You claim that God does not exist, part 3

Please provide credible substantiation for that allegation.

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Swensson, et al,

This is a valid point to hold.

(COMMENT)

IF you believe, as Dr Steven Hawking believes, in that universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being → THEN the Laws of Physics (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) were sufficient. However, this does not rule out the existence of a Supreme Being (SB) / Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC).

I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible.
And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God -- an ordinary God of religion -- a consistent possibility?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Feynman Theoretical Physicist --- California Institute of Technology 2 May 1956
​

It seem these days, everyone quotes or starts-out with Feynman.

Those that believe in the SB/UCC and the Intelligent Design Theory, are entirely separate. God Powers are supernatural, beyond the understanding of Science. Angels, Demons and Seraphim (a few examples) are all supernatural beings.

The "Natural Universe" was created by the conditions set of the Initial Source of Energy; not the other way around. IF you are a believer, THEN the SB/UCC determined the nature of physical laws and the design. It does not define the creator --- the creator defines them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I don't think that's in itself a fallacy. It would be a fallacy to assume that such a creator needs to be a being or even a consistent object, but there is nothing keeping us from calling the cause (even a spontaneous cause) the "creator".

Well, I'm quite partial to the idea of a zero energy universe. The energy associated with attractive forces, like gravity, are negative (under some reasonably convincing assumptions). It is not impossible that the negative and positive energies completely cancel out. This would resolve the energy problem. It could also be resolved with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it relates time and energy as well as position and momentum. Maybe the truth has influences from both (and maybe more) principles.

Either way, we have pretty compelling evidence that the Big Bang was the source not only of matter but of space as well. That would mean that the most permanent universe you might think of is a cyclic one. Not sure if that's a direction you want to go in.

 

We probably exist in an ocean of dark matter and dark energy and are completely unaware of it. Unless the wind blows or the air is hot or cold how would know that air existed? We don't have the senses to detect dark matter and dark energy because our survival does not depend upon our ability to detect it. But simply because we can't doesn't mean that it does not exist.

And let's take this one small step further. Could the expansion of the universe be caused by stars heating dark matter and turning it into dark energy? What happens if you heat the air inside of a balloon? The increase of energy inside the balloon causes expansion. If we were sitting inside the balloon and could not detect the change in temperature of the air then the sides of the balloon would be expanding away from us in all directions in a similar way that the universe is expanding away from us in all directions.

 

The concept of a cyclical universe makes a lot of sense to me.

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Grumblenuts, et al,

Yes Sir.

(ANSWER)

REAL Scientists Who Believe in Creationism: Do They Exist?

ANSWERS in Genesis
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Well, why couldn't the Laws of Physics *be* the Ultimate Cosmic Creator? It may be that I would have to refine that statement a bit, but the idea is the same, "God" is a label we can put on anything that created the universe. I'm a bit concerned about you changing the terms to "Supreme Being", God doesn't need to be a being.

So did I, my approach stems from the Feynman algorithm.

Sure.

 

Agree (with Derideo_T). I believe we continue to create and promote "God" mainly to prop up our apparent common need for an afterlife, which is so ridiculous on its face it could never fly otherwise.

 

Yes, observation. So as things stand now is there evidence for God ? No. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

The hackneyed old argument from ignorance ploy that never works!

Extraordinary claims, such as the existence of a creator, require extraordinary evidence in order to substantiate those claims.

Not only is there a glaring absence of any extraordinary evidence there is also a conspicuous absence of even ordinary evidence.

Given that there is no kind of evidence whatsoever, not even a "goddidit" trademark anywhere in the universe, the onus remains entirely on the theists to prove their allegation.

 

So those scientists when attempting to figure out how things worked in nature just said "goddidit" and then stopped there?

 

Atheism says nothing of the sort. Science on the hand gives us the correct answer: "We don't currently know, but we will adjust our model when more evidence becomes available".

 

You come off pretty insecure. I'm agnostic which means I'm willing to admit there is no way to prove God does or does not exist. I live my life as if there is no creator because there is no proof. But your claim that you know 100% there is no God is just hubris on your part.

 

Projecting your own insecurities onto others is your problem, not mine.

Furthermore I never made the claim that you fallaciously allege that I did. The onus is entirely YOU to prove that I did but we all know that you can't because I didn't.

Finally that you cannot post without resorting to utterly spurious ad homs says volumes.

 

If a new galaxy pops up next to us tomorrow there would be one of two consequences:

1. You wouldn't be aware of it
2. You would cease to exist

 

I didn't change the definition of anything.

Your, yourself, stated that god is unchanging and present in the past, present and future eg: god has always existed. If god has always existed, that puts god into the realm of the supernatural for nothing in nature exists forever.

Nothing in the natural universe can create a natural universe. Therefore, anything that can create a natural universe is supernatural.

 

I realize that your comment was directed to Derideo_Te, but please be good enough to include me in the group that claims that I know 100% there is no God.

However, my belief is not based on arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity or superciliousness. It is based on a rational consideration of the origins of gods and of the very term "god" itself.

Is your disbelief of the Godness of Atlas, Athena, Shiva, Shango, Osiris, et al based on arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity or superciliousness? In not, then what?

 

When did I say the onus was on anyone but the theist ? I'm simply saying that you and I cannot say with certainty there is no creator to this Universe.

 

YOU made this allegation about me!

Onus is ENTIRELY ON YOU to substantiate that I ever made that claim and/or that I did so out of hubris.

What YOU believe is up to you. What I know and what I logically deduce is up to me.

Now prove your baseless allegations about me.

 

fair enough - but do you consider yourself an atheist or agnostic ?

 

I'm a little late to the thread and new to the forum, and I'm not really going to comment on any specific argument at hand other than to add my thoughts to the OP's points.

First off, swinging around wild generalizations is not helpful (especially when they are not accurate). That's like saying all people who believe in God are ignorant and short sided and have to "admit it's possible that God does exist" (which does happen in atheist circles).

Straight up - why are you out here thumping your chest if you're so confident in what you believe?

You don't have proof that god is real either. But why is it an atheist's responsibility to prove to you that god is not? Can't you make that decision yourself and be happy with it?

But let's talk about admitting god exists. I'm an atheist, though it wasn't always so. I don't believe god exists, but I'll agree it is possible. Maybe that's agnosticism. But frankly, who cares? Why does it even matter? I'm happy with my life (and I would assume you are too...).

Look, I don't feel the need to prove anything to you, nor do I feel a responsibility to validate my beliefs. You can believe what you like based on your own experience and life. Just respect my right to the same and know that as long as you do that, we're cool. We'll just disagree.

But if you want to know why I disagree with you, PM me.

 

So insecure that you constantly strive for self justification by "failing" to understand anything that opposes your made up view.

Pififul.

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ ecco, et al,

Yes, this is almost a sound and valid philosophical view (theology), this is known as:

Immutable - beyond the understanding of science -

By nature, God is absolutely unchanging. For this reason, the attributes He possessed before the creation of the world are the same ones He has today. Psalm 90:2 says that before anything was created God was eternal and existed in the same state that He is in now. Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.”
Copied from and Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-awesome-attributes-of-god/#ixzz4i0pXe1gB​

(COMMENT)

We are in the right book if not on the right page. This is a more elegant way of making the same point I tried (evidently unsuccessfully) in My Page 10 Posting #193. The natural Laws, which govern the universe, are not laws that govern the creator. The laws are a product of the creators hand. IF you believe in the SB/UCC, THEN you believe in the supernatural.

∴ IF the initial original source of the first energy were created and set such - in a time BEFORE the creation of hydrogen necessary for the first stars - that the conditions allowed for the natural development towards our universe today (including all the laws of science we have today), THEN that original source of the first energy could represent the Supreme Being (SB) / Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC). THUS≜ the SB/UCC created the laws (in a time before laws) by which the universe follows. The SB/UCC does not follow nature, is not part of nature, but is a creation of the universe. The natural laws, as we describe them today, are merely observations and a language by which the laws are recorded. The SB/UCC represents a supernatural power (a manifestation of the forces beyond scientific understanding of the laws of nature) beyond the understanding of science.

Again, I'm agnostic. I do not necessarily subscribe to the theory (or any particular scripture or religion) behind St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. But it would be foolish of me not to have a basic understanding.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

If the universe is expanding away from us in all directions that means that we are the center of the universe. That's an old idea but it isn't true.

And if the universe is expanding away fro us why so so many galaxies keep running into us? In about 4 billion years we will join with the larger Andromeda Galaxy. Right now we are absorbing several smaller galaxies. And as a matter of fact, our solar system is actually part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy tht is being gobbled up by the Milky Way Galaxy.

 

I seriously do not. To be fair, it is common that I misconstrue an argument in order to get those who have made them to phrase them more exactly. I don't think this is such an occasion, but whether it is or isn't, the solution is to state it clearly. I'm still not sure what aspect of my argument you think ignores others' opinions.