to the fossil energy industry and is driven by a business need.

 

You had me until the last line. Either something can appear from nothing or not. Everything i have read says not. The universe simply did not appear out of nowhere.

- - - Updated - - -

The one with the capital G.