Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well no, not strictly speaking, Boxcar: some of us who got our B.Sc. degrees in "science", the one true all-knowing, all-seeing info-packet, have secret information, viz. a path of true enlightenment.
And so... I can now reveal to you:
..................................There is no God.
Unless, of course, there is a God. I would say that the zero point is existence itself, and that any attempt to explain existence, whether from a Naturalistic standpoint or Theistic standpoint, would be a positive assertion. Further, I would say that any positive assumption like "There is no God", could not be formulated until all of the evidence is in. Anything more would be bad science. Of course, if a supernatural being DID exist, I suppose it would necessarily exist outside of nature, hence the name supernatural, and could quite possibly never possess the qualities necessary to be observed by natural means. Quite the quandry we find ourselves in.
Everything that currently exists must have either always existed or is product of somethings that previously existed prior to it's creation. Logic tells us that there was never a point in time when "nothing" existed, because if it did "nothing" would all there would ever be.
RESPONSE:
Correct!
It's not a given that there is "a" first existent entity. Instead, it could be that there is a continuous ever changing set of things that is the product of forces and matters that came before it. In other words, a never ending chain of "what came before that", such that it's not a single entity that always existed.
RESPONSE:
That's possible. But it's arguable if this could be "a never ending series."
For example, even if you believe there was a God that created the universe, there is nothing in logic that would insist that God was eternal. He may have had a father and mother that died off 10B years ago, and the Gods mother and father could have likewise had a mother and father.
RESPONSE:
Still, it seems something had to exist for all time. Or again, we're back to something popping into existence from nothingness.
Or if you believe in the big bang, there could have been a never ending series of Big Bangs that created universe after universe, each one made up of the matter and energy of those that went before it.
RESPONSE:
You seem to be running into the conflict between a theoretical verses an actual infinite series.
Could we agree that the first entity had to possess in some manner everything found in the succeeding entities (Otherwise, something they had sprang into existence from nothingness).
An entity can't give what it doesn't possess.
That was the long answer. The short answer is that we are not yet entitled to presume there ever was a single first existent entity. We can only presume that "something" always existed, even if that "something" changed from time to time.
RESPONSE
Perhaps. But that's the problem. How could it change? If it already possess in some manner everything that exists, how could it gain something it didn't already have?
Unless, of course, there is a God. I would say that the zero point is existence itself, and that any attempt to explain existence, whether from a Naturalistic standpoint or Theistic standpoint, would be a positive assertion. Further, I would say that any positive assumption like "There is no God", could not be formulated until all of the evidence is in. Anything more would be bad science. Of course, if a supernatural being DID exist, I suppose it would necessarily exist outside of nature, hence the name supernatural, and could quite possibly never possess the qualities necessary to be observed by natural means. Quite the quandry we find ourselves in.
"There is no God" is not a positive assertion. It's a negative assertion, the positive assertion is that there is a God.
Be that as it may, if by "God" you mean a God as traditionally conceptualized by the Abrahmic religions, I think there is clear and convincing evidence that he does not exist.If by God you mean something else, (like the spinoza sense of the word) we would need more information to know if it exists or does not exist.
There may never have been a first thing, in that something may have always come before it.
The whole idea of Infinite Regression has never made any sense to me. While we always talk about how nothing could ever exist without being created, I always wonder how the same parameters could be assumed to exist about a possible being that exists outside of our observable sphere. It seems like a whole new ballgame, where we cannot know the score. What is testable, observable, and definable within or universe could never be expected to be the same outside of it.
"There is no God" is not a positive assertion. It's a negative assertion, the positive assertion is that there is a God.
Be that as it may, if by "God" you mean a God as traditionally conceptualized by the Abrahmic religions, I think there is clear and convincing evidence that he does not exist.If by God you mean something else, (like the spinoza sense of the word) we would need more information to know if it exists or does not exist.
We may need information about how matter came out of nothing OR at least a more universal form of Matter. Hi, all'
Perhaps. But that's the problem. How could it change? If it already possess in some manner everything that exists, how could it gain something it didn't already have?
I don't think you really responded to my claim that everything could have came from something that was different before it - a remix of the previously existing material. For example, you have given no explanation why a God must necessarily have been eternal, rather than having a father, who had a father, who had a father. Or the other example was the repeating big-bang and collapse theory.
So I don't accept that there had to be a single entity that existed for all time. It could have been two entities that formed into one bigger entity, that divided into a radically different looking and acting 8 entities, some of which were sapient and some of which were not. Etc.
So while the total sum of matter+energy+whatever may have remained constant, it didn't have to stay in the same form for eternity. In fact, in the present time we know that there is a constant transfer of matter to energy, such that the universe changes over time.
I don't think that we have evidence of a single entity, only evidence that somethings came before what we have now.
"There is no God" is not a positive assertion. It's a negative assertion, the positive assertion is that there is a God.
Be that as it may, if by "God" you mean a God as traditionally conceptualized by the Abrahmic religions, I think there is clear and convincing evidence that he does not exist.If by God you mean something else, (like the spinoza sense of the word) we would need more information to know if it exists or does not exist.
Under what rationale do you suppose that that is a negative assertion? The fact that we exist requires some sort of explanation. Since we don't have definitive explanation, there are certain possibilities that arise. Any explanations given the fact that we exist would be positive assertions. One would be, we exist because a superior being created us, which I understand to have some flaws, the other, as I see it, would be that we exist because of random chance, which I also understand has some flaws. Both explanations are possible, and both explanations require further explanation. It is not a positive assertion to continue moving to the right if the only possible path only continues to the right.
I don't think it possible that a "universal form of matter" came out of nothing. I think some form of matter+energy+something always existed.
And hello to you
Interesting: matter was some equation to solve. Energy was some particualr quantity to keep rediscovering, and something was the existence of co-existence of the deduced x amount of material chemistry if you know what I mean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
