Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[austin12345]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

[austin12345]

[Replying to post 57 by playhavock]

The fact that you say no tests isnt a problem becasue we arent dealing with a physical tangible being that we would assume could be tested even if we grantthat he exists. Also absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence. But I dont agree with that. There are many convincing arguements for God existence that have been used on this site and elsewere that give good scientific and philosophical ground for believing in God. There are many logical arguement for it as you should well know that a perfectly sound. Kalam for example. It is logical in the sence that P imlies Q. P, therefore Q. Perfectly logical argument so if the premesis themeselves stand then so does the argument.

[southern cross]

[Replying to post 57 by playhavock]

The fact that you say no tests isnt a problem becasue we arent dealing with a physical tangible being that we would assume could be tested even if we grantthat he exists. Also absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence. But I dont agree with that. There are many convincing arguements for God existence that have been used on this site and elsewere that give good scientific and philosophical ground for believing in God. There are many logical arguement for it as you should well know that a perfectly sound. Kalam for example. It is logical in the sence that P imlies Q. P, therefore Q. Perfectly logical argument so if the premesis themeselves stand then so does the argument.

No tests possible because the subject is not testable. Good scientific grounds for believing in god. I wonder could you just run that by me again?

[austin12345]

you cant scientifically test the untestable thats all I am saying. There is evidence in other ways such as his interaction in mankind or arguments but you cant put God in a test tube.

[southern cross]

you cant scientifically test the untestable thats all I am saying. There is evidence in other ways such as his interaction in mankind or arguments but you cant put God in a test tube.

Yes I already said that, what I need from you now is the good scientific grounds you claim exist.

[TheJoshAbideth]

you cant scientifically test the untestable thats all I am saying. There is evidence in other ways such as his interaction in mankind or arguments but you cant put God in a test tube.

If there was empirical evidence - it would be testable now wouldn't it? The best you and any other theist can conjure up is a boat load of circumstantial evidence that does nothing except show that there may be unexplainable situations where God can be posited as only one possible explanation for the occurrence.

What I'm curious about is how you can use these precious faculties of logic and reason to guide every other aspect of your life - but when it comes to GOD and the ookey spookey you seem to have no problem jumping in head first with naught but a thread of actual reason or logic to support it. I know... it just takes faith - spare me. Faith is the greatest excuse their ever was to protect and propagate the biggest lie ever extracted from the bowels of Human Kind.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

That law is dependent upon the existing universe as it is. Science itself asserts that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago in the event known as the big bang literally out of nothing. As Alexander Vilenkin said himeslef all other theories have fallen short of demining an actualy beginning of the universe.

Therefore matter energy etc did come into existence.

That law is dependent upon the existing universe as it is. Science itself asserts that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago in the event known as the big bang literally out of nothing.

Therefore matter energy etc did come into existence.

The observable universe came into existence approx. 13.4/.7 billion years ago according to current consensus. Did time exist prior to 13.4/.7 billion years ago? Time is relative to the position of the person who is experiencing it, so yes, the existence of time prior to the big bang is perfectly possible. All experimentation with energy demonstrates that it can neither be created or destroyed. That suggests at least, that it did not suddenly pop into existence. Right now the big bang represents the earliest event we are aware of. This limit to our knowledge does not establish that nothing preceded the big bang. It establishes that there is a limit to our knowledge.

Another way of looking at this is to consider the black hole. A black hole occurs when enough matter (several times the mass of our sun) is crushed down to a condition where spacetime is deformed to the point that even light cannot escape, and all of the material in the black hole becomes a single point. This condition is known as the singularity. A huge amount of energy, the mass of many suns, simply disappears from our plane of existence. The question remains however; WHERE DID THIS ENERGY GO?" We know it still exists, because it left it's gravity behind. The answer seems to be, somewhere else. The observable universe was formed when a great singularity exploded into our expanding universe. Where did this energy come from? The obvious conclusion is, FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[austin12345]

Time though cannot be eternal. The concensus seems to be that time came into existence when the universe came into being. But why cant it be? To say time is eternal is a self defeating argument. If time is eternal than we can never get to this point in time. We cannot traverse infinites and besides there would always be more we would have to travel. Pick any point in teh past and it is the same situation. We could never get to it because there would be an infinite amount of time before that as well. So infact no time would exist because we would never get to any time.

But time does exist therefore it cant be eternal.

Nevertheless this cosmic singularity isnt as you necessarily described. It is a state with infinite density and mass. Its odd that you bring it up because this just shows that the universe began to exist and that it has a cause which are the 2 premesis to the Kalam. Many atheist stray away because they dont want to leave a singularity in their reasoning. As Im sure you have heard that infinites dont exist in the real world. This singularity implies nothing since infinits dont exist. Infine density would continue on till nothingness. (Hard to word on a computer sorry)

In regards to a black hole I have never heard that before. With all respect and kindness not asking you to prove yourself I would like to read alittle more about that if you know any places because I have never heard of a black hole as a singularity.

At face value the black hole couldnt be a singularity because you still have the black hole. It would just trap all the other elements but would itself not be infinitly dense on its outskirts. Also nothing would be able to leave the black hole unless a more powerful being got it out. That would have to be God.

[southern cross]

Time though cannot be eternal. The concensus seems to be that time came into existence when the universe came into being. But why cant it be? To say time is eternal is a self defeating argument. If time is eternal than we can never get to this point in time. We cannot traverse infinites and besides there would always be more we would have to travel. Pick any point in teh past and it is the same situation. We could never get to it because there would be an infinite amount of time before that as well. So infact no time would exist because we would never get to any time.

But time does exist therefore it cant be eternal.

Nevertheless this cosmic singularity isnt as you necessarily described. It is a state with infinite density and mass. Its odd that you bring it up because this just shows that the universe began to exist and that it has a cause which are the 2 premesis to the Kalam. Many atheist stray away because they dont want to leave a singularity in their reasoning. As Im sure you have heard that infinites dont exist in the real world. This singularity implies nothing since infinits dont exist. Infine density would continue on till nothingness. (Hard to word on a computer sorry)

In regards to a black hole I have never heard that before. With all respect and kindness not asking you to prove yourself I would like to read alittle more about that if you know any places because I have never heard of a black hole as a singularity.

At face value the black hole couldnt be a singularity because you still have the black hole. It would just trap all the other elements but would itself not be infinitly dense on its outskirts. Also nothing would be able to leave the black hole unless a more powerful being got it out. That would have to be God.

The big bang proves that the universe began, god is the only possible cause of the big bang which originated from a singularity that could not exist and thus disproves the big bang theory. Because we know the big bang occurred, even though the singularity from which it came didn't exist means goddidit. Have I got that right?

[Mithrae]

That's logically absurd. [strike]There[/strike] If there were an infinite sequence of past causes and effects now, what would the past sequence of causes and effects have been 13 billion years ago?

The sequence of past causes and effects 13 billion years ago would still be infinite, just as minus 13 billion from the infinite still equals the infinite. That's that way infinite works. The concept of infinite is an inherently logically absurd concept for finite beings to wrap their minds around.

I think that gives us good reason to be rather dubious of proposing it to be the case - logical absurdity might not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it very questionable. (I imagine you're familiar with the distinction between potential and actual infinites.)

You objected to the idea of 'God' based on the creation of energy. But even assuming you can validly apply thermodynamics on such a quasi-metaphysical scale, as Olav and Divine Insight have questioned, I'm still not seeing your problem.

Here at least we are in agreement because I'm not seeing my problem either.

The word 'creation' bugs you, obviously - fair enough. So you could change it to "In the beginning God formed from his capacity to do work the types of energy known to us as the heavens and the earth." It loses a little of its flair, to be sure, but where's the problem?

It's not creation that bothers me so much. It's the concept of some sort of a discreet beginning where once nothing existed. No such phenomenon is ever observed to occur, and assuming that such a beginning MUST occur at some point risks doing that old assume thing to you and me, since it absolutely flies in the face of all observation.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on all that you've written. In particular, that in the area of this kind of cosmological reasoning neither metaphysical theism nor (in my view similarly metaphysical) theoretical physics has any particular edge. Even if multiverse hypotheses or the like could ever be confirmed, it would just make reality a lot bigger - and consequently 'god' would probably become a lot bigger also - and we'd be wondering about the hows and whys and before-thats of this new model.

--------

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist,

Well so far we have several....I guess that answers you question.

next please....

Have we? Nickman, Divine Insight and Playhavoc (and I daresay myself also) have offered good reasons to believe that some features of specific poly- and mono-theistic models are inaccurate or false: Zeus doesn't hurl lightning bolts, Yahweh didn't create the world in six days, there is no benevolent deity waiting to torture folk for all eternity because they don't believe in him (though there may be a vicious one), and so on.

Unless I've missed or forgotten something, the only people to have argued against theism generally are yourself and Tired of the Nonsense, and I'm assuming your counter-ontological argument was not intended to be taken particularly seriously.

Other than that, a lot of people have posted their feelings that theists' philosophical wordplay and reports of miracles or divine revelation are not good enough evidence for them... therefore god does not exist? Obviously that's not an argument that god doesn't exist, just an explanation of why they personally do not feel compelled to believe, anymore than they'd feel compelled to believe that I own a cat.

And if I read him correctly, Tired of the Nonsense's argument in post 60 boils down to the good and reasonable point that we don't (and possibly can't) really know what existed prior to the big bang. It is not an argument that there was no 'god' there.

In short, I don't think there has yet been any case made that an intelligent or conscious creator or 'ultimate nature' of reality does not exist - and nor has any case been made for a model or theory which excludes god in a monotheistic or panentheistic sense.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Time though cannot be eternal. The concensus seems to be that time came into existence when the universe came into being.

The consensus is that time in the observable universe came into being when the observable universe came into being. There is no consensus about what occurs outside of the observable universe at all. It is clear however, and has been proven, that time in the observable universe is relative to the speed and relationship to gravity of the observer. Even in the observable universe you see, we find that time is variable from observer to observer.

But why cant it be? To say time is eternal is a self defeating argument. If time is eternal than we can never get to this point in time. We cannot traverse infinites and besides there would always be more we would have to travel. Pick any point in teh past and it is the same situation. We could never get to it because there would be an infinite amount of time before that as well. So infact no time would exist because we would never get to any time.

If time is eternal, then one is at whatever point in time they happen to be at. And we know for a fact that time travel into the future is possible. Returning to the past however, presents a problem. The real question is, does time loop back onto itself, going round and round without beginning or end? Does the data change within the infinite loop, or is the data fixed? Or is some other phenomenon involved? And just what might THAT be? Questions as big as this deserve more than a declaration of fact and assumption. In all honestly however, the entire quest for knowledge deserves a break from fact by declaration and assumption.

But time does exist therefore it cant be eternal.

Is it your position that God is not eternal? Has He not existed eternally? Time is simply change. What was God doing before He created the observable universe? Doesn't that count as time? If God is not eternal then there must have been a "time" before God existed. Just what was THAT like?

Nevertheless this cosmic singularity isnt as you necessarily described. It is a state with infinite density and mass. Its odd that you bring it up because this just shows that the universe began to exist and that it has a cause which are the 2 premesis to the Kalam. Many atheist stray away because they dont want to leave a singularity in their reasoning. As Im sure you have heard that infinites dont exist in the real world. This singularity implies nothing since infinits dont exist. Infine density would continue on till nothingness. (Hard to word on a computer sorry)

Apparently God is NOT infinite. Yes, you're clearly choking on your own explanations, aren't you! Infinite density means that matter/energy is compressed to the point that no space exists. Mighty small, but still existent. I described the singularity as a single point event. That is in fact why it is called a singularity.

In regards to a black hole I have never heard that before. With all respect and kindness not asking you to prove yourself I would like to read alittle more about that if you know any places because I have never heard of a black hole as a singularity.

Black hole
Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity
At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[54] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[55] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[56] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

At face value the black hole couldnt be a singularity because you still have the black hole. It would just trap all the other elements but would itself not be infinitly dense on its outskirts. Also nothing would be able to leave the black hole unless a more powerful being got it out. That would have to be God.

A black hole will eventually evaporate back out the way it came, according to Stephen Hawking. Will the universe eventually evaporate back out the way it came? Does that mean that time runs backward at some point? We should only live so long to find out.

Your premise on this string was a challenge to show scientifically that God doesn't exist. When provided with the material you requested, your response has been that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, time cannot be eternal, and infinity cannot possibly be infinite. Such lofty decrees negating all of modern physics! Science cannot be right because it is fundamentally wrong, by your decree. I'm surprised that we even managed to have this conversation, seeing how scientifically improbable all of our modern scientific technology is.