What are the odds of God existing?

True Probably true, but who said it "came into existence"? I am not postulating that anything did happen. Probably true, but when was there ever nothing? What does "always" mean?Time is a feature of our universe. It is not something to which the universe adheres.If t=0 is the earliest time in our universe, this does not mean the universe was created at this point. It just means that there is a place where t=0. It is no big deal.This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-28-2006 12:24 PM

Some posters were arguing such. They said it could have come into existence by itself, from nothing. Something that doesn't exist, they are saying, brings itself into existence. That's a contradiction.

---

God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian

quote:

---

What we have to do, in order to get anywhere, is to take logic as a given.

---

Well, if you want to provide a logical argument, then by all means do so. In fact, it would be refreshing to see you write a post that contains logic.-

quote:

---

The universe is this thing that exists.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

If it came into existence, then that was a happening.

---

Um, "a happening" sounds rather vague, but I'll accept it for now.

quote:

---

If there was nothing to get this happening going, then it would never have happened.

---

Unsubstantiate assertian. In fact, this is what I am asking you to prove.

quote:

---

If there was nothing, there would still be nothing. So there had to always be something (or someone).

---

Conclusion not demostrated due to the preceding flawed statement.-

quote:

---

This seems as plain to me as 2 plus 2 make 4.

---

Actually, that isn't all that plain; that, too, needs to be proven. In fact, I can write out the proof, as well as the proofs of the statements used in the proof, if it wouldn't take us too far off-topic.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

OK, if that's what you think, then you are attempting to step outside of logic, trying to say that our logic is just something we've devised or something like that, that it's not objective, and so on and so on and so forth--and if that's what you think there is no point in any discussion at all with you, since you would deny the very process that is supposed to be a given--namely, logic itself. It would not matter what I said, you could just deny it and say "that's your logic, not mine," or something of that sort. I can say 2 plus 2 make 4, and you can say, "Prove it!"I am not going to discuss any topic with anyone who not take logic as a given.

I think this is sloppy language.What I am talking about is a universe that only has a finite time dimension. Under the Big Bang, we have an earliest time of about 14 billion years ago. The universe never "came into existence" because there was never a time it didn't exist. It just exists. There was never a nothing and then a something.The universe is to all intents and purposes four-dimensional... it is our restricted three-dimensional perspective that makes us think that the Big Bang is a "beginning" and requires a "cause". The Big Bang is a beginning to the universe in the same way the South Pole is a beginning to the Earth (i.e. it isn't) It is just a (four-dimensional) point in a universe that just is.

cavediverThanks for the help it is much appreciated

I didn't think I had yet But you're welcome anyway!I do have quite a bit more to say on your own questions...This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-28-2006 12:49 PM

quote:

---

you are attempting to step outside of logic, trying to say that our logic is just something we've devised or something like that....

---

Not at all. You don't understand what logic is. Logic is a set of rules for determining whether certain statements (called conclusions) are true or false given that other statements (called premises) are true.Given the statement "2 + 2 = 4" is a statement that can be proven using the rules of logic. A good course on symbolic logic will introduce Peano arithmetic, and then that statement can be proven. You may not like that, but mathematicians and logicians are not going to be concerned with what you like or do not like.Now the statement "If there was nothing to get this happening going, then it would never have happened" is something that needs to be demonstrated. If you are going to try to use logic, then you need to derive this statement from premises that we agree on. If you cannot prove this statement using logic, then it is you who are attempting to step outside of logic.You can simply assume this statement as a premise. However, since many of us here do not accept this premise, your whole argument then becomes unsound.-

quote:

---

I am not going to discuss any topic with anyone who not take logic as a given.

---

You can ignore me if you wish. But if you do not satisfactorily answer my objections, I will continue to bring up my objections whenever you repeat your fallacious claims.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Ugh. I already tried to explain this to robinrohan before, an a long ago thread. He called it "gobbledegook" or something.Edited to add:
Or maybe that was Faith. I can't remember.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 28-Apr-2006 04:51 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

cavediverI am glad that you would take the time to reply and I will eagerly await your reaponse. I will hopefully have time to discuss here and there over the course of the weekend so fire away.

There will always be assumptions even with your Peano arithmetic.

I get what you're saying--if I think in spatial terms--but it doesn't explain anything. I guess you're saying that the OP is meaningless.

Yes, that's exactly how to do it. Our understanding of space-time, General Relativity, pushes us towards this view. Well no, it doesn't. But it does show the equality between the eternal universe and the non-eternal universe. Neither need creators; both can have creators. Certainly not meaningless, but as I first noted, your 1) and 2) are not mutually exclusive. It comes from regarding time as some over-arching absolute framework within which us and the universe exist. Not surprising given that we have only known different for the past 101 years, and even then only in advanced physics/mathematics...

The odds of being correct about God's existence (supposing you randomly selected your belief, which I don't think anyone does) may be 50/50, but that certainly doesn't show that there's a 50% chance of God existing. Either God exists, or doesn't: I'll give you that. However, given that there's no reason to assert either (God exists or God does not exist), there's no reason to assign equal probabilities (or any probabilities, really) to either event. It's incalculable.Now... Back to the argument... Another possibility is a necessary God who did not create the universe.Another possibility is a universe that was created by a God that no longer exists.As others have pointed out, a third possibility is that the universe simply exists and did not exist eternally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but electrons and positrons "poof" in and out of existence all the time with no apparent cause.I would also argue that the notion of cause and effect is time dependent, so creation (causing the universe to exist) would require time, which in of itself is a property of the universe. My head is spinning, so I'll stop here. Your argument has been demonstrated to be fallacious though, it seems.

quote:

---

There will always be assumptions even with your Peano arithmetic.

---

That's the nature of logic. Statements don't just appear out of no where. They are either derived as conclusion from previous assumptions, or they are simply assumed as premises.But the assumptions in Peano arithmetic are at least agreed upon by mathematicians. That is very different from simply making assertians and insisting on the truth of your assertians over the objections of everyone else.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)