The existence of God

Originally posted by DeepThought
In the thread "Your purpose in Life", in response to my asking why does God not require a creator FMJ wrote:

Everything that has a beginning requires a cause, God is infinite and requires no cause.

First off, it is not absolutely clear that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory essentially refers to the period of cosmic inflatio ...[text shortened]... hen he would never have got round to creating the universe. So the same problem exists for God.

Ok so if you say there is no reason to believe that the universe was caused or that it has a beginning, why can't the same be true about God? If you believe the universe has always existed, why can't I believe that God has always existed?

Originally posted by FMF
As a point of information only, I'd like to say that I am not a person who believes that there is a God who "reminds" humans of things. 😉

That should have read: If you are right about sonship's character and there is a God then God will remind him of this. Rajk999 went for an insult that annoyed me while I was still feeling stung from sonship's one, but I've basically forgotten that because it was just "You're an idiot because you don't agree with me." which isn't ideal but I can put up with that kind of nonsense. sonship went way beyond that and I really will never forgive that.

Originally posted by sonship

Aren't you motivated to carry out an agenda you ascribe to God? Wouldn't you say that all Christians are called to do so?

Yes, i am motivated by God's existence to, say, live Christ and preach the gospel - hence an agenda.

I do not consider burning crosses, burning women as witches, or some other bigoted agenda to be legitimate because ...[text shortened]... meaning.

Obviously not all agendas ascribed to God are legitimate, regardless of who says so.

Each theist's agenda, if any, will be representative of the deity to whom they ascribe it, whether or not that deity exists. Clearly not all deities' agendas will be, or have been, the same. My point is that the impact of the actual existence of the deity is insignificant in comparison to the impact of belief in that deity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Rajk999 went for an insult that annoyed me while I was still feeling stung from sonship's one, but I've basically forgotten that because it was just "You're an idiot because you don't agree with me." which isn't ideal but I can put up with that kind of nonsense. sonship went way beyond that and I really will never forgive that.

sonship was deliberately trying to be as downright nasty and venomous as he possibly could. Comparing you to a holocaust denier is about as intellectually dishonest as one could possibly get. But then, so what, he also believes that you are going to be tortured in burning agony for eternity by his supposedly "loving and merciful god" and has proudly stated that 'knowing' such a fate awaits his "enemies" makes living his Christian life easier for him.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok so if you say there is no reason to believe that the universe was caused or that it has a beginning, why can't the same be true about God? If you believe the universe has always existed, why can't I believe that God has always existed?

I'm not claiming that it is unreasonable for you to believe that. Understand that what I'm claiming is that it is not straightforward to justify the claim that it is necessary. I'm an agnostic, I do not deny the possibility that God could exist, I'm just not remotely convinced that God does exist. I don't really believe either the claim that there is a God or the claim that there is not a God - I'm perfectly happy to argue with the atheists. So, returning to my earlier question, why do you think that it is not possible that the universe could be infinitely old and if you do think there is a good reason that it is not, beyond the evidence which does seem to point that way, why do you think the same argument does not apply to God?

Originally posted by sonship
One question was asked, just one.

It was still just a time waster like FMJ's practice.

Aside from that a good number of cosmologist have come to believe the evidence also points to a beginning of the universe.
They are wrong. There is no evidence either way, and anyone who claims that they 'believe the evidence points to' is not deserving of the title 'cosmologist'.

I know that there are those who do not agree.
Which would indicate that there is actually no evidence either way. You seem to be confusing belief and evidence. Evidence is solid and can be passed between people until they all agree. Belief cannot. If cosmologists do not agree on something then there is not enough evidence to know.

So there you have it. An actual infinity of things, including time, is not known.
Except that no, there we do not have it.

There are two possible infinities that do not require an infinite universe:
1. If space and time are infinitely divisible. Currently there is no evidence either way on this and the assumption is that they are.
2. Black holes involve infinities and because that causes the mathematics to break down they are called 'singularities'. They may, in reality, not involve infinities, but we don't yet know either way.

But lets ignore the above for a moment.
Either space is infinite or it is not (we do not know). If it is infinite then it contains an infinite amount of matter. If it is not infinite then it doesn't.
To sit there and say 'we don't know' therefore you can't claim that it is infinite therefore it is finite, is an obviously seriously flawed line of reasoning.
The same applies to time. Either it is infinite or it is finite. To sit there and say 'because we don't know, therefore it is finite' is just plain wrong.

So that is why I am inclined to believe time and space had a beginning too.
No, you are inclined to believe for purely religious reasons. At least be honest about that.

And its no use asking you to take a position on it because you will just buckle down safely in your agnosticism.
Not the 'you must take a position on something you don't know' argument again? Seriously?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was still just a time waster like FMJ's practice.

[b]Aside from that a good number of cosmologist have come to believe the evidence also points to a beginning of the universe.
They are wrong. There is no evidence either way, and anyone who claims that they 'believe the evidence points to' is not deserving of the title 'cosmologist'.

I k ...[text shortened]... .
Not the 'you must take a position on something you don't know' argument again? Seriously?[/b]

They are wrong. There is no evidence either way, and anyone who claims that they 'believe the evidence points to' is not deserving of the title 'cosmologist'.

With the partial knowledge that you possess there may well be evidence that you are not aware of. And even if you are aware of it, the fact that you reject something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
With the partial knowledge that you possess there may well be evidence that you are not aware of. And even if you are aware of it, the fact that you reject something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

There isn't evidence that I am aware of, and I have studied the subject enough to know that there isn't any significant evidence in existence. If there was good evidence, someone would have published it and got themselves a Nobel prize.
For those that take a position, it remains firmly a matter of belief, nothing more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There isn't evidence that I am aware of, and I have studied the subject enough to know that there isn't any significant evidence in existence. If there was good evidence, someone would have published it and got themselves a Nobel prize.
For those that take a position, it remains firmly a matter of belief, nothing more.

By 'evidence' you mean 'evidence that you accept'. Do you at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be evidence in existence that you are not aware of ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
By 'evidence' you mean 'evidence that you accept'.

I mean evidence that a reasonable person would accept.

Do you at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be evidence in existence that you are not aware of ?
Yes. But that is irrelevant. Sonship claimed that there were cosmologists that base their belief on evidence. He could try and back that up by stating which cosmologists and which evidence, but I am fairly sure he cannot. He would instead list the cosmologists and some rather vague quotes by them expressing a belief, rather than presenting links to actual science papers demonstrating the evidence.

And your endless mindless questions wont change that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I mean evidence that a reasonable person would accept.

[b]Do you at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be evidence in existence that you are not aware of ?
Yes. But that is irrelevant. Sonship claimed that there were cosmologists that base their belief on evidence. He could try and back that up by stating which cosmologists and which ...[text shortened]... ence papers demonstrating the evidence.

And your endless mindless questions wont change that.[/b]

I mean evidence that a reasonable person would accept.

So only people who have accepted the same evidence that you have are reasonable.

He could try and back that up by stating which cosmologists and which evidence, but I am fairly sure he cannot.

If he did what is going to stop you from calling them pseudoscientists simply because they believe evidence that you reject?

Originally posted by DeepThought
That should have read: If you are right about sonship's character and there is a God then God will remind him of this. Rajk999 went for an insult that annoyed me while I was still feeling stung from sonship's one, but I've basically forgotten that because it was just "You're an idiot because you don't agree with me." which isn't ideal but I can put up with that kind of nonsense. sonship went way beyond that and I really will never forgive that.

Both sonship and Rajk999 have sinned against you; I wonder what this means for thief respect ideologies:

Rajk999 will have lost his salvation and need to build up points again...

Sonship will be "hung out in chains of eternal punishment as a warning to those on other worlds"...

All in a day here at RHP

Originally posted by divegeester
Both sonship and Rajk999 have sinned against you; I wonder what this means for thief respect ideologies:

Rajk999 will have lost his salvation and need to build up points again...

Sonship will be "hung out in chains of eternal punishment as a warning to those on other worlds"...

All in a day here at RHP

And top it all of you are going to continue dodging my question.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]They are wrong. There is no evidence either way, and anyone who claims that they 'believe the evidence points to' is not deserving of the title 'cosmologist'.

With the partial knowledge that you possess there may well be evidence that you are not aware of. And even if you are aware of it, the fact that you reject something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.[/b]

Inflation does too much damage to whatever existed before the inflationary era started. The cosmological scale factor increased by 26 orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second. I don't think there are ever likely to be good empirical grounds for making claims about what happened before the inflationary era. The only real possibility is that it turns out that there is only one possible theory of everything that is consistent, so that the laws of physics are not contingent or at least if the theory is contingent that only one theory produces the correct long range physics, and that that theory requires that the universe had whatever properties it had before the inflationary era. The standard idea is that the universe was created just before the inflationary era, but there really isn't any proof of that. Given the expansion of the universe it seems likely that there was a start, but if the universe has infinite extent then it's difficult to see how.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So only people who have accepted the same evidence that you have are reasonable.

No, that is not true.

If he did what is going to stop you from calling them pseudoscientists simply because they believe evidence that you reject?
Science isn't about belief. Evidence is tested scientifically, not theologically.