Why does God need to exist?

The Batlord · 10-27-2017, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

you'd then naturally ask where did God come from and if he didn't require a cause

you'd say Occam's Razor or "why does god need to exist"

I'm confident Nea is happy to believe in magic. He probably buys copies of Harry Potter just so he can burn them.

OccultHawk · 10-26-2017, 09:55 PM

There may be a few outliers in the scientific community who will claim they can prove there’s no god but by far the default position is if you’re claiming something is real the onus is on you to supply proof. Teapot orbiting the sun thing.

Please don’t reduce the discussion to first cause.

Pet - your OP reads to me like old school ontology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but philosophers have been pontificating about it for several centuries.

OccultHawk · 10-26-2017, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Nobody has any business claiming that they know whether god does or does not exist.

For the word “know” to have any reasonable meaning I think it’s ok use the word to describe one’s certainity there’s no god. At least to the same degree I know there’s no teapot orbiting Jupiter. Or I know there’s no Santa Claus.

The Batlord · 10-27-2017, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

For the word “know” to have any reasonable meaning I think it’s ok use the word to describe one’s certainity there’s no god. At least to the same degree I know there’s no teapot orbiting Jupiter. Or I know there’s no Santa Claus.

From a scientific standpoint it wouldn't be reasonable. I'm reasonably confident it's all psychological mumbo jumbo that most are too arrogant and unimaginative to think might apply to them, but I'd still never say I know.

OccultHawk · 10-27-2017, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

From a scientific standpoint it wouldn't be reasonable. I'm reasonably confident it's all psychological mumbo jumbo that most are too arrogant and unimaginative to think might apply to them, but I'd still never say I know.

What is something you do know?

Trollheart · 10-27-2017, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

From a scientific standpoint it wouldn't be reasonable. I'm reasonably confident it's all psychological mumbo jumbo that most are too arrogant and unimaginative to think might apply to them, but I'd still never say I know.

All I can say is you really have to change the word "know" to "believe". In reality there's very little we can actually say we know, without being able to point to some empirical evidence. You can say "I know there's no such thing as ghosts", but can you prove it? All you can really say there is "I believe there's no such thing as ghosts", which is good enough for me. I can't say "I know there's no God, or that there is", but I can believe one or the other.

**Frownland** · 10-26-2017, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

First, let me explain what I mean by "God." I don't mean God as defined by human religion, a God who interferes in human lives, a God who you're supposed to worship. I mean God as the originator of our universe.

Suppose there is a God. Furthermore, suppose this God created our universe. As a consequence, it also created the laws of nature.

Since God created the laws of nature, it is not bound by these laws.

Here's where the brain-stretching comes in. I propose that the whole idea that something "exists" is a consequence of the laws of physics. If something has mass or can be detected in any way, we say it exists. Even our thoughts correspond in some way to electrical and chemical processes, and they ultimately relate to tangible things.

So, if God is above the laws of physics, why does God have to "exist" in order to be real?

Note: I'm an agnostic atheist. But I think our traditional arguments about the potential existence of God ignore all this point, and it's worth mentioning.

Is being real different from existing?

EDIT: I realize that this is what you're asking. I would that no, it cannot be real without existing. The effect that a god might have on the universe would in itself be a way to detect it. I think another thing at play here would be that something existing outside of the laws of physics would simply be added to the lexicon as a part of those physics.

10-27-2017, 03:07 AM

What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative.

I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who says humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is?

**Janszoon** · 10-27-2017, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicShazam

What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative.

I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who say's humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is?

I think that is by far the most likely scenario.

Pet_Sounds · 10-27-2017, 05:51 AM

To me, the whole idea of "cause and effect" is a consequence of (a) our perception of time and (b) conservation of mass/energy. If the laws of physics were different, would every effect require a cause?

My point is that our most basic axioms in logic are based on our observations of the world. Would 2 + 2 = 4 be a truism outside the laws of physics? I'm not sure. We've already discovered how wrong human intuition is about very small objects moving at very high speed. Outside the laws of physics, God might not need to be created.

Regardless, my proposed God would be undetectable, so there's really no point to discussing it other than fun speculation.

10-26-2017, 09:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	There may be a few outliers in the scientific community who will claim they can prove there’s no god but by far the default position is if you’re claiming something is real the onus is on you to supply proof. Teapot orbiting the sun thing. Please don’t reduce the discussion to first cause. Pet - your OP reads to me like old school ontology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but philosophers have been pontificating about it for several centuries. __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

10-27-2017, 03:07 AM	#8 (permalink)
MicShazam Guest Posts: n/a	What if our human inability to comprehend the idea of there being no starting point is the real problem? What if the universe turns out to just always have been here, with no starting point. Just expanding and contracting infinitely, generating new energy out of nowhere before total heat death happens. Not that I believe that, it's just to say that maybe our assumption that there had to be a point of creation is just a result of our human minds being bent out of shape when trying to imagine the alternative. I don't know, I just kind of like playing with that thought: That we might be way off because we're too stupid to comprehend infinity with no starting point. Who says humans would ever even be able to comprehend whatever the truth is? Last edited by MicShazam; 10-27-2017 at 05:49 AM. Reason: spelling

10-27-2017, 05:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,488	To me, the whole idea of "cause and effect" is a consequence of (a) our perception of time and (b) conservation of mass/energy. If the laws of physics were different, would every effect require a cause? My point is that our most basic axioms in logic are based on our observations of the world. Would 2 + 2 = 4 be a truism outside the laws of physics? I'm not sure. We've already discovered how wrong human intuition is about very small objects moving at very high speed. Outside the laws of physics, God might not need to be created. Regardless, my proposed God would be undetectable, so there's really no point to discussing it other than fun speculation. __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease