Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Relena]

I mean, speaking of God's being, we can assume, by language, properties that don't belong to God, now that's multiplying entities unnecessarily, asking about the God's creator just doesn't provide any evidence that the universe is created or not.

I still insist that God's existence can't be proved by logic abstractly without religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find the notion that there is a supreme being capable of creating a universe and life on it more absurd that the idea that it came to be by chance.

The answer seems like a total cop out as it just introduces even more complexity to the universe. Not only do we have to understand how some creator managed to create the universe, we have to understand how the hell they came to be?

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

 

[rolls]

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

That is like saying we have 1000 individual problems, we are going to make them simpler by compiling a book with all 1000 problems in it and call it a single problem that needs to be solved.

I know you were taking the piss but I couldn't help myself lol.

 

[Evo]

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

It's a cop out. It boils down to "I don't know the answer so I'll make something up". And if anyone asks why there is no evidence of this thing, "oh it's because it's supernatural and humans can't comprehend it". Etc.., etc... Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a cop out. It boils down to "I don't know the answer so I'll make something up". And if anyone asks why there is no evidence of this thing, "oh it's because it's supernatural and humans can't comprehend it". Etc.., etc... Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

Yes.


I was simply making the point that "God just makes things more complicated" is a weak refutation of God. There are stronger ones.

My common philosophy - especially in things related to religion - is to ensure that the strongest argument against it be nurtured, groomed and disseminated. To that end, I seek to discourage weak arguments that can be more easily attacked by opponents of atheism.

...which is the definition of Devil's Advocate - to take an opposing position in order to test the quality of the argument on the table.

 

[rolls]

It wasn't a refutation of god, it was just a question of whether or not it is less of a leap of faith to believe in a creature capable of creating a universe and life from nothing, or to believe that given x trillion trillion planets that it is likely life will evolve on one of them.

If it is less of a leap of faith, why do people insist on using the argument, "well it is the simplest explanation, I can't explain how it happened, so someone else must have created it all".

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think they say that the universe requires a creator, a creator is not required independently of the case, the main difference between God and universe that the universe follows certain rules, if god created those rules it is not necessary to obey them.
in order to create doesn't mean you have to be created, being created is not one of God's properties, you can't ask about the taste of vacuum because taste is not a property of vacuum, and you can't imagine how it feels to be dead because death ceases perception, no one can create God because he is the creator of everything.

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

Is he assuming, or is he postulating?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Isn't a postulate supposed to be self-evident?

 

[Evo]

How about "in the beginning, there was a supreme being, but he exploded with a *big bang*".

What about all of the thousands of creation myths with fish, reptiles, and amphibians? What about all of the other thousands of gods? Why is it that people forget how many gods are worshipped on this planet?

 

[Relena]

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

I didn't assume any thing solely, I say if it is assumed that the universe requires creation this doesn't mean that the creator of the universe is created, because the creator properties are different from creature properties. the creator won't be made of something like atoms or energy he is just indescribable except by what he describes himself.

As I said it twice before, God's existence is beyond our bottom-up logic, and the need for God is not the need for knowledge, we may be able to reduce everything we see into laws, however we won't know why such rules exist, one would say that such a question is a fault of language and there is nothing like "why is this like that", this is an opinion but not a profound fact, besides it's out of science's hand.

Most of people on Earth don't need to know anything about the universe, they just want to know their own destiny, too many of them are just half believers because they don't want to take the risk that 0.00001% God exists, and thus the whole life would be like a test, and who knows what destiny is waiting for them beyond death, other people just make jokes of that because they find it a pride not to fear the so called God even if existed, and they feel proud not to be fooled by the liars called prophets and the hocuspocus holy books. The same scenario have been happening from centuries, no matter how developed the basis of refutation became, it is still based on human pride not understanding.

That's why I find the idea of philosophical/ non religious God absurd and goalless, and that's why I can clearly see that this discussion will never end, unless closed of course.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How about "in the beginning, there was a supreme being, but he exploded with a *big bang*".

What about all of the thousands of creation myths with fish, reptiles, and amphibians? What about all of the other thousands of gods? Why is it that people forget how many gods are worshipped on this planet?

As Richard Dawkins put it, paraphrased; "A Christian is atheistic towards 9,999 gods. I'm atheistic towards 10,000."

 

[DaveC426913]

As I said it twice before, God's existence is beyond our bottom-up logic, and the need for God is not the need for knowledge, we may be able to reduce everything we see into laws, however we won't know why such rules exist,

Note though, that the same trouble applies to an explanation that doesn't include God as well as one that does.

Whether the ultimate answer is a self-referencing Grand Unified Equation that explains First Cause, or whether it is a conscious entity that explains First Cause makes no difference in the solution to the conundrum of how all existence pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

There is nothing that the "God" solution addresses that the "GUE" solution doesn't also address, and there is nothing that the "God" solution leaves open that the GUE solution does not also leave open.

So, what we are left with is that God is still redundant. It solves nothing.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's why I find the idea of philosophical/ non religious God absurd and goalless...

But wanting existence to not be "absurd and goalless" does not make it so.

Wanting there to be an objective meaning to life does not mean there is any.

Which is why so many see Believers as wishful thinkers.

 

[pftest]

I saw on the first page statements like "a creator isn't needed in nature" and "nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe". I understand this is being said in the context of a "god-creator" during the big bang, but even so those statements are false for the reason that conscious humans exist and influence the universe. So this establishes in principle that conscious creative forces are natural. Looking at humans we can also see that a creator can in principle create/consciously influence himself, make himself more or less complex, etc. Many of the things that are said to be impossible, irrational or inplausible in the context of a god-creator, are known to happen with human-creators.

 

[DaveC426913]

"a creator isn't needed in nature"
"nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe"

...those statements are false for the reason that conscious humans exist and influence the universe.

Your rationale does not falsify the claims. It is non sequitur (...one does not follow from the other...).

The universe got along just fine before humans (or any life) came along, so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

 

[pftest]

Your rationale does not falsify the claims. It is non sequitur (...one does not follow from the other...).

The universe got along just fine before humans (or any life) came along, so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

That depends on how one defines "to create". If we look at it as "consciously influencing" we can see that humans create/consciously influence the universe. We may think of ourselves as small insignificant late arrivals, but even so, a single conscious entity falsifies the claim that the universe does not need it.

 

[stevenb]

... so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

I accept your second statement. [EDIT: sorry, not "your statement", but "the statement" based on your response below]

However, your [EDIT: the] first statement is very bold. How do you [EDIT: does one] prove that a creator isn't needed to the extent that you [EDIT: one] can say "it is still true" with certainty? I have never seen a proof that it was true, never mind that it is still true. Can you [EDIT: anyone] offer a proof?

If we really understand our present science, we see that it is a description of nature, not an explanation of it. There are still too many assumptions about universal constants and starting conditions in our theories to claim that we have explained the origin of the universe. Yes, many mysteries have been explained in terms of fundamental laws, but those laws are still a mystery. Even if the final supertheory is developed to explain everything, we have to ask, "why and how does that supertheory exist?".

If science can ever produce universal laws of nature that, not only explain why the universe exists, but also explain why those universal laws also must exist, it will have done something it never did before. That this is possible has not been proven, and hence to believe in it with certainty requires faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

I accept your second statement.

However, your first statement is very bold.

It is not my statement. pftest quoted it from earlier. All I'm doing is pointing that his argument does not falsify anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

a single conscious entity falsifies the claim that the universe does not need it.

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So, what we are left with is that God is still redundant. It solves nothing.

...except the essence of everything -- 'Existence'.

- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

That's the atheist viewpoint. There are others.

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous" - AE

 

[xxChrisxx]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

 

[stevenb]

It is not my statement. pftest quoted it from earlier. All I'm doing is pointing that his argument does not falsify anything.

Sorry, I got confused. I edited the post to make it clear that you are not saying that.

I'll leave the post as a general statement about this type of viewpoint that some people have.

 

[DaveC426913]

...except the essence of everything -- 'Existence'.

You're missing what I'm saying. Please read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779069&postcount=48".

We can't comprehend God any more than we can comprehend some as-yet-undiscovered all-encompassing equation that explains all existence. An equation (albeit a fabulously-advanced one, well beyond our current understanding) could explain all existence too.

That's the atheist viewpoint. There are others.

Again, not my claim. You've jumped in a little late and are taking these comments out of context. Please read pftest's https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779150&postcount=50".

 

[Evo]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

I'll second that motion!

 

[GeorgCantor]

You're missing what I'm saying. Please read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779069&postcount=48".

We can't comprehend God any more than we can comprehend some as-yet-undiscovered all-encompassing equation that explains all existence. An equation (albeit a fabulously-advanced one, well beyond our current understanding) could explain all existence too.

This is a religious belief. What makes you think an advanced equation will ever be able to explain existence? Is that equation really SO powerful that it demands its own coming into existence?

Again, not my claim. You've jumped in a little late and are taking these comments out of context. Read pftest's posts starting a few back.

Sorry. And sorry for being late.

 

[pftest]

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them. It establishes the principle that there is nothing unnatural about conscious influences acting on the fundamental physical ingredients and the laws of physics.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a religious belief. What makes you think an advanced equation will ever be able to explain existence? Is that equation really SO powerful that it demands its own coming into existence?

The point is, it could. Those questions you just asked apply equally well to God as they could to this (hypothetical) equation.

The point being: claiming "God did it" gets us no further than "this equation defines it".

Thus, Occams' Razor: no need to multiply entities unnecessarily.



Now... kittens!

 

[Evo]

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them.

I'm afraid you'll have to post valid scientific data that backs up a statement like that.

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

You do realize that the universe is in constant change? I have no idea where your line of thinking is coming from.

 

[stevenb]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

Oh boy, now you brought the origin of species into the discussion. Now there will be a raging debate on how both God and natural selection are capable of producing something very cute and cuddly. I'm going to get a head start and run for cover now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

This is simply word-play.

"The universe needs every molecule in it to be the place it is because otherwise it would not be the universe."

It yields us nothing.

Except kittens.

 

[GeorgCantor]

'everything is so obvious, God exists!'

vs

'everything is so obvious, God doesn't exist!'.

 

[HeLiXe]

Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

They don't?!

 

[HeLiXe]

It yields us nothing.

Except kittens.

All hail the universe!

 

[GeorgCantor]

They don't?!

Nah, that was the Satan.