God, Logic, And Reason.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is the thread where i started out three years ago arguning he couldnt be proven. then last summer said he could at end of thread.

now im saying, no again.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/96494-gods-existence/

 

 i mean i might say proven as in more likely than not thermodynamis works in quatum. but i could see arguig we dont know enough, too. it's pushing it

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see others have used thermodynamics entropy etc to prove God

 

http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

 

http://www.sciforums.com/Entropy-and-Causality-used-as-a-proof-for-God-s-existence-t-18366.html

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22God%27s+existence%22+thermodynamics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=TJ7&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22God%27s+existence%22+thermodynamics+entropy+beginning&sa=X&ei=Sr0fUdD2CYaHygGrnoD4DQ&ved=0CCwQ7xYoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42553238,d.aWc&fp=6a53cf30761535b7&biw=1280&bih=604

 

i just make point that thermo dont necessarily work in quantum

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

welll they say the begenning of the universe was just quantum and pre matter, pre particles.
im beginning to question whether a first cause as un uncaused cause, can really be established

The statement that "the universe began to exist" is a very simple sentence that describes a very complex thing.
In the cosmological argument they define the universe as being all material existence.
Science often talks about the universe as being the result of the big bang. In science there are theories that there might be a multiverse, possibly even an infinite amount of universes.

For the Cosmological argument to come to a conclusion "out of necessity" it must prove that all other possibilities are impossible.
It must prove that a multiverse is impossible.
It must prove that energy is contingent.
It must prove that the quantum vacuum is contingent.
It must prove that nothing existed prior to the big bang. (Science only claims to know what happened after the big bang began).

Quite simply put, there are too many unknowns for the Cosmological argument to conclude anything "out of necessity".
I really do feel that it is futile to try and prove or disprove gods. One simply needs either faith and belief or lack of faith and lack of believe to maintain their chosen world view.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it might not be proven in final terms, but much can be said in terms of probability, based on the way things are, just what we see. what we see is "more likely than not" (more than 50%) the case.
it maybe iductive logic and not deductive but it's still logic and stiill arguable "proven"

 

for example, there might be a multiverse, but based on what we can tell, that isn't the case.

the uiverse might be a expaning and collapsing system but as that link says thats liklely not the case. we're heading towards entropy and breakdown.

there mightve been something before the big bang but as far as we can tell there wasnt

 

what do you mean by contingent? i see you argue that a lot

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i domt like saying we can prove God cause i dont know if thermodynamics works at quantum level.

 

but that aside, id say we could meaningful prove God if we cold say that about thermodynamics

it's a supernaural, unknown, and uncaused cause.

 

if all we proved by analogy is a self existing cue stick hit balls that's not much but at least it's an uncaused cause and could be called God if that floated ur boat.

that how this cue stick exists is unknown how it just exists etc helps justify calling it God but still some hesitancy calling it God.

but the thing that seems to really justify calling it God is that the causation is supernatural. thermodynamics would say a cue stick can't just exist infinitely at from the beginning end... itd have to have a definite beginning. and if that's the case, it's supernatural how a cue stick would knock the balls, cause it must be acting according to laws that are not natural, supernatural.

by analogy itd be like seeing a bike rolling, concluding when and where it began, but also proving that there was nothing that could have caused it according to the laws of our nature. analogy could argue it's just somethinmg we dont know yet and part of nature.... but it seems to be pointing to something that is beyond natural laws.
i know, usually when people say something is supernatural it's really just not understood yet and part of nature.... but that doesnt always have to be the case, and we could argue te science points that way too. dare i say, establishes it?

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's like a bike is in a room. no one is in there and theres no way to get in. no one sees it pushed but we see it roling out and conclude when and where in the room it came from and that nothing of this nature could have caused it. the laws of nature are violated... ?

[Groo the Wanderer]

on our last day, we will each know for sure, huh?  might wanna be prepared.  just sayin...

[stevil]

it might not be proven in final terms, but much can be said in terms of probability, based on the way things are, just what we see. what we see is "more likely than not" (more than 50%) the case.
it maybe iductive logic and not deductive but it's still logic and stiill arguable "proven"
 
for example, there might be a multiverse, but based on what we can tell, that isn't the case.
the uiverse might be a expaning and collapsing system but as that link says thats liklely not the case. we're heading towards entropy and breakdown.
there mightve been something before the big bang but as far as we can tell there wasnt
 
what do you mean by contingent? i see you argue that a lot

With regards to the multiverse, there is no evidence for or against. We can't simply say "based on what we can tell, that isn't the case". What we can say is that we haven't seen any evidence for a multiverse.
the reason for this is because we can only see things from which light has travelled towards us. Light has a limited speed. Space is so massive that there are many things of which light hasn't travelled to us yet. When we look at distant stars we are seeing the past (many years into the past, from 5 years to 13 billion years into the past). Thus far we can only see stuff that is inside our universe. But if atheism is correct, it is rather awkard that there would be only one universe. Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous.

Yes, I think an ever expanding/shrinking cycle of the universe has been discredited.

With regards to did anything exist prior to the big bang, we can't say "as far as we can tell there wasnt". We simply do not know the answer.

For a theory to derive an answer from a position of necessity, it must have irrefutable answers to these unknowns, otherwise it can't claim "necessity"

With regards to "contingent" this word comes up in William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. In this context contingent means:
"contingent things are caused to exist by something else"
Thus they have a beginning. They weren't always in existence.
The argument is that god (and only god) is non contingent and can cause contingent things to exist. And the argument is that energy/matter (hence material existence) is contingent. Edited February 17, 2013 by stevil

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont try to make argumeents out of necessitty. if that's your standard of proof, that's your perogative. all i have to show in my mind is that nature is what it seems as best we can tell.

to quantify it i say more likel than not. but it's more than that.... it's the best information we have, it's the theory we have. as far as we can tel, it's truth.

 

"With regards to the multiverse, there is no evidence for or against. We
can't simply say "based on what we can tell, that isn't the case". What
we can say is that we haven't seen any evidence for a multiverse.............Thus far we
can only see stuff that is inside our universe. But if atheism is
correct, it is rather awkard that there would be only one universe.
Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."

 

if u say theres nothing for or against it..... why assume for it? if we look around we assume it's not.... cause that's how it appears. id argue theres evidence against te multiverse in that it's just assuming something w out basis, yet we have a basis to think we are a part of a sinugluar system... that's what it looks like.for exampel, it was very reasonable for people to assume the earth was flat. evidence came along to prove it wrong. i agree... evidence might cime alomg to say otherwise per multi verse, but i dont see it yet.
at best i see a speculation that "Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."
there might be something to this but it's too vague and such to mean much. it'd be like pointing out that the sun is round and cmes up and down.... doesthat mean it lands on the ground or some how mean it goes around the earth etc etc? there's some theories but not enough to discredit a flat earth. (maybe a bad example given te earth isnt flat

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."

 

i think i might best translate this as "uncaused causes dont just occur as far we can tell." this is true. but big bang makes it look like there was a defiite beginning, and thermodynamics too. plus the idea of an infinite regress doesnt square w our reality cause infinity in that regard is just incomprehensible.

i might say an infinite regress is something we dont see everyday almost just as much as an uncaused cause is.

eg... the earth is flat. how have i proven the earth is flat? i look around. is it out of necessity? no, but that doesnt mean we cant argue it and accept it as proof... or even proven... as best we can tell.

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

i dont try to make argumeents out of necessitty. if that's your standard of proof, that's your perogative.

The argument out of necessity is what Cosmological argument is built upon. Edited February 17, 2013 by stevil

[dairygirl4u2c]

well then that's mostly just academic issues needing addressed .  i thhink im hitting substance on spot.

 

but to some extent substance.... if one were to argue necessity, i think we could do it. big bang and thermodynamics say there must be an uncaused cause. we have lots of theories with really no basis but speculation that something might come along and prove it false. even my issues w thermodnamics at the quantum level could be callled that. i tend to think it's a little more than that cause quantum it's known act very strange. but if we assume it's true for the world we see.... it cold be assumed for there too by default.
there's not much good reading material on it at first bbrush, but it looks like thermo is applicable there too

[stevil]

if one were to argue necessity, i think we could do it. big bang and thermodynamics say there must be an uncaused cause.

The big bang most likely required a cause, but that is not to say that its cause was an uncaused cause.
It is possible that energy IS an uncaused cause and maybe an accumulation of energy is what caused the big bang (no one knows). I'm not sure that anyone would call energy "god". It is quite unfortunate that some of the forms of the cosmological argument insist on calling the uncaused cause "god", but it is obvious that the people whom created the various forms of the argument are looking for a way to prove god's existence.

[stevil]

"Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."
 
i think i might best translate this as "uncaused causes dont just occur as far we can tell." this is true. but big bang makes it look like there was a defiite beginning...

It is not proven that nothing existed before the big bang. All we know for fact is that the big bang was the initial event from which energy/matter expanded from a central point. This does not tell us whether this is the event that created the energy.
The cosmological argument states that "the universe began to exist", rather than "the universe began to expand". By universe they mean all material existence, not just the result of our big bang expansion, these may or may not be different things. We just don't know.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it was an accumulaton of energy that would violate thermodynamics.... energy always goes from high to low. it might be at the quantum level that doesnt apply and energy or matter does spontaneouly form. the is just speculation though. we dont have reason to think it.... just question if it's true.

 

i dont know why wed say big bang likely reqiured a cause. it's true that the world we know always has causes for effects.... but the only other alternatives are to either say there's an infinite chain, which is as i said just as unseen as uncaused causes..... or to say thermodynamcs isn't true which is a violation and so just another reason to say there must be an uncaused cause. one could say thermodynamics makes it likely there was an uncaused cause.

back n the argument of necessity. what more could really be asked for for it to be proven? sure it's not proven in terms of all possibilities being ruled out. but nothing ever reaches that, especially in physics. we can say gravity is a universal constant..... until we're shown it's not. etc etc

 

it seems like u are insisting all speculations and theoriesmust be ruled out, but id insist that's asking for way too much.
why sit around saying we dont really know that gravity is a unversal constant... when everything indicates that thats the case? we can acknowledge that we could always be proven wrong in theory.... but for iall intents and purposes gravity is a univseral constant.

in fact. u may have heard it. they say in science nothing is ever proven true. we just prove wrong the null hypothesis. all we can show is what isn't true.

if this is sufficent for proof generally.... why isnt the case here? given the big bang and thermodynaimcs etc.

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c