An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

@BillRM,

Well, I've already stated I don't believe in God proper, and don't truly have faith in my theory (seriously, I'm thirteen, I doubt I'd be the guy who figured everything out), but also BECAUSE my idea is based around scientific principles of doubt, IF something was discovered that would invalidate my theory completely, I would accept it. Something that would prove causality as an illusion.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I'm actually very undecided on how sentience arose, but as I do not believe in sentient free-will, it's really no different then a complex computer. Input situation, output action. Input kinetic energy, output movement.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the realm of speculation. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Sentience,

It is of course the million dollar question so I would not press you to rush to conclusion about it. Realising it is an open question is the key thing. Although one should consider whether a device such as a computer knows anything, or whether it just stores information and performs calculations.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

But all we do is store information and perform calculations, albeit subconsciously, which leads up to our conscious decisions. The difference is that we have a conscious to speak of, and that is where the mystery lies.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

it is a difference that makes a difference, is it not? The difference between a living being and an inanimate object is perhaps the most significant difference in the universe, isn't it? Be careful here because there are many in this world who want to cover this up or ignore it. I call this the flight into insentience - it is the real meaning of materialism. Caution is warranted.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

I think you just wish there was a god. The real irony for me is the human hunger for a world that is logical. One that is causal and has a narrative. The irony being the fact that we are determined to have this hunger, which in the end is caused chaotically. The laws that you have represented are not universal and that is my point. Humans desire to control their environment, searching for laws that are eternal and in the end nothing is so.

1 Reply

@anonymous6059,

Of course I wish there was a God, if there was a great loving father out there the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is one, or at least one that is anything like described in the bible. In order for our universe to be constant there must be constant rules, otherwise we would exist in a flux of chaos. Today abides by the same rules as yesterday, so I think it is stupid not to at least TRY to find the constant rules of the universe.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Well you seem to understand the root of your own question. It is not one of debating laws, instead one involving a angst over why you can't believe in a God. You showed laws supporting a God and laws against a God. Seems to be more or less your way of asking for consensus, one that will deliver you to some new purpose to hang on to.

1 Reply

@anonymous6059,

While I like the idea, none of my roots support a 'God' as typically thought of, only a force that is exempt from our universes rules. More of an Einstein view of God, as a force that cannot be called sentient or sentient because it is imply such an undefinable concept you can't define it.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Quote:

none of my roots support a 'God' as typically thought of

(1). I don't know if it is helpful to say this, but my view is also that 'God as typically thought of' does not exist. What is 'typically thought of' is indeed a construct of history, thought, words, associations, and so on. The question of what is really at 'the source of being' must be sought by other means.

(2) As for 'scientific accounts of the universe', and speaking as a philosophy student, rather than physicist, it is a fact that at this moment in history, physical cosmology is completely incoherent. Please don't interpret this as 'religion vs science' polemic. It is, however, a fact that the 'model' of the universe is deeply mysterious at this point in time, in that we currently believe that more than 95% of it exists in a form which we can't even comprehend, namely dark matter/energy. On the micro level, there is controversy as to whether 'string theory' has any basis in reality, as distinct from mathematics.

I am not putting this forward as an argument for anything but as an observation. Many people would like to propose the 'scientific picture' of the universe as a sure guide to reality, but it is deeply incoherent at this moment in history. People generally regard skepticism as a defense of 'the scientific approach' but I think at this point in history, one is entitled to be skeptical about the depiction of the world that is currently proposed by scientific theory. Sure it is a work in progress and it might end up yielding the most complete picture yet. But at this moment, it does not actually make a lot of sense.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

I just don't get why you go from the second law of thermodynamics to first cause argument. These two aspects cancel each other out. They are not mutually supportive.

If matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed then talking about a first cause must insist that matter and energy was then created. That is a contradiction. So if you are trying to support a god theory then you answer it by saying that god created matter and energy with the property that it can not be created nor destroyed. That to me brings it back to a wishful guess. So why don't we actually do something intelligent here and say that the law of thermodynamics overrides the first cause argument?

So in conclusion, god does not exist and the universe has been a series of exchanges of matter and energy. First cause is not necessary because energy has always existed but matter has not. Energy has exchanged itself into matter which is what we are observing and in the future matter will exchange itself back into energy completely. How do I know?

What happens to all the photons created by stars? They travel through the universe until they hit something then dissipate rapidly. What about all the heat generated by stars? It spreads out and cools. This is two forms of energy dissipating which is derived from matter exchange. Only an example of energy dissipation but we know for a fact that all matter will eventually reduce back to hydrogen.

If all the atoms are trying to return to the state of hydrogen, then why wouldn't the universe be full of hydrogen again? Wouldn't this process repeat and create stars again? The hydrogen condenses forming stars and those stars through the process of fusion create heavier elements and some of these stars explode scattering those elements back into space which then form planets and other stars.

My long point is, matter and energy were never created and the whole system is a closed system (which supports thermodynamics) meaning you do not lose or gain any energy and the process will repeat for ever.

No need for a god, once again.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

AGAIN - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. I AM SIMPLY STATING A THEORY THAT'S BEEN FLOATING AROUND IN MY BRAIN FOR A WHILE. MY THEORY DOES NOT HAVE A SENTIENT CREATOR, AND IN CREATION NOTHING WAS 'INTENDED.' JUST GETTING THAT INTO YOUR HEAD.

Quote:

If matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed then talking about a first cause must insist that matter and energy was then created. That is a contradiction. So if you are trying to support a god theory then you answer it by saying that god created matter and energy with the property that it can not be created nor destroyed. That to me brings it back to a wishful guess. So why don't we actually do something intelligent here and say that the law of thermodynamics overrides the first cause argument?

The rules of thermodynamics were created along with matter, which the first cause argument states was created at a single time. The idea is that if the universe has a set of absolute rules that are contradictory of each other in the set of the first cause, the thing that created the first cause must not have been constrained by those rules, so it created matter and energy and then there properties did not allow them to be destroyed within the universe they take habit.

Quote:

So in conclusion, god does not exist and the universe has been a series of exchanges of matter and energy. First cause is not necessary because energy has always existed but matter has not.

Are you stating that energy is not privy to the rules of causality? This could be possible, in which case it would not be too different from my own theory.

Quote:

Energy has exchanged itself into matter which is what we are observing and in the future matter will exchange itself back into energy completely. How do I know? What happens to all the photons created by stars? They travel through the universe until they hit something then dissipate rapidly. What about all the heat generated by stars? It spreads out and cools. This is two forms of energy dissipating which is derived from matter exchange. Only an example of energy dissipation but we know for a fact that all matter will eventually reduce back to hydrogen.

Another example of dissipation would perhaps be black holes collapsing into Hawking Radiation. The hydrogen is irrelevant, as it is still matter. The question here is really whether energy is subject to causality.

Quote:

If all the atoms are trying to return to the state of hydrogen, then why wouldn't the universe be full of hydrogen again? Wouldn't this process repeat and create stars again? The hydrogen condenses forming stars and those stars through the process of fusion create heavier elements and some of these stars explode scattering those elements back into space which then form planets and other stars. My long point is, matter and energy were never created and the whole system is a closed system (which supports thermodynamics) meaning you do not lose or gain any energy and the process will repeat for ever.

Whoa whoa whoa... What? You actually had something going for yourself until here, which either way is completely irrelevant because we're talking about time and space's origin, not their future. If the universe is a closed system then, by thermodynamic rules, it will not infinitely go between hydrogen only and a multitude of elements because it will reach equilibrium at some point, at which everything will simply be a floating mass of (presumably hydrogen) atoms all going at equal kinetic speeds.

So essentially you're argument boils down to this (correct me if I'm wrong):

Matter is a form, or state, of energy, and energy is not subject to causality.

An interesting theory.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

You are pretty sharp for 13, my friend. I would never have guessed. This is not ironic but a simple sincere compliment to an intelligent young person. A pleasure sharing virtual space w/ you.

3 Replies

@Reconstructo,

I hope that what I propose is not taken with disrespect. What I would like to see is proof that this person is only 13 years old.I am not saying that it is impossible but only saying that it is almost impossible. please show proof so that I am able to understand better. Thank you Reasong Self Logic

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

First: First things first, we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there. This is because thermodynamics teaches that in any closed system the amount of heat in that system will eventually reach equilibrium. So if at any given moment there must have been an infinite amount of time before that moment, and before that moment and so on, the only logical conclusion would be that if the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, then all areas in the universe would be equally warm. Obviously, we can tell this is not true, because we can observe differences in temperature. Thus, the universe has not existed infinitely.

the Universe recycles , things are made , die , break down , reintegrate into the whole

macro > micro > macro > micro , in no particular order

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

I second the motion! Very clear thinking and writing.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Correct !

"Circularity" is misunderstood and avoided by reductionists.

Approximation to an ancient parable:

Quote:

God and the Satan are taking a walk and observing mankind from above.

God: Look ! Somebody has found a beautiful item of knowledge. Aren't you worried ?
Satan: Not at all ! Watch him take it apart and thereby render it useless.

1 Reply

@fresco,

that is the version of the joke that Krishnamurti told when he dissolved the Order of the Star of the East in 1929, in Ommen, Holland. (See second paragraph. This speech was a landmark in the 20th century, in my view.)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

(I knew I got from either Krishnamurti or Gurdjieff but couldn't remember which.)

0 Replies

An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know