Have I "debunked" God's existence?

Yes, actually, there IS proof that God is omniscient. If you examine the evidence that points to God's existence (the finite universe needing a beginning, the design of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, etc.) and conclude that God must have created the universe, then you must necessarily conclude that God is both omniscient AND omnipotent. In order to create all the universe we know, he had to first know all the universe (omniscience); likewise, in order to create all the universe, he also had to first have the ability to create all the universe (omnipotence).

Ironically, all the scientific evidence is right there, pointing us to God (or at least allowing us to conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he exists). In order to accept this, however, one must have an open mind.



I hope you were being sarcastic, because it doesn't work like that--unless you're so dishonest as to decide to not believe anything, just because it makes you "happy." At any rate, I must regretfully inform you that your reasoning is faulty. Even if God was not a "thing" (needs a definition) and therefore possessed no "properties" (also needs a definition), it does not necessarily follow that no God could possibly exist.

One line of reasoning is that what exists and what is real are not completely synonymous. Many existing things are quite ephemeral and have no real being. On the other hand, certain classes of object (some would argue mathematical objects) are real in that they are not created by the individual mind, but are also immaterial, that is they don't exist materially. in platonism, the intelligible form of the world is not an existing thing, but it is that which allows particular things to exist by giving them form.

Might I inquire as to whether these ideas are backed by evidence? Or are they philosophical suggestions? I agree that mathematical objects are real but only exist as immaterial concepts. That doesn't, however, necessarily lead to the conclusion that if God has no material being, he is merely a concept. I would argue that God undeniably exists and simply has no real being that we can directly "perceive" with the five commonly identified human senses.

For God to exist, God must have at least one property.
God does not have at least one property.
Therefore, God does not exist.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 06:17 PM ----------



Actually, in order to accept what you wrote, one must be insane. Or close to it.



You ask jeeprs for evidence, but where is your evidence for this?

Philosophical arguments. But are you familiar with Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology? He also argues that God is real but beyond existence.

"Merely a concept" does not really describe intelligible objects. They are not generated by the individual mind or something that only exists within an individual mind. They are more like the deep structure of reality.

I haven't got time to enter a detailed response right now but will return at end of day.

So, because God is not a material thing (therefore not possessing material properties), he does not exist?




Meaningless statement. I'm not sure if it was intended as an insult or not, but until you explain it further, I won't respond to it.





I could present you with plenty of evidence, though most of it is already out there, ready for you to find. I didn't mention any there because each realm of evidence (the universe needing a cause, the design of life/irreducible complexity, etc.) sort of needs its own thread--and this was not it. Also, I was running short on time.

Never said that. Maybe you don't know what a property is, but properties need not be material (I'm not quite sure what you even mean by material here). And if you don't know what a property is, I would suggest reading: Property (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

God must have at least one property to exist, is the point. And if you tell me he doesn't have properties, then you are telling me he doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.



Hm, it didn't seem meaningless to me. If someone believed what you wrote, they would be being irrational. Is that still meaningless? You really derive no meaning from those words? If not, I'll try again later.



I see. Well, I'd love to see the evidence. So, whenever you have time in another thread, please lay it all out for us.

The universe does not require or need a cause. It has been refuted, by many and even myself. Irreducible complexity has also been refuted. These are just straws that apologists grasp for and reuse over and over despite the fact they have been proven to be logical fallacies.

And you are just omniscient enough to say so. I guess that makes you God.



One, God (assuming He exists, which I am equally sure he does) exists, which is itself a property. And for the rest of the quote, just saying God doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 05:34 AM ----------

Zetherin:


I went and looked at that link to follow your thought, but it is about Property, as in land and ownership, not about properties of existence or attributes. Perhaps I did not read enough of the article, but is it possible that you entered the wrong link?

No? It just makes him a normal intelligent person, it clearly shows he's not group think, nor naive.

So agreeing with you is enough to make him a normal intelligent person and not subject to group think. Seems like just another group.

Krumple:


Then you have some knowledge that should be shared because I have never heard a good reason to believe the universe is either self-creating (a contradiction) or eternal. These are the only three options: the universe has a source, the universe is self-creating, or the universe has always existed. Each has their own problems. Self-creation, being a contradiction is easily discounted. An eternal universe is almost as problematic and the only thing going for it is it doesn't require an obvious contradiction from the beginning. If you can point me to a good place to read your refutation I would love to read it.

If you say that the universe does not need a cause, then you must be part of the minority that does not subscribe to the Big Bang theory, which has been so widely accepted and has been printed in most of America's school textbooks. If you DO subscribe to the Big Bang, then please do explain to me how the beginning of the universe does not need a cause.

And I can't think of any evidence that refutes irreducible complexity, except for the very Darwinian claims (life and parts of life got complex over time) that it itself refutes. Darwin himself said that if we were to prove that any of the organs of the body could not be created by minute alterations over long periods of time, then his theory would completely fall apart (I can cite that for you if you want). Please inform me of the refutation of irreducible complexity, as well.

Let me ask you this: How could the cell, the smallest part of life, exist without any one of the components it now has? Because in order to have evolved over time, the cell would have had to, at certain points, been lacking in certain structures in order for those structures to have evolved. (This argument is the basis of irreducible complexity.)

Think of how unlikely it is that lightning would struck a puddle of organic slime and cause life to spontaneously arise, on a planet where such life would actually be possible AND sustainable in the long-term. Now add to that the odds of some kind of life arising that would actually be capable of reproduction (which, as I understand it, is necessary for evolution). It seems more likely that life would have spontaneously arisen and then quickly died out, instead of, by chance, also having the unique ability to make more of itself.

One last thought: It seems the Urey-Miller experiment, which set out to prove that electricity COULD cause organic components to come together and create life, did not succeed in proving this adequately. Urey and Miller were unable to create life in a test tube--even WITH the intelligent intervention characterized by the controlled experiment they were conducting.

I am not against it, all I propose is that there are other possibilities. But even with that I still think a singularity is possible. However; that is not your question to me here so I'll give you one example of how it could arise without the need for a singularity.

The space within the universe arose all at the same time but not from a fixed point but rather an already enlarged "bubble". The space itself was only a conversion of some type of pre-quantum force. What kind of force, well something similar to a vacuum but not quite a vacuum itself. This force has a critical state within itself, once that state is reached, sort of like a boiling point of water, the force transforms into something else. This something else is the space that we observe. However the energy within this space is still present as a byproduct of the pre-quantum force. So when this "reaction" occurred it wasn't from one fixed point but it span over billions of light years in diameter.

You might ask, where is my support for such a theory. I have one; "the Horizon Problem". Have you ever heard of this problem? If not I'll give a short explanation here.

One problem with the big bang theory is called the Horizon Problem. This problem deals with the microwave background radiation. I hope you are familiar with this concept. If not, well then you might want to check it out.

Basically any direction that you look into space from our point of view, you will see a uniform temperature signature in opposing directions. There is a small discrepancy of only 0.01% which is basically uniform. But you might be wondering, what does that mean.

Well if you take two regions of space that are over a given distance, like 500,000 years apart or more, they are beyond the light transit time, meaning that there is no way regions of space could be uniform because the amount of time it would be required for the "information" to traverse and reach equilibrium does not match the believed age of the universe. It would require the universe to be much much older than it currently is to allow for such a uniformity to occur over such a vast distance. In other words regions of space are beyond each others "horizon". This discrepency is also referred to as the Isotropy Problem.

So if the universe is 15 billion years old then how can you get two opposing regions of space near the edge to be uniform in temperature if their points are more than twice the age of universe? It simply can not happen unless there was another way for the temperature to equalize while the universe was still very small. It would have to be less than 500,000 light years across for the age of the universe to have equalized in temperature. Any larger than that and you would see variations in temperatures.

So with my theory, the universe was not derived from a singularity but instead from a transforming "bubble" if you will. The best analogy I can use to explain what I mean is to use a flammable gas as the example. Lets say you have a gas that fills the entire volume of any given space. Let's say the space is a billion light years in diameter. When the pressure of this gas reaches a certain point it will flash over. When this flash over occurs the entire thing ignites all at the same time. Why at the same time, because the flash over point is the same no matter where you are, because the pressure is uniform through the entire volume.

Now don't confuse my gas analogy with pre-quantum force. Because I can not tell you what the pre-quantum force is. All I can say is that certain "elements" arose and the result of that was the transforming of the pre-quantum force into space-time. So instead of a singularity, the universe actually came into "being" already at a very large size, perhaps a few billion light years in diameter give or take, not sure exactly. Now if this were to happen, the microwave background radiation could still be uniform because like the flash over example, the temperature would have been uniform as the pre-quantum force converted it's "energy" into space-time. The dissipation of the temperature would have been uniform all the way.

Not only that but you can still have an expanding universe even with my theory, yet I have completely bypassed a singularity.



Its possible that the process we observe is not exactly what is really happening. I remember seeing the math done on determining what sorts of observations you would see from within a collapsing star, and according to the calculations you would actually observe it expanding even though from the outside observation you would see it collapsing. Perhaps our observation of the expansion of the universe is similar. Perhaps what is really happening is a contraction but we are observing the bent phenomena for some reason which makes it appear as though it's expanding.

The best way to put this is: We know that if you stretch light wave lengths you can get a shift in color hue. However this does not imply that you are stretching the wave length. It just means you are distorting the wave length in some way. So you could distort a light wave even by compressing it and from a certain perspective you can get it to appear to be stretched even though it is being compressed. How? By bending it around a surface it would actually appear to be stretched.



One famous example of the theory that was debunked is dealing with some cells like the bacterial flagellum. The ID theory stats that in order for the this bacteria to properly function it requires this sort of complex motor which allows it to spin this whip like tail, which then propels it forward. Without this motor the bacteria would not be able to move, so the argument states that the motor is an example of ID. However; this argument was flawed. Here is a video to explain it better than I would.

YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked

So you can argue that a cells modifications are really not that surprising. In fact look at how many different cells the body is made up of. There are over two hundred different types of cells in the human body. Many of these cells do not have the same function nor the same make up as the others. Some are missing certain parts and others have parts that others do not. It really comes down to what the cells function is and how easy it is for it to acquire nutrients and expel waste.



Already explained above. This is only one example, there are more, but to prevent this response from becoming incredibly long I left them out.



Well first of all, no one actually says that there had to be lightning strikes which caused life to arise. From my understanding it didn't happen like that at all. From how I understand it, the process involved moisture and evaporation. So these inorganic particles were brought together in some form of liquid, which then dried up. Perhaps in small pools of water which then evaporated leaving behind a residue. This residue was probably irradiated by the sun and then later this residue was resubmerged in some more water. Think of it raining, then those pools of water dried up and then it rained again some time later. This process repeated a few different times. With the right combination of inorganic compounds and the process of moisture and evaporation, you can actually create the same amino acids found in RNA. We know this because it has been replicated in the lab.

For reference on what I just explained above please check out these links.
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely | ScienceBlog.com



You are thinking of it too far down the chain. All you have to do is produce RNA and you have a self replicating molecule, and that's the building block for DNA. It doesn't even have to be in a cell yet. All it has to do is be a block of amino acids that link together. It's very easy to do at this stage because certain compounds stick together while others do not.



Yeah some of the attempts failed but the process was re investigated and other methods were used and it has been successfully done. I have already given the example of how it was done above. Through a process of mixing in moisture, such as a small pool of water, then that water completely evaporates, it's compound slightly changes due to being out of water and exposed to the sun or some other heat source perhaps. Then later re submerged into more water and this process repeats a few times. After some time you will get simple amino acids forming within these small pools of water. These simple amino acids can combine to form RNA.

Speaking on the basis of rationallity isn't group think, quite the contrary.

I can see discussing the idea of God. I cannot see discussing God, as there is no god.

Krumple,

I have a few things I'd like to say to that very well-crafted response. However, you threw a lot of evidence at me, and I need some time to examine it thoroughly. Unfortunately, I'm a little bogged down with other work at the current point in time, so it may be one or two days before I can continue this discussion.

No, I'm not making excuses. If I end up not responding to you at all, you can assume that I forfeit the argument.

(And davec--please don't make absolute statements like that unless you have some really good evidence and reasoning to back them up.)

Hex


So what do you say to all the people who through rationality have concluded that their must be a God? I assume you find them deluded. I can find no other basis for this than their disagreement with you. Of course, if you get to make pronouncements of what is and is not rational, based only on your own preferences then you must be God and have disavowed your own idea.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 05:41 PM ----------

Klope3:

If you use the Bacterium Flagellum to disprove irreducable complexity this does not disprove it. All you would have accomplished is debunking one of the evidences use to support it. If knocking down one explanation were enough to debunk a whole theory Darwinism would have been scrapped long ago. It has survived because it takes far more than one or two debunked answers or illustrations to destroy a theory.

..as per the Grand Design. the universe is created in such a way that these things can happen.

You see, a theist can always sidestep this argument by appending whatever evidence you present with '...as was intended'.

The fact that life arose spontaneously does not undermine a symbolic reading of the Bible. It only undermines a literal reading of the bible. But the bible is not supposed to be read literally, and never was given as a scientific account. So unless you're arguing against biblical creationism, nothing you present makes any difference to the theistic view, provided the Bible is interpreted metaphorically.

(Footnote - have you noticed that fundamentalism is almost exclusively Proestant in orientation? Ever wondered why there are hardly any Catholic fundamentalists? I find that an interesting question.. I think it is because Luther encouraged such a 'biblio-centric' view of religion, whereas the Catholics maintained their allegiance to Greek philosophy, which has no problem accommodating evolutionary ideas. In fact I think there was a proto-evolutionary theory in pre-Socratic philosophy.)

All that said, though, great post on cosmological theory, I shall read and ponder.

I know you didn't address me directly with your response but since you mentioned that one case can not disprove irreducible complexity, would you like another example how the theory is flawed? Please take a moment to watch this video.

YouTube - Why we don't teach the "controversy"

Thanks for your support. I agree--the discrediting of the Flagellum example probably does not debunk all of irreducible complexity. I still, however, would like to look into the resources Krumple provided, which I still must put off for a couple of days until after the rest of this work is finished.

In the meantime, the below might be of interest. Ironically, it came from following a number of links from the second link Krumple provided. (All credit for the below goes to the original poster.)