Random God-Religion discussion thread

[Vilander]

15 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That assumption is only valid if one does not consider the Big Crunch scenario, which is one of the possible endings of this state of universe. If the Big Crunch is valid, then the universe is a perpetual uncaused cyclical event, that does not require a causation.

 

Big crunch and pulsating universe by itself does not prove that universe is perpetual and even if universe is perpetual it does not become uncaused. Uncaused cause is theoritical eventuality which is what God is. 

[Muloghonto]

46 minutes ago, Vilander said:

The problem i see here is that you are trying to define the first cause within material reality. while i am stating that first cause definitely exists and it is uncaused and so it is God. 

But there is no first cause is the universe follows the big bang to the big crunch, implying it existed forever and is cyclical. Also, the words 'infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent' are all to do with material reality.

 

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Big crunch and pulsating universe by itself does not prove that universe is perpetual and even if universe is perpetual it does not become uncaused. Uncaused cause is theoritical eventuality which is what God is. 

Actually big crunch if true does prove that the universe is perpetual, since big crunch leads to big bang and big bang leads to big crunch. 

And if the universe is perpetual, that is the strongest evidence we can have for it being uncaused. 

If uncaused is what God is, then God cannot be more than sub-atomic particles and energy, since it is far more logical for a simple thing to be uncaused than complex, as complex things (which God is) by definition is accretion of simple things. 

As i said, since we don't know the cause of the universe, it is far easier & empirical to say that the universe is uncaused and forever, than God. 

 

[Vilander]

51 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But there is no first cause is the universe follows the big bang to the big crunch, implying it existed forever and is cyclical. Also, the words 'infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent' are all to do with material reality.

 

Yeah  but pulsating universe does not prove non existence of a cause :). And the beauty of this is, we are i agree defining based on material reality , things that exists have a cause, and the realization that presents itself is that  there should be a perfect, uncaused cause to have caused the causal chain that resulted in everything that exists. and this first cause is not in material universe in that it does not have a beginning or end. its theoretically perfect. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Yeah  but pulsating universe does not prove non existence of a cause :). And the beauty of this is, we are i agree defining based on material reality , things that exists have a cause, and the realization that presents itself is that  there should be a perfect, uncaused cause to have caused the causal chain that resulted in everything that exists. and this first cause is not in material universe in that it does not have a beginning or end. its theoretically perfect. 

You cannot prove non-existence. You can only prove existence.If the universe is perpetual, then it does not need a starting point, as something with a starting point is not perpetual. 
But you cannot have perfection as the beginning point, as perfection is accretion of less perfect things coming together. That is where the flaw lies, putting perfection at T=0, if T=timeline of existence.

Also, if things that exist must have a cause, then God to exist, must also have a cause. 

 

[Vilander]

53 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Actually big crunch if true does prove that the universe is perpetual, since big crunch leads to big bang and big bang leads to big crunch. 

And if the universe is perpetual, that is the strongest evidence we can have for it being uncaused. 

If uncaused is what God is, then God cannot be more than sub-atomic particles and energy, since it is far more logical for a simple thing to be uncaused than complex, as complex things (which God is) by definition is accretion of simple things. 

As i said, since we don't know the cause of the universe, it is far easier & empirical to say that the universe is uncaused and forever, than God. 

 

mulog i would say, perpetual does not mean without a beginning. And if a simple uncaused entity caused a chain that resulted in everything that exists instead of not existing, however simple,it is God. The operative point is GOD can be featured as without beginning or end of existance, uncaused,perfect, first cause. If there is more than one of these or infinite of these all over the known universe then so be it, GOD is infinite, meta physical and omnipresent in physical world, that is all we can perceive.

 

I am agreeing we are postulating, till the time there is an experiment that proves it,we can only postulate, although it is not inherently any less scientific than say an experiment to prove photons exists in two physical locations after getting refracted and hence parallel universes exists. 

 

I totally adore the fact that Vedic Hinduism called God without Aadhi or Anth its so profound.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

mulog i would say, perpetual does not mean without a beginning. And if a simple uncaused entity caused a chain that resulted in everything that exists instead of not existing, however simple,it is God. The operative point is GOD can be featured as without beginning or end of existance, uncaused,perfect, first cause. If there is more than one of these or infinite of these all over the known universe then so be it, GOD is infinite, meta physical and omnipresent in physical world, that is all we can perceive.

 

I am agreeing we are postulating, till the time there is an experiment that proves it,we can only postulate, although it is not inherently any less scientific than say an experiment to prove photons exists in two physical locations after getting refracted and hence parallel universes exists. 

 

I totally adore the fact that Vedic Hinduism called God without Aadhi or Anth its so profound.

You are saying contradictory things. I can accept a simple sub-atomic God as the start of everything. But I cannot accept an infinite God at start of everything, since infinity is accumulation of finite. That is a basic contradiction to think that this universe needs a creator but this creator was infinite from the very first moment of time. Because by that premise,the universe then doesnt need a creator as the universe too could be from the first moment of time and logically has better odds, as something finite at T=0 time is far more logical than something infinite existing at T=0.

It also raises the problem of omnipotent,as i've demonstrated in this thread that omnipotent is an impossible trait-nothing,not even God- can be omnipotent.

 

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You are saying contradictory things. I can accept a simple sub-atomic God as the start of everything. But I cannot accept an infinite God at start of everything, since infinity is accumulation of finite. That is a basic contradiction to think that this universe needs a creator but this creator was infinite from the very first moment of time. Because by that premise,the universe then doesnt need a creator as the universe too could be from the first moment of time and logically has better odds, as something finite at T=0 time is far more logical than something infinite existing at T=0.

It also raises the problem of omnipotent,as i've demonstrated in this thread that omnipotent is an impossible trait-nothing,not even God- can be omnipotent.

 

Theist vs Atheist i think we can agree to disagree here. Final thoughts: The simple subatomic God that you seem to accept if found across the known material universe would make God as an entity omnipresent and or infinite. And i dont know about God being omnipotent, thats why i havent stated it anywhere, as God only needs to trigger the butterfly effect by causing something to initiate the causal chain, its more the origin or the lack of it by being necessary that makes God. Theoretical necessity unless proven as existent or non existent,that is why it is simple to be a theist. Again you provide no explanation as to why you assume perpetual as without beginning ? in it you could realize the cosmological argument .

[Muloghonto]

56 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Theist vs Atheist i think we can agree to disagree here. Final thoughts: The simple subatomic God that you seem to accept if found across the known material universe would make God as an entity omnipresent and or infinite. And i dont know about God being omnipotent, thats why i havent stated it anywhere, as God only needs to trigger the butterfly effect by causing something to initiate the causal chain, its more the origin or the lack of it by being necessary that makes God. Theoretical necessity unless proven as existent or non existent,that is why it is simple to be a theist. Again you provide no explanation as to why you assume perpetual as without beginning ? in it you could realize the cosmological argument .

Yes, if God is subatomic particles, that would make God omnipresent in matter- not in space, since space is not filled with sub-atomic particles. 

That would be putting limits to God's omnipresence, since he is not present in space but in all matter. Thus God would then not be omnipresent.

It could definitely not be infinite if its sub-atomic particles, since the universe is expanding, therefore, God is also expanding. And if God is expanding, it cannot be infinite, since you cannot improve on infinity or make it bigger/better. 

 

The entire reason perpetual means without beginning, is because perpetual means A leads to B and B leads to A, ad infinitum. Therefore, there is no basis in arguing A or B requires a causal event, since B causes A and A causes B. 

To me, it is far easier being an atheist, because it's easier to believe that simple matter of sub-atomic particles have existed forever, than something infinite in any qualities existed before anything. As i said, something infinite existing at T=0 is impossible, since infinity by definition is made up on non-infinite parts, therefore, the non-infinite parts *MUST* exist before infinity exists.

 

[Vilander]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, if God is subatomic particles, that would make God omnipresent in matter- not in space, since space is not filled with sub-atomic particles. 

That would be putting limits to God's omnipresence, since he is not present in space but in all matter. Thus God would then not be omnipresent.

It could definitely not be infinite if its sub-atomic particles, since the universe is expanding, therefore, God is also expanding. And if God is expanding, it cannot be infinite, since you cannot improve on infinity or make it bigger/better. 

 

The entire reason perpetual means without beginning, is because perpetual means A leads to B and B leads to A, ad infinitum. Therefore, there is no basis in arguing A or B requires a causal event, since B causes A and A causes B. 

To me, it is far easier being an atheist, because it's easier to believe that simple matter of sub-atomic particles have existed forever, than something infinite in any qualities existed before anything. As i said, something infinite existing at T=0 is impossible, since infinity by definition is made up on non-infinite parts, therefore, the non-infinite parts *MUST* exist before infinity exists.

 

oh, why do things exist when they can 'not exist' ?

[Vilander]

Let me guess your answer 'they just exist'. This is classical there is no possibility of agreement between us, its futile.

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, Vilander said:

oh, why do things exist when they can 'not exist' ?

???

i dont understand your question...can you re-phrase please ?

[Vilander]

Well dark matter ? " it dilutes much more slowly than matter as the universe expands, and it clusters much more weakly than matter, or perhaps not at all" but it does exist. I am drawn to indulge although i have work to do, Btw i am not going to go into the fact that there is matter that permeates the entire observable universe, not just the galaxy clusters and stars and not bring in the pun Goddamn particle, it is irrelevant if first cause is a particle and if it is thus infinite or finite. The observable universe is expanding, but it should expand into something what is that ? what is the relation between the universe and that into which it is expanding ? Is the universe perpetual or is merely long lived ? God is a theoretical necessity an essential simplification if you will, till the time we figure it out and then some till infinity. You can not answer the question of existence basically, it opens up the whole observers universe etc anthropic principle, yet it does not refute causal chain, the one truth i found irrefutable in it all.

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

???

i dont understand your question...can you re-phrase please ?

i mean the basic question of existence.  Why do things exist ?

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Well dark matter ? " it dilutes much more slowly than matter as the universe expands, and it clusters much more weakly than matter, or perhaps not at all" but it does exist. I am drawn to indulge although i have work to do, Btw i am not going to go into the fact that there is matter that permeates the entire observable universe, not just the galaxy clusters and stars and not bring in the pun Goddamn particle, it is irrelevant if first cause is a particle and if it is thus infinite or finite. The observable universe is expanding, but it should expand into something what is that ? what is the relation between the universe and that into which it is expanding ? Is the universe perpetual or is merely long lived ? God is a theoretical necessity an essential simplification if you will, till the time we figure it out and then some till infinity. You can not answer the question of existence basically, it opens up the whole observers universe etc anthropic principle, yet it does not refute causal chain, the one truth i found irrefutable in it all.

i mean the basic question of existence.  Why do things exist ?

1. the universe isn't expanding into anything. I know that is a hard concept to understand, but the universe is creating space as it is expanding, it is not expanding into a pre-existing space.

 

2. What matter permeates everything ? If matter permeated everything, we'd not have vaccum, where there is no matter. If matter permeated everything, then everything would be infinitely dense, as there would not be 'empty space' between atoms, or between nucleus and electrons.

 

3. God is not a theoretical necessity, since God itself needs a creator if the universe needs a creator. And God arguably needs a creator more, since God has attributes attached to it that goes into 'infinite' something- whether it is potent, present, knowing, etc. 

 

4. Why things exist is the same reason we can ask why God exists. My point is simple- if you regress into existentialism questions, it comes down to 'who made everything ?'. That question applies to God as well, so God is also subject to the same problem of existence. And if that question doesn't apply to God, then that question doesn't apply to the universe, since the universe is less complicated than God and therefore, has a greater chance of being 'as is' than something of greater complexity.

Therefore, God is not an existential necessity, it is a logic fallacy : you invoke its existence to explain the existence of lesser material, but don't need to explain the existence of God. Ie, basic logic fallacy.

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. the universe isn't expanding into anything. I know that is a hard concept to understand, but the universe is creating space as it is expanding, it is not expanding into a pre-existing space.

 

2. What matter permeates everything ? If matter permeated everything, we'd not have vaccum, where there is no matter. If matter permeated everything, then everything would be infinitely dense, as there would not be 'empty space' between atoms, or between nucleus and electrons.

 

3. God is not a theoretical necessity, since God itself needs a creator if the universe needs a creator. And God arguably needs a creator more, since God has attributes attached to it that goes into 'infinite' something- whether it is potent, present, knowing, etc. 

 

4. Why things exist is the same reason we can ask why God exists. My point is simple- if you regress into existentialism questions, it comes down to 'who made everything ?'. That question applies to God as well, so God is also subject to the same problem of existence. And if that question doesn't apply to God, then that question doesn't apply to the universe, since the universe is less complicated than God and therefore, has a greater chance of being 'as is' than something of greater complexity.

Therefore, God is not an existential necessity, it is a logic fallacy : you invoke its existence to explain the existence of lesser material, but don't need to explain the existence of God. Ie, basic logic fallacy.

bah! Higgs field, there is no evidence yet, but as we postulate some sharper brains have postulated that it permeates everything. Higgs boson the god particle ? no pun. Its something that exists in Vacuum, as a matter of fact the very fact of expanding universe is attributed to this dark matter and dark energy. But i believe you are a historian so wont expect you to be interested in particle physics.

Getting back, The point is pretty simple, only when it is the uncaused first cause can it be God.

I see where this argument is degrading to, selective perception and subjective validation on either side, you also appear to be anchored on wanting to prove God's material reality whilst i tend not to. I respectfully differ with you on God's existence, and agree to disagree.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Vilander said:

bah! Higgs field, there is no evidence yet, but as we postulate some sharper brains have postulated that it permeates everything. Higgs boson the god particle ? no pun. Its something that exists in Vacuum, as a matter of fact the very fact of expanding universe is attributed to this dark matter and dark energy. But i believe you are a historian so wont expect you to be interested in particle physics.

Getting back, The point is pretty simple, only when it is the uncaused first cause can it be God.

I see where this argument is degrading to, selective perception and subjective validation on either side, you also appear to be anchored on wanting to prove God's material reality whilst i tend not to. I respectfully differ with you on God's existence, and agree to disagree.

1. I am not expert in particle physics. But i do understand some of it. Higgs boson, dark matter, dark energy are actually all theories, not scientific facts: they exist to balance the math equation of energy for the universe, but so far, no confirmation yet. This can mean two things: 
a) we don't have tools sophisticated enough to discover these things

b) our current model of the universe, particularly gravity, is wrong.

 

2. There is no necessity to call the first uncaused cause- if such a thing exists, as God. It could just be simple matter that is the first, uncaused, cause. That has a greater probability of being, than God. 

 

3. If you are going to attach material attributes to God, such as infinity or being there forever, then God is being debated on material existence. 

I don't have a problem if you think 'God is a being of another ,older universe who created this universe for his personal school project'. But terms such as 'infinite,omniscient,omnipotent, omniscient' etc., are all material terms- quantifiable. And that is where God doesnt add up as a theory.

 

[Detonator]

 

View full size.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Detonator