Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist. » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.
Science vs God.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/01/08 - 10:28 AM:	#11
the PC apeman wrote: The universe does what it does. There's no reason to think it's following any laws. What we call physical laws are just our descriptions of regularities we have observed. So if "some things in the universe do not correspond with these laws" it's only a lack of correspondence to our understanding. The universe does what it does. There's no reason to think it's violating any laws. I agree with this point. We have derived our understanding of 'physical laws' simply by the presence of what we see around us and what we can observe. For instance our concept of gravity exists only within the context of the few places where we have seen it at play. On some planets we would weigh more than we do on earth, on some planets we would weigh less. Your argument is based on a presupposition that God is bound by these 'physical laws' when in fact the Bible makes it quite clear he is above and beyond any concept of physics or space or time as we could conceive it. I don't think there are any such thing as physical laws in the sense that you mean, in that you seem to think the definition of a physical law is that all things would be bound by them. I do not believe anybody can ever disprove God with a "physical" argument. There exists this erroneous concept that if you can assertain a physical explanation for some event (such as creation) then you have somehow proven that God does not exist. In my opinion a physical explanation is nothing more than an explanation of a means as to how something was carried out, with no regard to who was behind it. It does not have to be one or the other. God vs science. You can have both. For instance, if you are asleep in your bed and hear the sound of breaking glass in the middle of the night, you might call the police. The cop might get there and have a look around (investigate) and discover a broken window and a baseball lying on the floor. He would then likely conclude that the sound you heard was the window breaking when the ball hit it. All he has done is give you a physical explanation, which in no way insinuates that somebody didn't throw the ball. In the same way, even if some scientist one day concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe did in fact originate with the "Big Bang" all that would really prove is that the ball hit the window. There is still the issue of who threw the ball to contend with. Maybe the Big Bang was just the physical means by which God created the universe. My point is you cannot use a physical argument to refute God. If your goal is to disprove God, you better come at us with a logical, theological, or philosophical argument, because physical won't cut it. God is above physical.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890

Posted 01/01/08 - 01:54 PM:	#12
gesler0811 wrote: It does not have to be one or the other. God vs science. You can have both. Indeed. Virtually all the "founding fathers" of modern science were theists (e.g. Newton, Kepler, and Boyle). It's not all that surprising when you consider theistic background. Why, for instance, would a rational investigation of nature be successful? Because a rationally orderly God created the universe. Indeed, many of the founders of modern science were theists trying to demonstrate that humanity lived in an orderly universe, and nature consistently operating in mathematical patterns would especially be confirmative for this belief. I find it somewhat amusing that atheists later jumped on the bandwagon to claim science as their own, almost as if science had been against the existence of God. (The founding fathers of modern science obviously didn't think so.)
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/01/08 - 04:42 PM:	#13
Tisthammerw wrote: Why, for instance, would a rational investigation of nature be successful? Because a rationally orderly God created the universe. Indeed, many of the founders of modern science were theists trying to demonstrate that humanity lived in an orderly universe, and nature consistently operating in mathematical patterns would especially be confirmative for this belief. This is something that I especially have been pondering over the last couple of weeks. The fact that there exists such harmony in all things suggests a divine scheme has been carried out. If life (and even non-life) just sort of happened, and all these different organisms evolved independently from each other in different places on the earth, I think nature would be a lot more erratic and random than we realize. The harmony that seems to bind all of nature to me is indicative of God's presence and involvement. A fine work of art does not just occur randomly when paint spills on a canvas, it occurs when a skilled painter weaves the paint together with skillful strokes. For emphasis, I now gladly quote Romans 1:18-20 for further elaboration: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

myrmecophaga
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 51

Posted 01/04/08 - 01:26 AM:	#14
Jaith wrote: Since the universe is unlimited in size, there must be at least one place, where God can not exist. An irrational number has an infinite number of digits, but this doesn't mean that every digit must occur. Consider: 0.101100111000111100001111100000111111000000... for example. You logic doesn't hold.
"It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/05/08 - 09:06 AM:	#15
Something that's physical is something that will exist regardless to human beliefs. god can only exist while people belief it, so it's not real in any meaning of the word. What if the idea of god had never created, would god exist, of course not. Other animals, for example Dolphins know that water exists the same way we do, but to them god doesn't exist, Why?

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/05/08 - 09:13 AM:	#16
gesler0811 wrote: This is something that I especially have been pondering over the last couple of weeks. The fact that there exists such harmony in all things suggests a divine scheme has been carried out. If life (and even non-life) just sort of happened, and all these different organisms evolved independently from each other in different places on the earth, I think nature would be a lot more erratic and random than we realize. The harmony that seems to bind all of nature to me is indicative of God's presence and involvement. A fine work of art does not just occur randomly when paint spills on a canvas, it occurs when a skilled painter weaves the paint together with skillful strokes. For emphasis, I now gladly quote Romans 1:18-20 for further elaboration: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." This is a very stupid thing to say. 99.8% of all life that ever existed isn't alive today, does that sound harmonious to you. What you've got wrong is that life on Earth didn't just 'happen' it has taken millions of years to adapt and it's completely trial and error.

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 148

Posted 01/05/08 - 09:30 AM:	#17
gesler0811 wrote: I agree with this point. I'm pleased we can find at least this area of agreement. It seems all we have.

philosofear
Dualist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: My mind
Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 299

Posted 01/05/08 - 10:59 AM:	#18
Jaith wrote: Our world and our universe is based upon the physical laws of nature that surround us. But some things in the universe do not correspond with these laws, so, scientists have concluded that the universe is so big, that the physical laws that are in it, change. Since the universe is unlimited in size, there must be at least one place, where God can not exist, because the physical laws of that place do not permit it. Since the definition of God is to be endless and unlimited, this very thing limits him. God can not exist, because it is impossible for him to be endless. Hmm I may be a bit a cruel here but... I find almost everything in your argument to be flawed. First of all I am not so certain that scientists have collectively concluded that the physical laws in the universe change. Furthermore, if they change, their would have to be laws on how they change, and these superlaws would therefore be the laws contradicting your statement, unless you want to argue that the changes in physical laws are completely chaotic. The universe isn't unlimited in size, it is eternally expanding (as far as we know) but it is still finite. Also, God isn't a physical being, therefore not subject to physical laws. This idea that science can disprove God is an absolute phallacy because science can only remark on what physically exists and for the sake of itself it presupposes the non-existence of anything non-physical. Science isn't really designed and shouldn't be used to disprove PHILOSOPHICAL theories. I think it should be remembered that science is more or less an extension of philosophy, not vice versa. As others pointed out the definition of God changes depending on who your talking to, the idea of God is probably far more broad then the being itself (if one exists).
"The unexamined life is not worth living" -Socrates

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890

Posted 01/05/08 - 07:41 PM:	#19
JGMU wrote: Something that's physical is something that will exist regardless to human beliefs. If this is your definition of "physical" it is a very unorthodox one. If for instance the existence of the human soul were an objective truth, then the soul would be considered a "physical" entity even though by definition souls are nonphysical.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/08/08 - 12:04 PM:	#20
JGMU wrote: Something that's physical is something that will exist regardless to human beliefs. god can only exist while people belief it, so it's not real in any meaning of the word. What if the idea of god had never created, would god exist, of course not. Other animals, for example Dolphins know that water exists the same way we do, but to them god doesn't exist, Why? Your logic seems flawed. Did I understand you to say that God only exists if people believe in him, and then you reinforced that assumption with the claim that to dolphins God does not exist? Different people believe different things for starters. Are you suggesting that to different people, different things exist? God exists only because I believe in him, but to an atheist he does not exist? So God both exists and does not exist simultaneously? Your conclusion that God does not exist is based on the assumption that God does not exist. Do you see the error of your way of thinking? You give yourself away when you say that God only exists if people believe in him. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster. Some people do. So does it exist or not? If the Loch Ness monster is real, it exists regardless of whether or not I believe in it. But if it is not real, then you can say it exists only in the minds of the people who believe. So for me to make the claim that the Loch Ness Monster only exists in the minds of the people who believe in it is to say that I am assuming the Loch Ness monster is not real. Which is what you have done on the topic of God. You assumed God did not exist, then you used that assumption to 'prove' that God did not exist. Now let me ask you a question: The ants in an ant farm in a kid's bedroom know that the sand is in the antfarm the way we do. Yet they do not believe in the existence of the kitchen where that kid is eating cereal. Why? JGMU wrote: This is a very stupid thing to say. 99.8% of all life that ever existed isn't alive today, does that sound harmonious to you. What you've got wrong is that life on Earth didn't just 'happen' it has taken millions of years to adapt and it's completely trial and error. So any opinion that differs from yours is 'stupid?' What are you, 12? Does your mommy know you are on the computer late at night bothering the big people? I was referring to the harmony of all things that exist in the world today. The fact that things have died does not support your claim, because I know things die, and the Bible says that things die. If you want to disagree with the Bible, first you need to start by NOT AGREEING with the Bible. And I also did not comment on how long life has existed or how it has adapted. I simply claimed I do not think it could have BEGUN in an accident. So if the right particles are aligned in the right way under the right conditions, a piece of inorganic matter can suddenly become organic and "live?" By that logic, my desk could come to life under the right conditions. Has any scientist alive or dead ever been able to create a life form our of inorganic matter? So my belief that there was a sentient creator orchestrating creation is no more stupid really than your belief that a sludge pool came to life because it got really really hot one day. We are both choosing to believe in something that we did not witness first hand and that nobody can show us any physical evidence to prove or disprove. Now go find your sippy cup and your blankey and take a nap. You know the baby gets cranky when he misses his nap. Edited by gesler0811 on 01/08/08 - 12:29 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.