|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Why does God exist rather than nothing at all?
Dont worry about any subsequent creations (e.g. Our universe). Why is there God rather than nothing? The question of whether God can solve the issue of his own existence is not answered by talking about the things God subsequently creates. God - "Why do I exist rather than nothing?"Answer - ............ Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: This law you speak of - "energy and mass cannot be created" - In your mind where does that law derive from? Was that law in place prior to the Big Bang or was that law itself created as part of the creation of our universe in your God scenario? What difference does it make where the law is derived from? The energy and mass could not be created prior to T=0 nor after T=0. That is why a supernatural power is required to supply the energy and mass that was used to create the universe you and I see today. If you go back to some of my earliest posts in the last 8 years you will find where I have always said the universe has always existed in some form, just not in the form we see it today. That means the energy and mass have always existed eternally in the past. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Why is there God rather than nothing? I thought I was referring to a supernatural power that supplied the energy and mass that was used to create our universe. That supernatural power would not be natural as it would have to exist outside of the universe. I do call that supernatural power God. You can call it anything you want. It makes no difference what we call it. It had to exist to supply the energy and mass needed to create our universe. If that supernatural power did not exist we would not exist. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
IC writes: The energy and mass could not be created prior to T=0 nor after T=0 Firstly - How do you know that this law applies prior to T=0? Secondly - In your mind is the same true of all the laws of physics or just this particular one? For example - Does the second law of thermodynamics apply prior to T=0 as well as after, in your mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If God does exist and he is pondering the question "Why do I exist rather than nothing" I doubt he will take much solace in your answer that he exists because we do.
I will try again Imagine God in the situation you keep referring to of "before T=0". He is sitting there pondering his own existence. "Why does anything, why do I, exist rather than nothing?" he asks himself. How would God go about finding the answer to that question do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why can't there be non existence? Because, to exist is to be. If there is not existence, then there is no being. For there to "be non existence" is self-contradicting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I know the standard Big Bang Theory requires the universe to have a beginning to exist. This is not true. And "beginning to exist" is a nonsensical phrase that should be removed from your argument, as I've already explained. If the Big Bang Theory requires the Universe to have a beginning to exist, then there would be a point in time where the Universe did not exist. The Big Bang says the opposite of that: The Universe has existed at all points in time.
I understand Stephen Hawking to say two things in those quotes. 1. The universe has not always existed.2. The universe had a beginning. Which of those two statements have I misunderstood? Both of them. 1. While the Universe has not always existed, it has existed at all points in time. Your misunderstanding is that there is a point in time where the Universe does not exist. 2. You misunderstand what is meant by a "beginning" by conflating it with the nonsensical "beginning to exist". Remember what Hawking said:
quote: Since time, itself, began at the Big Bang, then there can be no point in time where the Universe does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Since time, itself, began at the Big Bang, then there can be no point in time where the Universe does not exist. "Since time ..." or "If time ..."? The logical conjecture that we all learned in high school, "Time and space began with the big bang," is, in fact, just that: conjecture. Our present models cannot go there so there is no way to know this is fact. This conjecture has not gone by way of the dinosaur yet, has not been falsified, so it still has some validity as a logical speculation. But, today, it exists in the field as just one of many competing conjectures. Hawking may be a really big brain but he is not beyond challenge. There may have been both a T-minus and a spatial extent prior to what we call the inflationary/big bang. And, unlike the singularity we all like to point to with no real mathematical or theoretical justification, some of these others have some strong (speculative) math behind them. The "brane world" hypothesis stemming from M-theory and the "quantum fluctuation" hypothesis from QFT are two of many such conjectures out there to compete with both our beloved standard singularity and ICANT's totally bogus "could only have been supernatural" speculations as the start of our inflationary/big bang cosmology. We need to quit citing spacetime's origin in the big bang as catechism. There is viable logic in other directions and still too much we do not know. What's north of the north pole? We don't know. We don't know that the concept is viable. We, also, don't know that it is not. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : boo-boos Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
What's north of the north pole? We don't know. Polaris. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Yeah, it sort of puzzles me why people seem to think that time in the sense that we understand it - ie. one of the dimensions expanding from the BB - wouldn't be a subset of a Capital "T" Time extending off in a dimension utterly out of our reach, physically or conceptually or linguistically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Capn S writes: Yeah, it sort of puzzles me why people seem to think that time in the sense that we understand it - ie. one of the dimensions expanding from the BB - wouldn't be a subset of a Capital "T" Time extending off in a dimension utterly out of our reach, physically or conceptually or linguistically. The whole damn thing is a puzzle. It puzzles me why believers feel the need to justify their beliefs using their totally inadequate and corrupted understanding of science. Why not just believe? All of these big physics concepts are actually totally incomprehensive to those of us without extreme understanding of mathematics - they're not available to language, logic or metaphor. You can't just philosophise your way through this stuff, you need an advanced understanding of mathematics that's available to all but a handful of people. And who the hell can show that they're right or wrong or just bonkers? At some point the simplest of concepts just go critical on you. Science glibly says that the universe is expanding. Well ok, but what into?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
"Since time ..." or "If time ..."? Depends on the context... ICANT's argument is that the Big Bang Theory says this and the ramifications are that. But he's wrong about both what it says and what it means. My argument is in the context of what the Big Bang Theory says and is not just assuming that it correct. I'm leaving it open as conjecture, but I'm not allowing for that conjecture to be misrepresented. Your points stand, but that isn't what I was trying to say. . Heh, I was more worried about someone taking me out of context and nitpicking me saying that "nothing cannot exist" (because obviously there are some things that cannot exist), but I didn't think I'd need a caveat for every description of what the BBT says to explain that I'm not representing it as The TruthTM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, it sort of puzzles me why people seem to think that time in the sense that we understand it - ie. one of the dimensions expanding from the BB - wouldn't be a subset of a Capital "T" Time extending off in a dimension utterly out of our reach, physically or conceptually or linguistically. Well, just like it would be for the Capital "D" dimensions, if they're allowed to be 'outside' of the universe then you're not talking about the UNIverse anymore (because that includes everything). You'd be talking about some kind of sub-verse to the Universe. That's just not what the Big Bang Theory is describing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
That's just not what the Big Bang Theory is describing. Well yes. My understanding of the BB is that it pertains to everything that we can perceive, because we are a product of it. I think it's important not to get hung up on words like "before", that we conceptually link to time the dimension in our universe. Perhaps it would be better to imagine what could be other than the products of the BB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Perhaps it would be better to imagine what could be other than the products of the BB. Sure, if we want to talk about branes or strings or whatever and not be discussing the BBT anymore. But the argument I'm refuting is specifically about what the BBT says and means, so I've been limiting my replies to that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024