The existence of the universe requires a god

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 136 here:

...
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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #39]

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

What are you suggesting?
An eternal universe?
Static universe?
Multiverse?

Exactly my point. There is some observational and theoretical support for a hypothesis like the Big Bang, whereas there is nothing of the sort for the hypothesis that a god being created the universe (or exists at all).

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like the Big Bang theory? (like energy coming from nowhere or someplace that is impossible to observe, and that the laws of this universe have some sort of reason for existing, and that the universe created a material universe instead of random energy inside a Boltzmann Brain)

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like a Creator God created the universe. (like the universe started out like water and that God can exist outside of space and time.)

Which theory has made accurate predictions about the universe in which we live?

The evolution of Galaxies.

BB theory predicts that the farther we look out into the universe we should observe more ellipticals galaxies that are evolving into spiral galaxies and then irregular galaxies, or at least that was the original prediction. But now it seems that there is no evidence of Galaxy evolution.

Normal Galaxy Evolution Astronomers decades ago proposed an evolutionary progression among normal galaxies, starting with the near-spherical ellipticals that gradually became squashed ellipticals, eventually changing into closed spirals, followed by open spirals, and finally culminating in irregular galaxies. Figure 2.19 schematically illustrates this evolutionary scheme, whose central idea is that galaxies originate with a more or less spherical shape and, as they grow older, their rotation tends to flatten them, first producing some ellipticity and then some spiral arms, prior to their breaking up as aged irregular galaxies. However, therein lies a problem: This type of evolutionary notion requires all elliptical galaxies to be young and all irregular galaxies old—which isn’t the case at all. Observationally, elliptical galaxies are not young. They are populated with only old stars, nearly depleted of interstellar gas and dust, and display no evidence of active star formation.

FIGURE 2.19 FIGURE 2.19 — This idea for an evolutionary connection between elliptical, spiral, and irregular galaxies, sometimes known as “Hubble’s fork diagram, is now known to be incorrect. ”
On the other hand, given that the elliptical galaxies are so clearly old, then perhaps the evolutionary sequence runs in the opposite sense. Maybe irregulars are young and, having formed first, gradually evolve into ellipticals. It’s easy to imagine loose spiral galaxies wrapping up into tighter spirals and eventually becoming elliptical galaxies. But troubles abound here, too. Apart from the obvious puzzle of how beautiful spirals might have emerged from the contorted irregulars, it’s hard to reconcile this idea with the abundance of old stars observed in the irregular and loose-spiral galaxies. Simply put: If irregular and loose-spiral galaxies are the starting point in a scheme of galactic evolution, then all of them should be young. But they’re not. Virtually all irregulars and spirals contain a mix of old and new stars. The existence of old stars is inconsistent with the nature of a youthful galaxy. The fact that astronomers know of no “dead galaxies” doesn’t help our understanding either.https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisso ... gal_7.html

But this is exactly what the Creation cosmology would predict.

What? How is that even a logical statement (to steal your phrase)? The TOR (Special or General) says nothing about free will or creator gods.

If the past present and future all exist which is a conclusion arrived at because of relativity. Then the Block Universe theory states that the future has already ready happen and in the books because of the causality string that started the universe. You and I only exist as a string of causalities.

I would say that does not leave much room for free will.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Nope. Rather it is information which is then processed decoded understood. Otherwise you are arguing that it is not information until it is made into [created into] information.

Rather, the information of the various elementals [light and vibration] is that which creates...and created lifeforms on this planet which then were able to process said information and indeed - are still processing that information.

But it has always been information... In Formation.

Information theory states that information is subject to entropy over time. In that case, the only way that information can be useful information is by organizing energy. Like children are asked to clean their rooms they are reversing the effects of entropy in their room. The goal is to have them always inputting energy into their room to keep it organized and usable.

So information becomes unusable over time so what energy is keeping your information usable?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #41]

So the universe is the information it is conveying?

Yes. That is correct.

How does such a definition help in any way to understand what "information" actually is?

As I wrote;

The "word" I N F O R M A T I O N is a sound which is then made into a symbolset, and as such the word "information" describes itself only as "Information" but not what the information is about.

Understanding information which is not understood, requires breaking down the information into bytes - remembering always to understand that the bytes are simple parts of the whole information. One is simply trying to understand what the information points to.

It suggests that virtually everything in the universe is information,

Yes.

making the meaning of the word ambiguous.

No. it means;
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"
2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.

The universe is not ALL the information, but what information that it is, points to something else [which is ambiguous apart from what it created - something can be seen of it through observing what was created through that process]
Some information can seem to be ambiguous

not clear or decided.

open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.

So no. The whole Universe, gives clear indication that it is a field of something I would describe as 'One Thing' which has been disturbed by something which cause vibrations and from those vibrations, [sound] - light and consolidation of particles.

The process obviously splits the field into arrangements of particles which build upon each other and bring about forms.

I think your definition for the word information may be too loose to be useful when it comes to quantifying nature.

Really? Yet I have no problem describing what it is that I observe through the information...you have yet to critique that information. Was it too ambiguous for you?

[Bust Nak]

How can a being not know everything if He is omnipresent?

Maybe the being has no sensory capacity to experience the location he is present at? Or lacks the mental capacity to process any experience into knowledge?

If He is at every point in space and at every moment in space from eternity past to eternity future all at the same time He has to know everything.

Can you tell me how being omnipresent helps a God know the 150th digit of the square root of 2?

But Infinity - infinity is 0.

Infinity - infinity is undefined.

God has to be infinite to create this universe. God exists in the present tense from infinity past to infinity future.

Why couldn't God be annihilated at the point of creation, even if we grant you the premise that God has to exist in the infinite past to create the universe?

You may not like the idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God but it is not illogical, for the Creator God to exist He has to have these qualities.

At best you've argued that omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient is consistent. You haven't even begun to argue that a creator god has to have these qualities, let alone that this universe requires such a god.

Therefore something has to be eternal. Since we exist something has to have always had to exist something had to be the first cause of everything.

Why not infinite regression?

If the universe had a beginning then something had to cause the existence of the universe. Unless you believe in some sort of static universe theory.

Or the universe is uncaused?

Either way there seems to be alternatives to your preferred scenario of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God creating the universe. So how would you go about ruling these alternatives out to maintain your claim that it has to be God?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #42]

What are you suggesting?
An eternal universe?
Static universe?
Multiverse?

I'm not suggesting any of these, but rather that we don't yet know the exact mechanism for how this universe came into existence so we cannot draw any definite conclusions as to the mechanism. You're postulating a creator god being because the question is unsettled and so the door is open for that hypothesis, and others. Research continues to try and find answers, but to my knowledge the evidence for a creator god remains nil, although that option is still on the table as it has also not been proven to be false. Us humans may never know the answer, but we're trying.

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like the Big Bang theory? (like energy coming from nowhere or someplace that is impossible to observe, and that the laws of this universe have some sort of reason for existing, and that the universe created a material universe instead of random energy inside a Boltzmann Brain).

You're talking about what caused the "Big Bang" event (if that proves to be correct one day), not the event itself. This event is postulated from observations that the universe is currently expanding (redshift measurements), the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of chemical elements (including H, He and Li), and others. But the math breaks down (singularity) at t=0, inflation is proposed but not proven, and other problems that keep the event is a hypothesis and not a theory (except for the TV sitcom). But at least there is some observational support for such an event ... it is not simply pulled from thin air like creator god explanations.

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like a Creator God created the universe. (like the universe started out like water and that God can exist outside of space and time.)

And these are assumptions without any evidence to support them. Looking at the universe today it sure doesn't appear that it "started out like water" (although I'm not sure what that means), and if you make up a god being you are free to assign any characteristics to it that you like. The sky's the limit in the world of fiction, restricted only by your imagination.

Which theory has made accurate predictions about the universe in which we live?

Modern physics, by far. For just one example, look at all the confirmations of General Relativity over the last 100 years. Compare that to how many predictions of the second coming of Jesus have turned out to be correct. No contest.

But this is exactly what the Creation cosmology would predict.

Creation cosmology? Making up stuff to describe something after it has already been observed is easy. How does "creation cosmology" explain why stars near the edges of galaxies rotate much faster than they should based on the known mass of stars in the galaxy, or why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Nope. Rather it is information which is then processed decoded understood. Otherwise you are arguing that it is not information until it is made into [created into] information.

Rather, the information of the various elementals [light and vibration] is that which creates...and created lifeforms on this planet which then were able to process said information and indeed - are still processing that information.

But it has always been information... In Formation.

Information theory states that information is subject to entropy over time. In that case, the only way that information can be useful information is by organizing energy. Like children are asked to clean their rooms they are reversing the effects of entropy in their room. The goal is to have them always inputting energy into their room to keep it organized and usable.

So information becomes unusable over time so what energy is keeping your information usable?

We are still in the embrionic stage of the universe's unfolding. Therefore we cannot categorically assume that it will all fade away.

The deciding factor which will determine the outcome is consciouness itself.

Given that entropy is a constant we are still describing a fairly unimaginable amount of time for the universe to resort to its original state of being the inert field that it once was and between those states something amazing happens.

As such, any consciousness which survives that would have progressed so much as to be indistinguishable from that of a God knowing everything which can be known through the information available and subsequently uncovered and understood.

As such, said consciousness might well discover how to survive any entropy of the physical nature.

Thus saving itself as an Entity...non physical...

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #46]

I'm not suggesting any of these, but rather that we don't yet know the exact mechanism for how this universe came into existence so we cannot draw any definite conclusions as to the mechanism. You're postulating a creator god being because the question is unsettled and so the door is open for that hypothesis, and others. Research continues to try and find answers, but to my knowledge the evidence for a creator god remains nil, although that option is still on the table as it has also not been proven to be false. Us humans may never know the answer, but we're trying.

Most physicists believe in dark matter and dark energy simply because they see phenomena they cannot explain. Like a redshift that indicates the universe is accelerating because dark energy is 120 orders of magnitude different than what was predicted. But there is also another reason that could give a redshift without the need to break the laws of physics without the need for dark energy. 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.

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like the Big Bang theory? (like energy coming from nowhere or someplace that is impossible to observe, and that the laws of this universe have some sort of reason for existing, and that the universe created a material universe instead of random energy inside a Boltzmann Brain).
You're talking about what caused the "Big Bang" event (if that proves to be correct one day), not the event itself. This event is postulated from observations that the universe is currently expanding (redshift measurements), the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of chemical elements (including H, He and Li), and others. But the math breaks down (singularity) at t=0, inflation is proposed but not proven, and other problems that keep the event is a hypothesis and not a theory (except for the TV sitcom). But at least there is some observational support for such an event ... it is not simply pulled from thin air like creator god explanations.

As I have said before, I believe there is something about the basic structure of the universe that we have not yet discovered. Like for example, we know that matter bends space-time but we do not know why matter bends spacetime. I also believe that the whole book on light has yet to be written. All cosmological theories have trouble with the travel time of light.

The problem you mentioned above are not problems that atheistic cosmology has to solve although the distribution of Li is a problem for the BB hypothesis along with the smoothness of the CBR. But those can be solved by mathematical fabrications like inflation theory. But some of the major problems are free will and the creation of a material universe.

There are basic assumptions that have to be made for a hypothesis like a Creator God created the universe. (like the universe started out like water and that God can exist outside of space and time.)
And these are assumptions without any evidence to support them. Looking at the universe today it sure doesn't appear that it "started out like water" (although I'm not sure what that means), and if you make up a god being you are free to assign any characteristics to it that you like. The sky's the limit in the world of fiction, restricted only by your imagination.

Dark matter and Dark energy are quite imaginative. Unquantifiable energy and matter. mmm!

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.

It does not sound like it to me that Creation cosmology is pulling imaginative speculations from their speculative backside.

Which theory has made accurate predictions about the universe in which we live?
Modern physics, by far. For just one example, look at all the confirmations of General Relativity over the last 100 years. Compare that to how many predictions of the second coming of Jesus have turned out to be correct. No contest.

The Bible says that no one will know the day or the hour of Jesus' coming, so any prediction made is going to be incorrect. Although we will know the season. 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.

Don't hit me for preaching monitor I am simply answering a comment.

But this is exactly what the Creation cosmology would predict.
Creation cosmology? Making up stuff to describe something after it has already been observed is easy. How does "creation cosmology" explain why stars near the edges of galaxies rotate much faster than they should based on the known mass of stars in the galaxy, or why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?

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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #47]

We are still in the embrionic stage of the universe's unfolding. Therefore we cannot categorically assume that it will all fade away.

What evidence is there that we are in the embryonic stage? How are you defining the embryonic stage of the universe and what are you proposing as the other stages of the universe

The deciding factor which will determine the outcome is consciousness itself.

The future is already set. So this consciousness should already know what the future holds for itself.

Given that entropy is a constant we are still describing a fairly unimaginable amount of time for the universe to resort to its original state of being the inert field that it once was and between those states, something amazing happens.

No, Einstien's theory of relativity states that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. The past has happened as well as the future that is relativity. This consciousness of yours has to exist as a string of causal events if it exists in this universe. So is this consciousness of yours conscious of only the present or is it conscious of the past and future also?

As such, any consciousness which survives that would have progressed so much as to be indistinguishable from that of a God-knowing everything which can be known through the information available and subsequently uncovered and understood.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[EarthScienceguy]

[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.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #47]

We are still in the embrionic stage of the universe's unfolding. Therefore we cannot categorically assume that it will all fade away.

What evidence is there that we are in the embryonic stage? How are you defining the embryonic stage of the universe?

In relation to entropy [which you are arguing] "The Big Freeze (or Big Chill) is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. This scenario, in combination with the Big Rip scenario, is gaining ground as the most important hypothesis. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 1–100 trillion years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted."
IF that is the case, [and the universe had a beginning] then why would you have a problem with my saying that? Another way of saying it is "We are far closer to the point of the beginning of the universe than its end."

What are you proposing as the other stages of the universe?

It depends upon what consciousness might be able to do within it, as to what changes might occur.

The deciding factor which will determine the outcome is consciousness itself.

The future is already set.

In what way is that the case?

So this consciousness should already know what the future holds for itself.

Do you know what the future holds for you?

Given that entropy is a constant we are still describing a fairly unimaginable amount of time for the universe to resort to its original state of being the inert field that it once was and between those states, something amazing happens.

No, Einstien's theory of relativity states that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. The past has happened as well as the future that is relativity. This consciousness of yours has to exist as a string of causal events if it exists in this universe. So is this consciousness of yours conscious of only the present or is it conscious of the past and future also?

What "past and future" are you referring to? If you are arguing in the above, that the past and future have happened, then there is only the present - now.

As such, any consciousness which survives that would have progressed so much as to be indistinguishable from that of a God-knowing everything which can be known through the information available and subsequently uncovered and understood.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It is about information. Consciousness is that which sorts out the information into understandable [and thus useful] bytes.

As we know, human beings are able to use the information to create things from the stuff of the Planet and it is likely that humans will find a way in which to use what they create in order to expand into the Galaxy - whether by finding a means in which to make it safe for biological entities to do so - or if there is no way - then create another way in which to do this [exobots for example].
Point being, as long as consciousness exists within this universe, there is a good chance it will find a way to continue existing and gathering information and using that information.
Given the projected lifespan of the universe, any consciousness which survives to the mature stage of the universe, would have acquired all the information the universe has to offer and in that, would be clearly distinguishable from conscious beings at the embryonic [beginning] stage...even if they were related. They would be indistinguishable from that of a "God" [as most theologies define Gods.]