Why does God need to exist?

Neapolitan · 10-26-2017, 11:24 PM

I wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

You can not have an infinite series of cause and effect. Everything in the universe had to start from something.

Which caused you to write this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Prove it.

Cause and Effect. Q.E.D.

**Janszoon** · 10-26-2017, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Cause and Effect. Q.E.D.

I didn't ask you to demonstrate the existence of cause and effect, I asked you to prove these assertions:

You can not have an infinite series of cause and effect.
Everything in the universe had to start from something.

**Frownland** · 10-26-2017, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

First, let me explain what I mean by "God." I don't mean God as defined by human religion, a God who interferes in human lives, a God who you're supposed to worship. I mean God as the originator of our universe.

Suppose there is a God. Furthermore, suppose this God created our universe. As a consequence, it also created the laws of nature.

Since God created the laws of nature, it is not bound by these laws.

Here's where the brain-stretching comes in. I propose that the whole idea that something "exists" is a consequence of the laws of physics. If something has mass or can be detected in any way, we say it exists. Even our thoughts correspond in some way to electrical and chemical processes, and they ultimately relate to tangible things.

So, if God is above the laws of physics, why does God have to "exist" in order to be real?

Note: I'm an agnostic atheist. But I think our traditional arguments about the potential existence of God ignore all this point, and it's worth mentioning.

Is being real different from existing?

EDIT: I realize that this is what you're asking. I would that no, it cannot be real without existing. The effect that a god might have on the universe would in itself be a way to detect it. I think another thing at play here would be that something existing outside of the laws of physics would simply be added to the lexicon as a part of those physics.

~~MicShazam~~ · 10-27-2017, 04:07 AM

What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative.

I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who says humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is?

The Batlord · 10-27-2017, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

For the word “know” to have any reasonable meaning I think it’s ok use the word to describe one’s certainity there’s no god. At least to the same degree I know there’s no teapot orbiting Jupiter. Or I know there’s no Santa Claus.

From a scientific standpoint it wouldn't be reasonable. I'm reasonably confident it's all psychological mumbo jumbo that most are too arrogant and unimaginative to think might apply to them, but I'd still never say I know.

The Batlord · 10-27-2017, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

you'd then naturally ask where did God come from and if he didn't require a cause

you'd say Occam's Razor or "why does god need to exist"

I'm confident Nea is happy to believe in magic. He probably buys copies of Harry Potter just so he can burn them.

**Janszoon** · 10-27-2017, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicShazam

What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative.

I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who say's humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is?

I think that is by far the most likely scenario.

Pet_Sounds · 10-27-2017, 06:51 AM

To me, the whole idea of "cause and effect" is a consequence of (a) our perception of time and (b) conservation of mass/energy. If the laws of physics were different, would every effect require a cause?

My point is that our most basic axioms in logic are based on our observations of the world. Would 2 + 2 = 4 be a truism outside the laws of physics? I'm not sure. We've already discovered how wrong human intuition is about very small objects moving at very high speed. Outside the laws of physics, God might not need to be created.

Regardless, my proposed God would be undetectable, so there's really no point to discussing it other than fun speculation.

Pet_Sounds · 10-27-2017, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicShazam

What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative.

I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who says humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is?

I tend to agree with you that we're not intelligent enough to comprehend the universe completely yet. Maybe in another billion years or so we'll have evolved far enough

Infinity is an incredible concept to play with. It's one reason I like math so much.

~~MicShazam~~ · 10-27-2017, 07:02 AM

David Foster Wallace pointed out a funny irony about our faith in scientific method - really just as a playful bit of philosophizing.

I can't find the quote in my books and didn't get any search results online, so I'm going to have to try and explain it.

Basically, he posited that we only know that the scientific method works because the very same method seems to confirm that it does. We prove our thesis by using the same very same thesis to prove itself.

EDIT: The real, not poorly formulated quote must have been from either of these two books...

Fate, Time and Language: And Essay on Free Will
or
Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity <---- Pet Sounds, I just saw your last comment. You should read this!

10-27-2017, 04:07 AM	#14 (permalink)
~~MicShazam~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Aalborg Posts: 7,634	What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative. I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who says humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is? Last edited by MicShazam; 10-27-2017 at 06:49 AM. Reason: spelling

10-27-2017, 06:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,488	To me, the whole idea of "cause and effect" is a consequence of (a) our perception of time and (b) conservation of mass/energy. If the laws of physics were different, would every effect require a cause? My point is that our most basic axioms in logic are based on our observations of the world. Would 2 + 2 = 4 be a truism outside the laws of physics? I'm not sure. We've already discovered how wrong human intuition is about very small objects moving at very high speed. Outside the laws of physics, God might not need to be created. Regardless, my proposed God would be undetectable, so there's really no point to discussing it other than fun speculation. __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease

10-27-2017, 07:02 AM	#20 (permalink)
~~MicShazam~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Aalborg Posts: 7,634	David Foster Wallace pointed out a funny irony about our faith in scientific method - really just as a playful bit of philosophizing. I can't find the quote in my books and didn't get any search results online, so I'm going to have to try and explain it. Basically, he posited that we only know that the scientific method works because the very same method seems to confirm that it does. We prove our thesis by using the same very same thesis to prove itself. EDIT: The real, not poorly formulated quote must have been from either of these two books... Fate, Time and Language: And Essay on Free Will or Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity <---- Pet Sounds, I just saw your last comment. You should read this!