There is no God

[redacted]

There is no evidence against God because your "evidence" can't answer even one basic question. What was before the Big Bang. And considering that we don't even have the starting point all the studies that Physics does are useless and can only be used to create even more weapons.

God doesn't solve that problem at all. If God created the universe, what created God? Either you answer:
a) God wasn't created, he always existed. (to which I respond, okay, then if things can always exist, why can't the universe have always existed?)
b) God was the first thing to exist, he came from nothing. (to which I respond, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?)
or c) God created time. (to which I respond, why couldn't the big bang have created time?)

The problem is the question itself -- what was before the big bang -- it's set up to be unanswerable or to cause infinite regress.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

God doesn't solve that problem at all. If God created the universe, what created God? Either you answer:
a) God wasn't created, he always existed. (to which I respond, okay, then if things can always exist, why can't the universe have always existed?)
b) God was the first thing to exist, he came from nothing. (to which I respond, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?)
or c) God created time. (to which I respond, why couldn't the big bang have created time?)

All your propositions (questions) assume the premise that the universe = God, which is false.

The universe != God.

 

[LadyJaye]

"God is dead." - Nietzsche

" Nietzsche is dead. " - God

 

[A window to the soul]

He is an agnostic. That means the answer to your question is 'no'.

Mama mia. I got it!

Nobody is leaving this thread mad, which means, as long as Victor is chill, we're good to go.

 

[redacted]

All your propositions assume the premise that the universe = God, which is false.

The universe != God.

What relationship does God have with the universe? Kraska implied that God created the universe, which at least puts God in the position to interact with things like universes.

I also wasn't assuming that (God == the universe) is true, I was just saying that the same problems arise when you put God at the beginning as opposed to putting the big bang at the beginning. "What is the cause of the first cause?" is the implied question, and using God as an out just doesn't help answer it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

God doesn't solve that problem at all. If God created the universe, what created God? Either you answer:
a) God wasn't created, he always existed. (to which I respond, okay, then if things can always exist, why can't the universe have always existed?)
b) God was the first thing to exist, he came from nothing. (to which I respond, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?)
or c) God created time. (to which I respond, why couldn't the big bang have created time?)

The problem is the question itself -- what was before the big bang -- it's set up to be unanswerable or to cause infinite regress.

What relationship does God have with the universe? Kraska implied that God created the universe, which at least puts God in the position to interact with things like universes.

I also wasn't assuming that (God == the universe) is true, I was just saying that the same problems arise when you put God at the beginning as opposed to putting the big bang at the beginning. "What is the cause of the first cause?" is the implied question, and using God as an out just doesn't help answer it.

But why do the same problems arise if we agree the universe != God.? If God is Omni, there is no problem...

 

[redacted]

But why do the same problems arise if we agree the universe != God.? If God is Omni, there is no problem...

I was assuming the real "problem" is "what is the cause of the first cause?"
The Big Bang is as flimsy an answer as God creating the universe, because the question is set up in such a way that infinite regress is unavoidable. So I conclude that the question is the issue, not the possible answers.

I must admit I'm not sure exactly what your logic here is, though. I may be misinterpreting your stance. Can you explain how God not being the same as the universe solves the infinite regress issue?

 

[Sniffles]

A first cause doesn't have a cause, if it did it obviously wouldn't be the first cause.

 

[Poki]

I dont understand the statement. No one can prove nor disprove...why dont we just all do the logical thing. Try to make it through life with the thought of letting everyone enjoy there time on earth. That means to love, to smile, to laugh, to enjoy yourself, and everything that is not that, learn ot let go of. Since I cannot prove nor disprove, I choose not to take a side. I look at religion objectively, see its shortcomings and what it really brings(the good parts) to society. I dont see why "whether god exists" plays any role...I am who I am....but then again, thats why I believe what I believe.

We cant let go of school, or learning because if we did we would still ive in huts. Also people enjoy it, so we cant take that away...the solutions..."live and let live". Do what you enjoy, allow others to benefit from your enjoyment...its a twist on pay it forward.


edit: I kinda sound like a hippy...lol

 

[redacted]

A first cause doesn't have a cause, if it did it obviously wouldn't be the first cause.

Right, that's my point. Since we have to accept that the first cause is actually the first, it's silly to ask what caused the big bang. Once you go down that road, saying something like "God caused the big bang", you've opened yourself up to the infinite regress.

I have no logical problem with someone saying God created the universe, I just have a problem when a person with that stance would have a problem with the stance that the big bang created the universe, since it's the same logic.

 

[Sniffles]

There is a distinction between primary and secondary causes, with the first cause being the most primary one. The universe cannot be its own cause, and the Big Bang is not the same thing as creation - as noted by Fr. Lemaître himself( i.e. the man who developed the Big Bang theory in the first place). Perhaps it should also be noted that Aquinas operated under the presumption of an eternal universe.

So there's some real fundamental misunderstandings here.

 

[redacted]

There is a distinction between primary and secondary causes, with the first cause being the most primary one. The universe cannot be its own cause, and the Big Bang is not the same thing as creation - as noted by Fr. Lemaître himself( i.e. the man who developed the Big Bang theory in the first place). Perhaps it should also be noted that Aquinas operated under the presumption of an eternal universe.

So there's some real fundamental misunderstandings here.

I might be misusing the term "the big bang", but it's not relevant anyway. If we assume there's a first cause, we can call it whatever -- lets call it x. So the statement "x is the first cause" is true. Stick God in there -- I'm fine with that. Stick the big bang in there -- I'm fine with that, too. But when you ask "what caused x", you go into infinite regress mode and it stops being a useful thing to talk about. I was just saying that I have a problem with people that stick God in there and then say "what caused x?" to me when I put something else in there.

 

[Jaq]

I agree, there is no god.

 

[Sniffles]

I might be misusing the term "the big bang", but it's not relevant anyway. If we assume there's a first cause, we can call it whatever -- lets call it x. So the statement "x is the first cause" is true. Stick God in there -- I'm fine with that. Stick the big bang in there -- I'm fine with that, too. But when you ask "what caused x", you go into infinite regress mode and it stops being a useful thing to talk about. I was just saying that I have a problem with people that stick God in there and then say "what caused x?" to me when I put something else in there.

The first cause for all intents and purposes is god; if you want to call it X or supernatural nova or Green Latern, it's the same concept. Aquinas would note that "god" is the most common name given to the first cause, so therefore to reach out to all rational people 'god' is the best term to use. But this is all semantics in the end.

Asking what caused the first cause, aka god, is a rather silly question:
[youtube="KLclpslxAYY"]What caused x?[/youtube]

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I might be misusing the term "the big bang", but it's not relevant anyway. If we assume there's a first cause, we can call it whatever -- lets call it x. So the statement "x is the first cause" is true. Stick God in there -- I'm fine with that. Stick the big bang in there -- I'm fine with that, too. But when you ask "what caused x", you go into infinite regress mode and it stops being a useful thing to talk about. I was just saying that I have a problem with people that stick God in there and then say "what caused x?" to me when I put something else in there.

Peguy says it better, but your mistake is that there is no infinite regress mode with God. God IS the infinite regress. God the original substance everything comes from.

 

[redacted]

The first cause for all intents and purposes is god; if you want to call it X or supernatural nova or Green Latern, it's the same concept. Aquinas would note that "god" is the most common name given to the first cause, so therefore to reach out to all rational people 'god' is the best term to use. But this is all semantics in the end.

Then I'm pretty sure our stances are perfectly consistent with each other.

Asking what caused the first cause, aka god, is a rather silly question

My point exactly.

I use a narrative in which the word "God" has no meaning, so I would word it differently, but yeah, it's just semantics. If I were to define God as "the first cause", I could have exactly the same worldview and believe in God. (I don't know what he would have been doing for the last 15 billion years, though...)

 

[redacted]

Peguy says it better, but you're mistake is that there is no infinite regress mode with God. God IS the infinite regress. God the original substance everything comes from.

Do you know what infinite regress is? (I really don't mean this to be offensive.)

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I have some idea.....

 

[redacted]

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

 

[Poki]

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

Vicous regress: "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious."


this goes hand in hand with "BEATING HEAD AGAINST WALL"