The existence of the universe requires a god

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 136 here:
EarthScienceguy wrote: ...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...
For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true and factual.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #51

Post by William »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:41 am [Replying to Bust Nak in post #45]
Or the universe is uncaused?
This is an interesting comment. I have been reading this proposal more and more lately by physicists. The creation of the universe would be the first uncaused event.

People accuse creation cosmology of pulling a God out of thin air. This would be nothing more than pulling a universe out of thin air. At least God is eternal. An uncaused universe is truly pop into existence from nowhere to no place. WOW!! Talk about make-believe.
To me at least, when I read "The Universe might be uncaused" it is not saying that it "popped out of nowhere" but that it has always existed.
If it has always existed, then we could explain why it is not static, in that once the process it is presently going through comes to a conclusion, it then begins another.
For this to happen, the only constant thing necessary is the Inert Field through which things then take form and function, and whatever it is which makes the vibrations which cause this to occur.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #52

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #48]
Most physicists believe in dark matter and dark energy simply because they see phenomena they cannot explain.
These are proposed as potential explanations for certain observations. For example, the speed that stars rotate around the galactic center of a spiral galaxy is much faster than the collective observable mass (due to stars, gas, dust, etc.) within the galaxy would suggest. Some form of matter not visible to our existing equipment has been proposed as a possible solution as this would provide the necessary added gravity to explain the star velocities. But as of yet it is just a hypothesis and no one knows what dark matter is or even if the hypothesis has any merit at all. That is why people are working on the problem ... to either provide support for the hypothesis or shoot it down.
It could be that we are in a gravity well at the center of the universe that sure would be a lucky thing, wouldn't it.
And what observational support is there for such an idea? Is it consistent with what we do already know about physics and the universe, galaxy distribution, etc. Or is it possibly yet another creationist attempt to explain something using made up assumptions that have no basis in reality?
Humphreys doesn't imagine any type of exotic undetectable matter, simply Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen the most abundant element in the universe and Oxygen the third most abundant element in the universe. But do you know what element should be the third according to the big bang model? Lithium. Lithium does not even make the top ten.
But he did imagine ... quite often. Like imagining the planets in our solar system started out as balls of H2O, which god then decided for no apparent reason to align all of the nuclear spins of the H atoms just so Humphreys' magnetic field "theory" would have the starting values he wanted. Not a shred of evidence to support either of these imagined events of course, and they are far deeper within the realm of pure imagination than either dark matter or dark energy. People are working on the "Li problem" ... just one example is here:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... /834/2/165
It does not sound like it to me that Creation cosmology is pulling imaginative speculations from their speculative backside.
See above.
When you see a one-world government with a leader that performs miracles and men begin to worship that is when you may want to start looking up. If you see two men in Jerusalem causing plagues on the entire world and when the entire world celebrates their death then you may want to start looking up.
Well, if either of these things happen I'll keep in mind to look upwards. Should I see a bearded man on a cloud descending my way?
Both of these would be what has expected if the earth was in a unique place in the universe. If the earth was in the gravity well at the center of the universe then the objects on the extreme outside would appear to be moving faster than they should. And the redshift observed would be caused by gravity, not motion.
But we know the earth is not in a unique place in the universe, or even our own galaxy. We are a tiny solar system located in an arm (Orion arm) of a spiral galaxy about 27,000 light years from the galactic center. Red shift is due to the Doppler effect on emission lines observed from distant galaxies. If they aren't moving towards us (blue shift) or away from us (red shift) there would be no wavelength shift in the emission lines. If the earth were at the center of the universe inside some imagined gravity well, then presumably the distant galaxies would be circling us (like a whirlpool) and not moving towards us or away from us in constant directions. The collection of red shift measurements made to date do not support any such idea ... this is another example of creation cosmologists "pulling imaginative speculations from their speculative backside."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #53

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #54

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #53]
Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.
The word axiom is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

Definition of axiom

1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference
2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

To qualify as an axiom, there must be some valid reason for its acceptance as being true, not just any random statement or claim by someone. And if an axiom can be shown NOT to be correct, it is discarded (at least in the science world) as it no longer qualifies as a basis for subsequent arguments. This is fundamentally different from religious dogma which often cannot be challenged or changed and is often given without any real supporting evidence that it is correct. It is accepted purely on faith.
So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.
Again, an axiom is not simply an "unexplained thing." There has to be some basis for it being accepted as valid that isn't simply faith or unsupported (or unexplained) claim.
Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
It depends on how valid those beliefs can be demonstated to be. Scientific theories arise from hypotheses which have been tested extensively to the point that they are accepted to be correct by the scientific community. And, importantly, anyone is allowed to challenge it and try to disprove it or falsify it, with no time limits. Compare this to religious claims ... there is no similar process in place there.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #55

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:09 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #53]
Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.
The word axiom is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

Definition of axiom

1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference
2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

To qualify as an axiom, there must be some valid reason for its acceptance as being true, not just any random statement or claim by someone. And if an axiom can be shown NOT to be correct, it is discarded (at least in the science world) as it no longer qualifies as a basis for subsequent arguments. This is fundamentally different from religious dogma which often cannot be challenged or changed and is often given without any real supporting evidence that it is correct. It is accepted purely on faith.
You wrote "there must be some valid reason for its acceptance as being true" yet none of the definitions you provided say that. They say "accepted as true" and "established rule or principle" and "widely accepted on its intrinsic merit".

None of this however alters the fact that an axiom is not the result of a logical deduction, it cannot therefore be proven to be true only believed.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:09 pm
So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.
Again, an axiom is not simply an "unexplained thing." There has to be some basis for it being accepted as valid that isn't simply faith or unsupported (or unexplained) claim.
Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
It depends on how valid those beliefs can be demonstated to be. Scientific theories arise from hypotheses which have been tested extensively to the point that they are accepted to be correct by the scientific community. And, importantly, anyone is allowed to challenge it and try to disprove it or falsify it, with no time limits. Compare this to religious claims ... there is no similar process in place there.
An axiom is an unexplained thing, the fact that one has a way to personally justify it being adopted does not alter this fact.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #56

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:31 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
Agreed.

Folks have the right to believe it's true there's a magic sky daddy, that dead folks hop up and walk away, and all manner of sense assaulting claims.

My issue is when such folks point to such goofy beliefs to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #57

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:27 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:31 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
Agreed.

Folks have the right to believe it's true there's a magic sky daddy, that dead folks hop up and walk away, and all manner of sense assaulting claims.

My issue is when such folks point to such goofy beliefs to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.
Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #58

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:35 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:27 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:31 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
Agreed.

Folks have the right to believe it's true there's a magic sky daddy, that dead folks hop up and walk away, and all manner of sense assaulting claims.

My issue is when such folks point to such goofy beliefs to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.
Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom.
Then surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #59

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:44 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:35 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:27 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:31 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?
Agreed.

Folks have the right to believe it's true there's a magic sky daddy, that dead folks hop up and walk away, and all manner of sense assaulting claims.

My issue is when such folks point to such goofy beliefs to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.
Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom.
Then surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.
Why do you care about that? what does "confirmatory" mean anyway?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #60

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:00 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:44 pmThen surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.
Why do you care about that?
Because it's fun to explore why religious people believe the things they do.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:00 pmwhat does "confirmatory" mean anyway?
Since I already had the dictionary open, here you go.

Image
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply