Why does God need to exist?

Pet_Sounds · 10-26-2017, 08:11 PM

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.

DwnWthVwls · 10-26-2017, 08:46 PM

Because we cant comprehend and have no examples of nothing?

Neapolitan · 10-26-2017, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

I mean God as the originator of our universe.

I'll just start with the problem of infinite regression. You can not have an infinite series of cause and effect. Everything in the universe had to start from something. If you trace everything back to the beginning, most scientist would say it started with the Big Bang, then how did that come about?

The Batlord · 10-26-2017, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I'll just start with the problem of infinite regression. You can not have an infinite series of cause and effect. Everything in the universe had to start from something. If you trace everything back to the beginning, most scientist would say it started with the Big Bang, then how did that come about?

See, this is where scientists say something to the effect of, "We don't know," rather than making **** up to make the world feel less scurry.

Neapolitan · 10-26-2017, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

See, this is where scientists say something to the effect of, "We don't know," rather than making **** up to make the world feel less scurry.

If that is the case then those scientist would have to exempt themselves from any philosophical discussion about God creating the universe.

Just to note, scientists will say "We don't know" about the point of singularity. But when it comes to whether or not they believe in God created the universe they rely on their own set of personal belief, not by science as study or discipline.

**Janszoon** · 10-26-2017, 09:38 PM

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.

Prove it.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 10-26-2017, 09:42 PM

there is beauty in the mystery of it all.

The Batlord · 10-26-2017, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

If that is the case then those scientist would have to exempt themselves from any philosophical discussion about God creating the universe.

Just to note, scientists will say "We don't know" about the point of singularity. But when it comes to whether or not they believe in God created the universe they rely on their own set of personal belief, not by science as study or discipline.

Duh. What scientist have you ever met who claimed that they could empirically prove that god doesn't exist? You're addressing an issue that doesn't exist. And why should scientists exempt themselves from discussions on the existence of god? Nobody has any business claiming that they know whether god does or does not exist.

OccultHawk · 10-26-2017, 09:55 PM

There may be a few outliers in the scientific community who will claim they can prove there’s no god but by far the default position is if you’re claiming something is real the onus is on you to supply proof. Teapot orbiting the sun thing.

Please don’t reduce the discussion to first cause.

Pet - your OP reads to me like old school ontology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but philosophers have been pontificating about it for several centuries.

OccultHawk · 10-26-2017, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Nobody has any business claiming that they know whether god does or does not exist.

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.

10-26-2017, 08:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,488	Why does God need to exist? 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. __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease

10-26-2017, 09:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	There may be a few outliers in the scientific community who will claim they can prove there’s no god but by far the default position is if you’re claiming something is real the onus is on you to supply proof. Teapot orbiting the sun thing. Please don’t reduce the discussion to first cause. Pet - your OP reads to me like old school ontology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but philosophers have been pontificating about it for several centuries. __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html