Logical explanation: why a god must exist

@Fil Albuquerque,

What does energy and matter being convertible mean for what I said?

Do you want a specific number or are you making a point?
If you're making a point, please clarify it.

I assume you're asking why would it not be possible to 'traverse infinity'
And the reason for that is a philosophical one as well as a scientific one.

First, since you have not told me that the GTR is invalid or irrelevant, I am going to assume that it's still in play. If it's still in play that means the universe has a beginning and is therefore not infinite.
In order for today to be here in an infinite system, we would have to start at infinity ago. Once we've waited an infinite amount of time, we would finally reach today. Unfortunately, infinity is not finite, as it is infinity. Because of that, there is logically no way to cross an infinite space, wait an infinite amount of time, or go from the start of infinity to the end of infinity in any way except theoretical. And that means that there could not have been an infinite amount of time before today.
Also, time cannot be infinite, as it has an end, now. The present moment is the end of all real time. When I say real time I mean time that exists. Everything in the future is only theoretical as the only way to prove it exists is to 'give it more time' until it becomes the present.
If I tell you "prove to me the future exists."
then the only thing we can do is wait for the future to become the present to find out if it does or not. But once we reach the future, it is the present and therefore the future is both tantalizingly out of reach and purely theoretical.
Because of this, time has an end and is therefore bound by a limitation. That - by definition - makes it not infinite.

1 Reply

@amer,

You can even simulate that with a mathematical model in a computer...so what ?
Metaphysically even in the hypothetical total absence of space and energy was to be exactly true, you would still need a kind of "mechanical medium" from which space would emerge as potentially possible...so no transcendent magic is needed to get that far...

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Sounds to me like semantics.

You have 2 pots of soil. You plant a seed in each pot.
You put one pot in the sun and give it plenty of water.
You put the other pot in a closet with the same amount of water as the other.

You observe the results. Pot 1's seed grew, pot 2's seed did not.
you are observing the growth difference(effect) between the pot that did get sunlight and the pot that did not(cause). You can call this the correlation between sunlight and growth, or you could simply say that the sunlight - being the only thing changed - caused the growth.

Really the correlations sought for in science are cause and effect, hence the reason I say the Law of Causality is the basis of science.
For you to believe the universe to just suddenly be here(which doesn't fit the evidence that I have observed), you believe something contrary to the Law of Causality. It's not "you can't believe X without giving up Y", it's you can't believe -X without giving up believing X. That's the law of non-contradiction, which is fundamental to logic.

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

Johnny Fresh wrote:
You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?

Quote:
No. Why can't the universe just pop into existence out of nothingness?

nothingness is nothingness is nothingness

Quote:
There's nothing logically impossible about that.

there is reasonably everything impossible about your above statement

Keep in mind that when I say "out of nothing", I don't mean it the same way as in pulling a rabbit "out of a hat". Since, the hat would have to exist for the rabbit to come out of it. I mean it as in something coming into existence for no reason at all, without cause, without anything else existing previously.

0 Replies

@amer,

Quote:

Again. If he lives in the past, present, and future, he is not without time, he simply resides with and percieves time at once(where we as humans view parallel). His supposed omnipresence is a boundary unto itself.

The only thing so far, you said that made sense but the same idea can be applied to information as a Whole...besides the idea of an infinite self enclosed cycle of layers of Information is far more elegant then talking Deity´s and similar craziness...

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

For you to believe the universe to just suddenly be here(which doesn't fit the evidence that I have observed), you believe something contrary to the Law of Causality.

I believe the universe exists without being caused to exist. Otherwise, where did the cause come from? It seems we have three options:

1. The universe exists without cause.

2. The universe exists with cause but that cause itself exists without cause.

3. The universe exists with cause and that cause itself has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, and so on forever.

I think that 3 is absurd and 2 isn't any better than 1. Both 1 and 2 are positing things without a cause but at least 1 is simpler.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

1 - There´s nothing in GRT that assumes nothingness behind a Big-Bang so again don´t ad confusion...

2 - It means that when Galaxy´s were worn of into light and energy the process would still be possibly reversible with a greater the zero chance even considering the 2 law of thermodynamic...

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Door #2.
The order of things in the universe is
cause --> effect. That effect can then also be a cause for something else and so on.
So at the very beginning, you would have the "original cause" as I've heard it called.
The cause that set the big bang in motion and caused everything to be.
This cause is necessary as you cannot have an effect without a cause or an effect that precedes its cause.
However, as for the cause before the original cause, why would you need one?
You are no longer in the natural world as you are pre-original cause. There is no time, space, matter, energy, momentum, etc because all of these are bound by and/or define the natural world. Because none of this exists and the natural rules such as the Law of Causality do not apply, there is no need for a cause for the original cause. To search for one is to misunderstand the concept of anything 'supernatural.' A supernatural event or being is simply one that is not bound by natural limitations that we experience in the natural world.

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Even considering the possibility of this absurd to be taken seriously I would rather acept the concept of a supernatural Universe with a simulation of time space matter and energy then the notion of a deity...no true argument there.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Well I suppose there's technically nothing in the GRT that assumes that... but the GRT would mean that there was nothing and then something. What that means is that the Universe has to disappear and reappear each time. It doesn't collapse to an infinitely small molecule or anything of the sort. it is GONE.
Again, I don't see any scientific evidence for parallel universes(despite the awesomeness of the thought and the awesomeness of Fringe) or for an infinite loop of big bangs.
Also I noticed the theory requires the accelerating expansion of the universe to suddenly stop. Is there any reason to believe it has or will when it is currently accelerating instead of decelerating?

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Door #2.
The order of things in the universe is
cause --> effect. That effect can then also be a cause for something else and so on.
So at the very beginning, you would have the "original cause" as I've heard it called.
The cause that set the big bang in motion and caused everything to be.
This cause is necessary as you cannot have an effect without a cause or an effect that precedes its cause.
However, as for the cause before the original cause, why would you need one?
You are no longer in the natural world as you are pre-original cause. There is no time, space, matter, energy, momentum, etc because all of these are bound by and/or define the natural world. Because none of this exists and the natural rules such as the Law of Causality do not apply, there is no need for a cause for the original cause. To search for one is to misunderstand the concept of anything 'supernatural.' A supernatural event or being is simply one that is not bound by natural limitations that we experience in the natural world.

So, you're saying that the universe can't come from nothing? It has to come from a "first cause" and that "first cause" comes from nothing? What exactly have you gained? You're still positing "something" coming from "nothing", be it a "first cause", the universe or a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

what was absurd about my statement? I made a valid argument based entirely on logic and causality.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Quote:

Also I noticed the theory requires the accelerating expansion of the universe to suddenly stop. Is there any reason to believe it has or will when it is currently accelerating instead of decelerating?

OUTDATED - there are new proposals that sort this problem out in a flat expanding ever space...

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

I thought I explained it, I'll try again.

Outside of the natural world, which is the universe, you don't need a cause/effect relationship. Causality is a law observed to be true in the natural world. When you venture before the natural world, you are technically in 'infinity' because there is no time or space. There is no before or after, which means there is no cause/effect. There is only being and not being. So if you have an entity - God - outside of the natural universe, you don't need a cause because there is no 'before' God in a timeless environment.

The issue is knowing where our natural laws stop and where the supernatural begins. And I assert that that is at the big bang, the first cause, the origin of the universe and all things in it. Before that, natural laws do not apply and therefore neither does the need for a cause. At and after the first cause, we inside the natural world are bound by such things as time, space, etc. and every effect is caused.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

That much is true...but in turn you also could simply exclude the absurdity of a concept such as nothingness...whatever would that mean ???

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

a flat expanding ever space... what about the empirically observed 3 dimensional expansion of the universe and the acceleration of the aforementioned observation? What evidence is offered for the new proposals that overturns this scientifically verifiable data?

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

The notion of a super -all-powerfull deity conceptually resembling human nature in almost all relevant aspects...a contradiction in terms...a convenient one...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

when did I say he resembled a human?
If you're referring to man being in God's image, I have made no such claim on this thread.
However, I do believe that MAN is in GOD'S image, but in a spiritual sense, not the physical sense.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That much is true...but in turn you also could simply exclude the absurdity of a concept such as nothingness...whatever would that mean ???

Why is it absurd? Imagine that the only thing that exists is a single particle. Now imagine if that particle also didn't exist. Then there is nothing.

That makes sense, right?

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Read about dark energy and dark matter if to understand the acceleration of galaxy´s at this point...
Flat means "flatter" then predicted, and just that...

0 Replies

Logical explanation: why a god must exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know