Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Metsfanmax]

Or, he creates the rules, then creates the universe, but essentially you're just adding another step to the creation before the "let there be light" bit, and there is still a point when there is only God without even the rules. And that's where you have the point without causality again, and you remove the need for God, or anything else, to be a prime cause.

I agree with the premise, disagree with the conclusion. I think it is perfectly fine to believe that God created the rules of our universe (causality, the laws of nature, etc.) and then say that the Bible is the account of what happened when God started putting all the matter and energy into the universe that obeyed these rules (well, "fine" except for the mountains of evidence against the specific account in the Bible). Alternatively, it is also fine to say that the universe and causality were created at the same time, and that God created the universe anyway. Your last bit is not self-consistent anyway. It's absurd to think of a "time before causality," because time has no real meaning in an acausal world. You're trying to apply the rules of causality to the topic of whether causality can be created, which is just ridiculous.

Also, not every account of omnipotence requires God to be completely unrestricted in his possible actions. It is legitimate to believe in a scenario where God is omnipotent, but that omnipotence is restricted to only doing things that don't cause a paradox (again, using the word "legitimate" very loosely).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The Limit is that Species of animals do not evolve into other species of animals. That is the limit of mutations and natural selection.

It is within the design of DNA that slight Mutations can and do occur to aid in the survival of Life but the "Origin of Species" suggest that all life on the planet evolve from lower life forms over millions of Years. This is simply not the case due to extremely large gaps in the fossil records which suggest more than anything else sudden and possibly mass extinctions of many species on a regular basis as well as the sudden appearance of new life where they previously did not exist, every few million years. This sounds like sudden creation to me in the order of every few millions of years. Darwin knew this and in his own writings quoted...

"Why, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"... Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
-The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137)

For the record; Darwin died doubting his own Theory of Evolution.

A deafening whoosh suddenly appears...

-TG

[crispybits]

Or, he creates the rules, then creates the universe, but essentially you're just adding another step to the creation before the "let there be light" bit, and there is still a point when there is only God without even the rules. And that's where you have the point without causality again, and you remove the need for God, or anything else, to be a prime cause.

I agree with the premise, disagree with the conclusion. I think it is perfectly fine to believe that God created the rules of our universe (causality, the laws of nature, etc.) and then say that the Bible is the account of what happened when God started putting all the matter and energy into the universe that obeyed these rules (well, "fine" except for the mountains of evidence against the specific account in the Bible). Alternatively, it is also fine to say that the universe and causality were created at the same time, and that God created the universe anyway. Your last bit is not self-consistent anyway. It's absurd to think of a "time before causality," because time has no real meaning in an acausal world. You're trying to apply the rules of causality to the topic of whether causality can be created, which is just ridiculous.

Also, not every account of omnipotence requires God to be completely unrestricted in his possible actions. It is legitimate to believe in a scenario where God is omnipotent, but that omnipotence is restricted to only doing things that don't cause a paradox (again, using the word "legitimate" very loosely).

The causality "paradox" that you point out of causality needing to be caused is another example of why the experiment (and therefore the initial premise) breaks down. If God creates causality (to remove the necessity for causality to have a "natural" cause) then there is a reality without causality (that consists of at least God) and therefore there is some "moment" when causality does not apply and anything can come from nothing.

Yes it's fine to say causality was created as part of and at the same "time" as the universe and there can still be a God, but it removes God as a necessity in the process. God is no longer needed (at least to fulfil the causal chain, which is what the intial premise is about and what the argument is used for - proof of necessity)

On your last point, if God exists and the rules exist already (because they have to) and this doesn't break the omnipotence thing, then you are saying that the rules are necessarily the way they are and God cannot choose to change them. Which is fine for the weaker definition of omnipotence, until you ask how he made the universe in the first place then. The rules already apply. Conservation of energy, causality, etc all already apply. So it would cause an impossibility in this situation for him to create the universe, and therefore he cannot do it.

(forgive any temporal terms throughout this post and my others, I obviously don't mean these in terms of time but linguistics are somewhat limited here)

[Metsfanmax]

The causality "paradox" that you point out of causality needing to be caused is another example of why the experiment (and therefore the initial premise) breaks down. If God creates causality (to remove the necessity for causality to have a "natural" cause) then there is a reality without causality (that consists of at least God) and therefore there is some "moment" when causality does not apply and anything can come from nothing.

I don't see how that really responds to the argument. Let's say there is two separate eras, one without causality and one with (the latter being after God institutes causality on the world). I think this is an absurd construction, but go with it. As long as the universe was actually created in the latter part, then the creation argument is self-consistent. Sure, the universe could have been spontaneously created during the time without causality, but that doesn't mean it necessarily was.

On your last point, if God exists and the rules exist already (because they have to) and this doesn't break the omnipotence thing, then you are saying that the rules are necessarily the way they are and God cannot choose to change them. Which is fine for the weaker definition of omnipotence, until you ask how he made the universe in the first place then. The rules already apply. Conservation of energy, causality, etc all already apply. So it would cause an impossibility in this situation for him to create the universe, and therefore he cannot do it.

I disagree on one major point and one technical point. The major disagreement stems from the fact that causality is a much different type of rule than, say, conservation of energy. Causality could be one of the "inherent" rules of the universe, while conservation of energy could be one of the ones that God chose when he created this particular universe. On the technical point, what you are saying is still incorrect if the total energy of the universe is zero (which is what some physicists would argue, although I'm not convinced it's a settled point).

As was pointed out recently in this thread, through quantum mechanics it is possible for something to be spontaneously created from nothing (to use my terminology loosely).

[crispybits]

I don't see how that really responds to the argument. Let's say there is two separate eras, one without causality and one with (the latter being after God institutes causality on the world). I think this is an absurd construction, but go with it. As long as the universe was actually created in the latter part, then the creation argument is self-consistent. Sure, the universe could have been spontaneously created during the time without causality, but that doesn't mean it necessarily was.

No but again you're missing the point. I'm STILL not trying to establish anything positive, simply show the fact that God is not necessary either. The argument I start from is that there was nothing, then there was something, therefore God. I'm saying that if there was nothing, and then there was something, then it doesn't prove God's necessity. In effect your entire paragraph that says I don't respond to the argument agrees with me, because it says that all you can do is say "God might have done it" and not "God must have done it".

I disagree on one major point and one technical point. The major disagreement stems from the fact that causality is a much different type of rule than, say, conservation of energy. Causality could be one of the "inherent" rules of the universe, while conservation of energy could be one of the ones that God chose when he created this particular universe. On the technical point, what you are saying is still incorrect if the total energy of the universe is zero (which is what some physicists would argue, although I'm not convinced it's a settled point).

As was pointed out recently in this thread, through quantum mechanics it is possible for something to be spontaneously created from nothing (to use my terminology loosely).

Why is causality different from conservation of energy? They both seem like pretty fundamental rules governing a stable and consistent unverse to me. You can't remove the second any more than you can remove the first without descending into universal natural anarchy. You cannot arbitrarily say "this one is fundamental and this one is optional", they are both just rules that apply.

If the total energy of the universe is zero then that gets around conservation of energy, though I am struggling to think of any process that starts from a zero and makes a positive and negative that exactly balance. I can think of theoretical processes that start from a neutral something and split it, but if you're saying that this is what happened then God didnt create something from nothing, and this again removes his necessity.

You still also have problems with something not bound by the rules being able to influence everything that is bound by the rules in any way other than allowing the rules to play out without by definition breaking the rules. Any influence would bring an external force, energy or mass into the system and therefore break the conservation rule, and if an equal and simultaneous negative force, energy or mass is introduced then that just cancels out whatever is being done anyway.

The universe being zero sum is (imo) unlikely, as it was at some point a singularity, and if it was zero sum then it would just all cancel itself out at the point where it has no time or space when it begins to exist. I would agree that it's zero total change, as in the universe will have the same total combined mass and energy at the end as it did at the beginning (counting the multiverses in here for correctness before you go off on that irrelevant tangent again), but not that it's zero sum. Then again I'm not a professional physicist, so I stand to be corrected if it's found that it is.

Also, quantum mechanics doesn't break causality.

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level. It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle. For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized. If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,” and that something is what we identify as the cause.

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/ ... principle/

Also, I still disagree that you can have "nothing with rules" as this would be "rules" which is not nothing. Therefore for the statement God made something from nothing" you need to have the rules in the "something" side of that sentence, and I'm wondering if you can prove why this principle is wrong.

[MeDeFe]

If the total energy of the universe is zero then that gets around conservation of energy, though I am struggling to think of any process that starts from a zero and makes a positive and negative that exactly balance.

Actually, it seems the universe really is zero-sum and is based on a process that starts with a positive and a negative that exactly balance. The conservation of energy still applies perfectly. But I'll let Lawrence Krauss explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

[Metsfanmax]

No but again you're missing the point. I'm STILL not trying to establish anything positive, simply show the fact that God is not necessary either. The argument I start from is that there was nothing, then there was something, therefore God. I'm saying that if there was nothing, and then there was something, then it doesn't prove God's necessity. In effect your entire paragraph that says I don't respond to the argument agrees with me, because it says that all you can do is say "God might have done it" and not "God must have done it".

The fact that you can envision a scenario in which God "might not have done it" involves appealing to the idea of a "time before causality." It is absurd to suggest that a causal universe could ever come out of an acausal state, or that causality could ever spontaneously "arise" from a state of no causality.

Why is causality different from conservation of energy? They both seem like pretty fundamental rules governing a stable and consistent unverse to me. You can't remove the second any more than you can remove the first without descending into universal natural anarchy. You cannot arbitrarily say "this one is fundamental and this one is optional", they are both just rules that apply.

It is surely the case that causality is different from physical laws. Causality underlies all of our abilities to predict things in the future given what happened in the past. The physical laws that we have discovered through empirical testing are just the particular rules this particular universe obeys in evolving its matter and energy over time. There's no reason to assert that things would "descend into anarchy" if, say, energy could be spontaneously created or destroyed. As long as we could quantify the sources and sinks of energy, the universe would be perfectly predictable. Causality is an overarching premise that gives us the ability to understand the particulars of the world around us.

If the total energy of the universe is zero then that gets around conservation of energy, though I am struggling to think of any process that starts from a zero and makes a positive and negative that exactly balance. I can think of theoretical processes that start from a neutral something and split it, but if you're saying that this is what happened then God didnt create something from nothing, and this again removes his necessity.

This is an easy one. The gravitational force results in negative energy; that is, you need to do work against the gravitational force to expand the universe. The expansion of the universe results in positive energy (e.g. of matter). I didn't watch the video MeDeFe linked but I would bet it makes a similar argument. This is why some physicists believe the net energy of the universe is zero, or at least a constant.

Also, quantum mechanics doesn't break causality.
...

I didn't bring up QM to argue that it violates causality. I was pointing out that something can be created from nothing in QM, due to the uncertainty principle involving energy and time.

But, QM does break causality in a more limited sense (see quantum entanglement). That's a different type of causality problem than the one described on this blog post by a theologist.

Also, I still disagree that you can have "nothing with rules" as this would be "rules" which is not nothing. Therefore for the statement God made something from nothing" you need to have the rules in the "something" side of that sentence, and I'm wondering if you can prove why this principle is wrong.

I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.

[crispybits]

The fact that you can envision a scenario in which God "might not have done it" involves appealing to the idea of a "time before causality." It is absurd to suggest that a causal universe could ever come out of an acausal state, or that causality could ever spontaneously "arise" from a state of no causality.

It is absurd to believe that the universe came out of an acausal state? So it is absurd to believe a sky daddy could create the universe from nothing right? So you're missing the point by a country mile yet again because, and I'll separate this out seeing as you're just not getting it:

This is a thought experiment based on the creation myth, not a real physics debate!

It is surely the case that causality is different from physical laws. Causality underlies all of our abilities to predict things in the future given what happened in the past. The physical laws that we have discovered through empirical testing are just the particular rules this particular universe obeys in evolving its matter and energy over time. There's no reason to assert that things would "descend into anarchy" if, say, energy could be spontaneously created or destroyed. As long as we could quantify the sources and sinks of energy, the universe would be perfectly predictable. Causality is an overarching premise that gives us the ability to understand the particulars of the world around us.

Surely the case based on what? That we wouldn't be able to predict things any more? That it would make it difficult to understand? Why do those things matter to the universe?

Causality has 4 principles:

1) The relation is an invariable or uniform one, i.e. whenever the cause occurs, the effect does as well.
2) The relation holds between events that are spatially contiguous, i.e. the cause and effect occur in roughly the same spatial region.
3) The relation has the temporal characteristic that the effect temporally follows the cause and the two are "continuous."
4) The relation is asymmetrical, i.e. it is often, but not always the case, that if a causes b, b will not cause a.

2 and 3 are the problems here. Causality needs space and time. Without the universe there can be no causality because without the universe there is no space or time.

This is an easy one. The gravitational force results in negative energy; that is, you need to do work against the gravitational force to expand the universe. The expansion of the universe results in positive energy (e.g. of matter). I didn't watch the video MeDeFe linked but I would bet it makes a similar argument. This is why some physicists believe the net energy of the universe is zero, or at least a constant.

I haven't had time to watch the video (yet) but that example fails. You're not creating a positive and a negative from nothing, you're taking the energy you put into moving against gravity and storing it a gravitational potential energy. Drop whatever you lifted up against gravity and it will drop (potential to kinetic) and then hit the floor (kinetic to sound/heat/etc). If you ended up with a zero sum by working against gravity every time you lifted something up it would just float there.

I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.

I have a book. Nothing is written in it. Is it a rulebook?

I have a computer disk. Nothing is coded on it. Can it run a program?

You have nothing in the thought experiment. God is all that exists. He creates everything, including the rules. It's perfectly simple (and not essential at all)

[Metsfanmax]

It is absurd to believe that the universe came out of an acausal state? So it is absurd to believe a sky daddy could create the universe from nothing right? So you're missing the point by a country mile yet again because, and I'll separate this out seeing as you're just not getting it:

This is a thought experiment based on the creation myth, not a real physics debate!

It is only absurd to believe that a sky daddy could create the universe from nothing insofar as we have no evidence for it. That being said, it is at least a claim consistent with what we know. You've posed a thought experiment that is completely illogical and based on nonsense premises. Your thought experiment needs to make sense if it's going to disprove anything. And it doesn't, because it suggests that somehow causality comes from acausality (whereas causality is always inherently present in the creation story).

Surely the case based on what? That we wouldn't be able to predict things any more? That it would make it difficult to understand? Why do those things matter to the universe?

Causality has 4 principles:

1) The relation is an invariable or uniform one, i.e. whenever the cause occurs, the effect does as well.
2) The relation holds between events that are spatially contiguous, i.e. the cause and effect occur in roughly the same spatial region.
3) The relation has the temporal characteristic that the effect temporally follows the cause and the two are "continuous."
4) The relation is asymmetrical, i.e. it is often, but not always the case, that if a causes b, b will not cause a.

2 and 3 are the problems here. Causality needs space and time. Without the universe there can be no causality because without the universe there is no space or time.

This definition of causality discusses how causality plays out in a universe with space and time. It is an example of a more general understanding of causality (that "causes" precede "effects" -- this is a simple logical description that is independent of physical descriptions). You can't semantically argue your way out of this, because it avoids the real question.

I haven't had time to watch the video (yet) but that example fails. You're not creating a positive and a negative from nothing, you're taking the energy you put into moving against gravity and storing it a gravitational potential energy. Drop whatever you lifted up against gravity and it will drop (potential to kinetic) and then hit the floor (kinetic to sound/heat/etc). If you ended up with a zero sum by working against gravity every time you lifted something up it would just float there.

Your argument is sound at first glance, but it doesn't stand up in reality. You're essentially saying that if I lift an object up, I do work against the gravitational force, leaving me with a net change in energy, since the kinetic energy is zero at both the beginning and the end. But energy is always conserved, so something must have happened when you lifted that book. In particular, you pushed the Earth downward. Obviously the effect is so minuscule that the Earth doesn't care. But be assured, lifting that book was a zero sum process, if you take into account the entire system, which is what you are required to do when considering energy conservation.

I have a computer disk. Nothing is coded on it. Can it run a program?

No, but all of the physics is in place so that a designer can come in and write a program on it; they don't need to invent the laws that make up transistors from scratch.

[jonesthecurl]

I'll try this again...
This is the short version, I've done this before.

The Universe either
(a) has always been here or
(b) had a beginning.

If (a), then there is no creation and no creator

If (b), then the first thing that happened wasthe first thing that happened. If it was caused by something then it was at least the second thing that happened. Since nothing could possibly have caused the first thing that happened to happen(by definition), then there is no creation and no creator.

[Metsfanmax]

I'll try this again...
This is the short version, I've done this before.

The Universe either
(a) has always been here or
(b) had a beginning.

If (a), then there is no creation and no creator

If (b), then the first thing that happened wasthe first thing that happened. If it was caused by something then it was at least the second thing that happened. Since nothing could possibly have caused the first thing that happened to happen(by definition), then there is no creation and no creator.

A couple obvious flaws with this argument. There are more.

1) God choosing to do something is much different, qualitatively, than some internal cause, resulting in the creation of the universe. It is not relevant to speak of "what caused God to act."

2) A less confusing way of making your argument is just to say that if causality applies, God's action to create the universe must be the effect of some other action, and this repeats ad infinitum. But for the same reasoning as part (a), if God is infinite in time, then this line of reasoning fails.

[jonesthecurl]

It is indeed meaningless to say "I pushed the ball and then it got pushed" - not because of your no-doubt brilliant argument, but because that phrase makes no sense.. I have no idea what else you are saying in your point 1.

For point 2, look at it this way: It is meaningless to ask what happened "before" the first event, or what "caused" it. I don't see how you bring a god who is "infinite in time" into the question, even if that phrase has any more meaning than the "pushed" thing.

[Metsfanmax]

For point 2, look at it this way: It is meaningless to ask what happened "before" the first event, or what "caused" it. I don't see how you bring a god who is "infinite in time" into the question, even if that phrase has any more meaning than the "pushed" thing.

Sure, it is meaningless to ask that. But the beginning of the universe is not the "first" event, so that's ok. If God is infinite in time, he does not need a cause, he simply "is." As a result, it's also meaningless to ask because there is no first event. Then, at some point, he decides to create the universe, which is the only thing we can access. From our point of view, it is the beginning, in the sense that it is the earliest time we can know about, but it is not the beginning from God's perspective.

[jonesthecurl]

Um, no.
Look at your phrase "then at some point he decided to create the universe".
This implies both time, and a cause (god) "before" the first event. There is no need of this hypothesis, and it simply adds needless complications.

[Metsfanmax]

Um, no.
Look at your phrase "then at some point he decided to create the universe".
This implies both time, and a cause (god) "before" the first event.

It implies a cause before the first event in our universe, but there is no need to restrict oneself to only the thing us lowly humans can perceive, when discussing causality. The creation of our universe was not the first event, in this paradigm.

There is no need of this hypothesis, and it simply adds needless complications.

Of course there's no need of it. That's why I am agnostic. But your original argument attempted to prove that there was no creator. If you're backtracking to say "well, that just makes it more complicated" -- then fine, but that's a far cry from actually disproving a creator.

[jonesthecurl]

To make room for any god this way, you need to hypothesize a state of "this isn't really time so it doesn't count" time, outside real time.
You have to redefine time and redefine causality, in such a way as to make the words meaningless.
This is Humpty Dumpty style arguing.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

There's Glory for you.

[Metsfanmax]

To make room for any god this way, you need to hypothesize a state of "this isn't really time so it doesn't count" time, outside real time.

What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.

[jonesthecurl]

I say: the first thing that happened was the first thing. There can be no time before that, there can be no cause. This is merely a function of the words themselves.

You say: maybe "cause" doesn't mean "cause". Maybe "time" doesn't mean "time". Maybe "first" doesn't mean "first".
Have you been studying at the lionz school of semantics, maybe?
Maybe "maybe" doesn't mean "maybe'.

And maybe gravity is caused by invisible badgers sitting on my head.
Probably meta-badgers existing outside time and space.

Bah.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and to quote something you said yourself:

You've posed a thought experiment that is completely illogical and based on nonsense premises.

[Metsfanmax]

I say: the first thing that happened was the first thing. There can be no time before that, there can be no cause. This is merely a function of the words themselves.

There is no problem with that. But you seem to be taking it as a premise that time and causes only apply to our universe, and then using it to prove something about the nature of our universe. That is circular reasoning. There's a reason you can't semantically argue your way to a conclusion about the nature of the universe.

You say: maybe "cause" doesn't mean "cause". Maybe "time" doesn't mean "time". Maybe "first" doesn't mean "first".

No, what I said is that you haven't precisely defined what a "cause" is and what "time" is, but expect everyone to be on board with whatever is in your head fitting those words. You can't do that in a serious logical discussion. You need to precisely define your terms, and then describe how they lead to the conclusion that you've stated.

For example, your argument right now is essentially that that the first event was the creation of the universe, and there was no event prior to that. That just begs the question of what an event is, because you've defined it in such a way as to prove the point that you're getting at. There's no real substance to the argument; it's just word games with no meaning. It doesn't actually say anything about the question of whether there's a creator or not. Seriously -- think about it. Is there any actual critical reasoning in your argument? I don't think so. It's just a tautology.

The most rock solid thing that modern science has taught us is that you can't figure out how the universe works, using deductive reasoning from the armchair. You need to get out there and explore it. If the answers are not yet within our reach, you just have to be patient and wait for the science and technology to improve.

[jonesthecurl]

I see you're also going back and revising your posts so it looks like you were making more sense.
Unless, of course, it's god doing it for you outside of time and causality.

[Metsfanmax]

I see you're also going back and revising your posts so it looks like you were making more sense.
Unless, of course, it's god doing it for you outside of time and causality.

I revised one post (the one with the rolling the ball down the hill) immediately after I posted it, because admittedly it wasn't very clear what I was saying; you just happened to see it before I got my edit in. Other than that, I do sometimes edit my posts for grammatical issues and other minor things, but I don't usually edit them to change the meaning.

If you don't want to take a logical discussion seriously, that's ok. But then don't fool everyone by posting things that look suspiciously like deductive reasoning arguments.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, you're the one talking about things that happen "before time".
And that god could create the universe, but not cause it.
And suggesting that my arguments are merely semantic tautolologies while seeking yourself to redefine just about every word in the dictionary.
And saying there are invisible badgers.
Oh, wait, that last one was me. My bad.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed now. If I can define bed.
G'night.

[Metsfanmax]

And saying there are invisible badgers.

How do you know there aren't invisible badgers?

Atheists are all consistently wrong, and it's always for exactly the same reason. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[Metsfanmax]

By the way, that comment was made mostly in jest, but the point is real. It's common on both sides of the God argument to appeal to arguments from absurdity, or arguments of infinite regress. I just don't buy these arguments. When you're discussing the nature of the f***ing universe you have to be willing to step outside the box of what human experience normally tells you. Infinities and absurdities are just part of the deal when you start talking about how our universe was created. You can't reject anything just because it seems too weird or difficult to imagine.

I mean, if you had told people about quantum mechanics two centuries ago, that would have been taken just as seriously as the invisible badger question.