Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-27-2011, 07:52 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA You assume this on no valid basis other that the natural explanation won't work.
KingDavid8
Quote:
Huh? When have I said that the natural explanation won't work?
You don't need to. If you say that the natural explanation will work, then you have no reasonable case for proposing God as an explanation, and the argument for it fails.

KingDavid8
Quote:
so you first have to put God outside the limitation of the closed system and when that doesn't work, you have to put God outside the limitations of any system.
If God created the universe, then obviously He doesn't exist within the universe, any more than a computer programmer exists solely within his software he creates. That's not me "putting" God anywhere, but just being rational.
I suppose it's a more rational hypothesis than saying that a God can make and break the natural and physical laws but:


Arq
Quote:
Yes, I know you claim that God is not subject to those laws, in which case you have again sidestepped the problem. Well, in that case why can't we say that before the universe was made, physical laws didn't apply either?
KingDavid8
Quote:
I think it's quite likely that the laws that govern our universe didn't exist until our universe did, actually.
That is a reasonable view. In which case who knows how it got started? I don't. But I do know that I see no good evidence for a God now or in the past. If you have any good evidence for it, proceed.

Now I didn't start the violation of natural law argument

It was here
Quote:
Boxcar accident "But the natural state is to disbelieve claims if they conflict heavily with the known laws of physics."
King Dave"God's existence doesn't conflict at all with the known laws of physics.
I'm rather suggesting that it does.

Quote:
The God concept violates physical law by having popped out of no where for no reason, even if it 'grew' (and theists happily assume it was fully developed from the start) or their more favoured view is that it always existed. Fully formed without a beginning. How is that not a violation of natural law?
KingDavid8
Quote:
It's no more a violation of natural law if God did it than if nature did it. Saying it violates the FLOT if God did it is a case of special pleading.
Nope. I'm suggesting that the God - concept violates physical law, but I might argue that the nothing from nothing hypothesis doesn't. If you have an explanation how God popped out of nowhere or had always existed without violating Thermo 1 (1) or without suggesting that the rules don't apply to God let's hear it.

Quote:
Quite so, but the evidence that the stars and planets came about through natural forces, conditions came about through evident accidents, life evolved from natural forces, and human history makes sense only if there is no god involved, is the evidence against postulating a god.
KingDavid8
Quote:
So if we're assuming that there's no God, then this evidence against God? Huh?
No. I'm saying that the evidence of absence is evidence of absence. It is not assuming anything about God. It is looking for evidence and not finding it. What this means if you need to have it explained is that the evidence we do have is tending to indicate

Quote:
That is all evidence of absence and there is no good evidence For. Your reasonable argument for God though necessity doesn't stand up very well or you would not need to say 'All rules off for God' in order to try to keep the argument going.
KingDavid8
Quote:
Great, but I'm not saying "all rules off for God". I'm simply showing that God having created the universe doesn't violate the FLOT any more than nature having created the universe does.
Ok. I see that you were referring to a god being outside this universe of ours and getting matter from somewhere else, which is a reasonable argument and one that occurred to me when violation of Thermo 1 was used some time ago to 'prove' that the cosmos coulnd't have come 'from nothing'.

Then let's return to an objection which can't be overcome other than by sidelining the rules.and

Quote:
That you can only get over this by saying that the rules don't apply to God is admission that the Goddunit theory violates the 1st law - unless you say the rules don't apply.
KingDavid8
Quote:
When have I said the rules don't apply? I'm saying they apply equally if God did it or if nature did it, and am pointing out the fallacy in saying it only violates the FLOT if God did it, but not if nature did.
I can see that and I'm sure Boxcar will take the point. I also see that you get over The 1st Law by putting God outside the universe (as we might postulate a universe within a larger universe) or make a rational argument as you prefer to put it.

But you don't address the violation of natural/physical law and indeed Thermodynamic law 1 Which I restate as you seem to have missed it again.

"I put it again, in case you missed it. The God concept violates physical law by having popped out of no where for no reason, even if it 'grew' (and theists happily assume it was fully developed from the start) or their more favoured view is that it always existed. Fully formed without a beginning. How is that not a violation of natural law?"

(1) "Jizzus, Thermo, what happened to You?" "I have been violated")
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:02 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,140 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
We seem to be going back and forth on this, but you also have to keep in mind that the law of conservation applies only to a closed system. Considering that God, if He exists, is a force outside of our physical universe, rather than a being within our universe, He would not be bound by laws that are exclusive to that which is in our universe. The same way that if a traveler from another universe were to enter our universe, he would be adding matter (himself) to it. Yet it wouldn't be a violation of the law of conservation.



God's existence doesn't violate any known laws of physics.



First you have to show that God's existence is at odds with the known laws of physics, It's not.

Consistent with the laws of physics, How can God turn water into wine, add matter/energy to the multiverse, hear everyone's thoughts, etc?

When you claim God is outside of our physical universe, that is a concession that he violates the laws of physics. You are simply stating it in a different way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:05 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,140 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
True, but the system in which God is working isn't exclusive to our physical universe, so the laws that govern our physical universe don't apply to God Himself (or anything outside of our physical universe, necessarily).

This is a concession that the concept of a God violates the laws of physics. But rather than using the term "violates" you substitute in the phrase "don't apply to".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:11 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
No, that wasn't my argument at all. I acknowledge that it COULD have been naturally created, just that it's unlikely.
The only alternative to a finely tuned universe is one that is not finely tuned. So which argument were you making? Simply saying the universe is not likely to have been naturally created doesn't make it so. What is your evidence that rules out nature?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
Yet most scientists agree that there must be life elsewhere in the universe, since our universe's state makes it pretty much inevitable for life to exist and thrive.
Yes, and even I agree that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. That does not precliude the fact that the bulk of the universe is uninhabitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
Just as lotteries are set up that most people won't win. But they're also set up to guarantee that someone will win now and then. Our universe is the same way.
The evidence doesn't support such a claim. The evidence is that the bulk of the universe is not conducive to life. And life itself does not form based on random chance, since the laws of nature are not random. There is no lottery involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
]Huh? You think it's a wonder that life ever came about in the first place, but agree that "undoubtedly" life exists elsewhere. If it's pretty much guaranteed to happen somewhere, then it can't be a "wonder" that it's happened.
Just because there is a probability that life exists elsewhere doesn't mean that life is guaranteed or that it is common. Even if there are a million worlds in our galaxy that have life, that is a very small number relative to the total volume of the galaxy where life is not possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
I agree. And the universe makes it so that this can happen here, and can also happen elsewhere. I just find it unlikely (though not impossible) that this happened by natural means only.
Indeed. It also happens by artifical means. Modern cows, dogs, cats, goats, pigs, horse, chickens all are animals developed by man through artificial selection. But there is no such evidence for artificial selection in the natural world. What there is evidence for (tons of evidence) is natural selection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
Correct. There is order to the laws of physics, which promote order in the universe itself. But who do many of the laws of physics promote order? Just because they do? Or because they're supposed to?
I didn't say that there was order to the laws pf physics. I said that they are not random. Nor did I say that they promote order in the universe. At least one, the second law of thermodynamics, does not promote order. In fact, it does the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
]No, but it does explain why the universe promoted the creation and sustaining of life, which the naturalist arguments do not. Personally, I favor theories that explain the evidence over theories that say "it just happened that way".
So you are arguing for the finely tuned universe after all. No our arguments don't support this because the evidence does not support a finely tuned universe specifically supporting life. There is nothing special about the fact that life evolved on this planet other than that the conditions are/were right. I think when it is found elsewhere, it will be made clear that life evolved here because conditions were right - HERE. It may also be right elsehwere. But that doesn't negate the fact that in all the universe, very little of it is likely to be habitable at all. In other words, "finely tuned" planets (in an inhospitable universe) where life is possible are the exception, not the rule.

Last edited by orogenicman; 09-27-2011 at 08:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:21 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,140 times
Reputation: 1775
KingDavid8,

You originally stated that the concept of a God doesn't violate the rules of physics.

Then you retreated to a position that states the concept of God is "outside" the rules of physics.

Now it appears you've settled into a position that concedes the concept of God does violate the rules of physics - but so do the alternative natural explainations for our universe.

Is that an accurate description of your current position?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 09:29 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
So if all matter and energy suddenly appeared from nothing *naturally*, this wouldn't be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics? I actually agree, since I don't believe that the FLOT applies to the moment of the Big Bang, only afterwards. But other people have been arguing that it would apply to the Big Bang itself. My only point is that the laws only apply to what happened. If all matter and energy were created at the moment of the Big Bang, then one can't say that it violates the FLOT if God caused it, but that it doesn't violate the FLOT if it just happened naturally.
What if it was a spaghetti monster that created it? That's the problem with your argument. You've create a fill in the blank argument, and that simply doesn't explain anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:25 AM
 
307 posts, read 268,870 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
KingDavid8 You don't need to. If you say that the natural explanation will work, then you have no reasonable case for proposing God as an explanation, and the argument for it fails.
So if a given explanation WILL work, we shouldn't look for other, more likely, explanations? My first post in this forum could have been typed by a cat walking across a keyboard hitting letters at random. That explanation, though unlikely, will work. So we shouldn't consider the more likely explanation that I purposely typed it out?

Quote:
That is a reasonable view. In which case who knows how it got started? I don't. But I do know that I see no good evidence for a God now or in the past. If you have any good evidence for it, proceed.
An orderly universe is evidence for God, the same way an orderly post is the evidence for the person who typed it. Simply saying "well, it could have been something else" doesn't make it a more rational proposition.

Quote:
I'm suggesting that the God - concept violates physical law, but I might argue that the nothing from nothing hypothesis doesn't. If you have an explanation how God popped out of nowhere or had always existed without violating Thermo 1 (1) or without suggesting that the rules don't apply to God let's hear it.
If God always existed, then His existence doesn't violate FLOT (First Law of Thermodynamics). How do you think it does?

Quote:
I'm saying that the evidence of absence is evidence of absence. It is not assuming anything about God. It is looking for evidence and not finding it.
Obviously we see things differently, then. I believe that a theory which explains why something is the way it is, is preferable to a theory which says "it just happened to turn out that way". True, it's not absolutely guaranteed to be the right theory, but it's certainly the more rational one, to me.

Quote:
I can see that and I'm sure Boxcar will take the point. I also see that you get over The 1st Law by putting God outside the universe (as we might postulate a universe within a larger universe) or make a rational argument as you prefer to put it.
There are many ways to get past FLOT, and they're no different for the believer than for the non-believer. We either propose that the FLOT didn't apply to the moment of the Big Bang itself, or that the matter and energy which exists always existed in some form. Neither theory violates the FLOT, and both theories work just as well whether we propose that God created the universe, or that God didn't do create the universe. The FLOT isn't an obstacle for the believer any more than it is for the non-believer.

Quote:
But you don't address the violation of natural/physical law and indeed Thermodynamic law 1 Which I restate as you seem to have missed it again.

"I put it again, in case you missed it. The God concept violates physical law by having popped out of no where for no reason, even if it 'grew' (and theists happily assume it was fully developed from the start) or their more favoured view is that it always existed. Fully formed without a beginning. How is that not a violation of natural law?"
If God always existed, then His existence isn't a violation of FLOT, since it only states that things cannot be created or destroyed. If He always existed, then nothing about Him was ever created or destroyed. Same goes for the universe itself. If the matter and energy always existed, then it being formed into a universe isn't a violation of FLOT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:28 AM
 
307 posts, read 268,870 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Consistent with the laws of physics, How can God turn water into wine, add matter/energy to the multiverse, hear everyone's thoughts, etc?
At this point, we're only discussing whether God exists, not whether He did all of the things believers credit him for doing. But for the record, I don't see how any of the above violate the laws of physics.

Quote:
When you claim God is outside of our physical universe, that is a concession that he violates the laws of physics. You are simply stating it in a different way.
No, something outside of the physical universe cannot violate the laws of our physical universe, unless we're proposing that these laws also apply outside of the physical universe. Are you seriously proposing such?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:33 AM
 
307 posts, read 268,870 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
KingDavid8,

You originally stated that the concept of a God doesn't violate the rules of physics.

Then you retreated to a position that states the concept of God is "outside" the rules of physics.

Now it appears you've settled into a position that concedes the concept of God does violate the rules of physics - but so do the alternative natural explainations for our universe.

Is that an accurate description of your current position?
Not at all. My position is (and has been all along) that the idea of God creating the universe doesn't violate the laws of physics any more than the idea that the universe was naturally created violates the laws of physics. Neither one violate the laws of physics. If you're arguing that God creating it does, then you would have to concede that a naturalist creation also violates the laws of physics, unless you can explain how one does, but the other does not.

And I do apologize, but I'm probably not going to be able to respond to every post made from here on out, and I'm sure I've missed a few along the way. I'm involved in some other projects that are taking my time, but I will respond to as many posts as I can, and at least hope to cover the major objections people have to my arguments. I'm just getting a lot of people responding to me right now, and can't address all of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 10:55 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
So if a given explanation WILL work, we shouldn't look for other, more likely, explanations? My first post in this forum could have been typed by a cat walking across a keyboard hitting letters at random. That explanation, though unlikely, will work. So we shouldn't consider the more likely explanation that I purposely typed it out?
The problem with your argument is that we know that cats can't type out messages in human languages by randomly walking across a computer keyboard. Furthermore, it is a poor analogy for what science says about how the universe originated. Another problem is that you've give no meaningful explanation for dismissing off hand a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe in favor of a _________________________(fill in the blank with the name of your favorite deity) explanation. Occam's razor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top