God

[Rocker5150]

I have a friend who tries to make the argument that God may be in another dimension or operating/existing outside our universe. Usually I'll say to him that while speculating about what may possibly be ouside our universe could make an interesting fantasy book/movie, trying to put his God there seems more than just far-reaching!

Many religious beliefs are turned upside down by science. People once thought the universe revolved around the Earth and that God sat up in the sky on a throne. Galileo and others proved that to be wrong. Still the believers claimed that God created man instantly in our present form. Evolution then showed, with mountains of evidence, that the church was wrong again. I think the Catholic church even supports evolution now? But still they say that God 'created' everything.....planets, stars, etc. Then along comes the big bang theory which, yet again, gives the rational answer in stark opposition to the explainitions of faith. Now God is still responsible for everything, but either caused the big bang or somehow is functioning outside our universe. When faced with irrefutable evidence, faith 'backs up' into the unknown area of knowledge.....probably hoping science will hit a dead end and not be able to disprove their thinking!


-Kevin

[arigo]

It's flat out bullshit. Being outside of space means you have no quantifiable form to interact with anything else. Being outside of time means you couldn't do anything anyways. Surthele is currently trolling to the contrary, but we can see how stupid it is: He's now trying to claim God doesn't act.

Following the popular big bang theory, our universe came into existence from a singularity that does not adhere to our current understanding of the rules of physics. Essentially, the most popular scientific explanation to the creation of the universe requires the existence of something outside natural law; or at least our current understanding at this point. If something did not exist outside that singularity then we are left to speculate on what triggered the expansion, and why it existed in the first place. A god is supernatural by default and has no reason to follow natural law. Certainly you believe in the Big Bang? Yet here you are thinking the fact that a god is defined as “not part of space and time” proves anything when the most popular scientific explanation suffers the same fault. First cause is illogical anyway you look at it. You don't have to jump in a fish bowl to feed your fish food. It seems everyone here is trying to bind physical limitations on a god, which by definition would not be limited to any rules, to prove such a being does not exist - It's just a retarded thing to do.

[Morilore]

OOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhh booooooooyyyyyyy....
*Dons asbestos suit*

Following the popular big bang theory, our universe came into existence from a singularity that does not adhere to our current understanding of the rules of physics. Essentially, the most popular scientific explanation to the creation of the universe requires the existence of something outside natural law; or at least our current understanding at this point. If something did not exist outside that singularity then we are left to speculate on what triggered the expansion, and why it existed in the first place. A god is supernatural by default and has no reason to follow natural law. Certainly you believe in the Big Bang? Yet here you are thinking the fact that a god is defined as “not part of space and time” proves anything when the most popular scientific explanation suffers the same fault.

It isn't "outside," idiot, it's at the boundary. A singularity (and feel free to correct me on this, fellow flamewarriors; I'm not to confident in my understanding of this phenomenon) is an asymptote. What is "beyond space and time" is the zero point that one never reaches.

First cause is illogical anyway you look at it. You don't have to jump in a fish bowl to feed your fish food. It seems everyone here is trying to bind physical limitations on a god, which by definition would not be limited to any rules, to prove such a being does not exist - It's just a retarded thing to do.

No, we're trying to debunk stupid sophistry like HE'S OUTSIDE OF TEH UNIVERSE U CAN'T PROVE HE'S NOT NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!!

[wolveraptor]

You can't choose to "believe" in the Big Bang any more than you can "believe" that your ass-hole exists. It's an observed phenomena, and unless you want to get into "WANK WANK We're in the Matrix WANK WANK" masturbation, it is a fact.

[arigo]

It isn't "outside," idiot, it's at the boundary. A singularity (and feel free to correct me on this, fellow flamewarriors; I'm not to confident in my understanding of this phenomenon) is an asymptote. What is "beyond space and time" is the zero point that one never reaches.

I wasn't referring to a physical boundary of space, idiot. The relationship to a god being outside of the universe is in not being explained by current natural law. I was also touching on first cause and it's implicated lack of logic of any sort.

No, we're trying to debunk stupid sophistry like HE'S OUTSIDE OF TEH UNIVERSE U CAN'T PROVE HE'S NOT NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!!

You're trying to debunk sophistry with sophistry.

[arigo]

You can't choose to "believe" in the Big Bang any more than you can "believe" that your ass-hole exists. It's an observed phenomena, and unless you want to get into "WANK WANK We're in the Matrix WANK WANK" masturbation, it is a fact.

The only part of the big bang that is analogies to, "choosing to believe that your asshole exists" is in what you can observe. That is, that the universe is expanding.

[wolveraptor]

Your point? If the universe expands when time goes forwards, then when you go backwards, it contracts. After 15 bya of hypothetical backward time-travel, you reach a point in which there is no space-time. Go forward from this event (though it isn't really an event, since time began with it...and you can't really say time began either, because time can't be measured by an outside source of time...etc.) and you find "the Big Bang", though this is a misnomer, since it was just inflation.

The point is, if the universe is expanding, it must have expanded from some point.

[arigo]

Your point? If the universe expands when time goes forwards, then when you go backwards, it contracts. After 15 bya of hypothetical backward time-travel, you reach a point in which there is no space-time. Go forward from this event (though it isn't really an event, since time began with it...and you can't really say time began either, because time can't be measured by an outside source of time...etc.) and you find "the Big Bang", though this is a misnomer, since it was just inflation.

The point is, if the universe is expanding, it must have expanded from some point.

My point was that it was a poor analogy. Thanks for not getting on me about my use of analogies instead of analogous. I'm used to posting on a forums where I can edit my posts where I've learned it's easiest to post then read over for a mistake.

[wolveraptor]

I was trying to relate the Bang to something more mundane, whose existance is not denied by anyone. Regardless, the point that the Big Bang is not something you "believe" in, as you erroneously stated, still stands.

Furthermore, depending on concepts of religion, a god can be bound by physical laws. Gods in many polytheistic religions were born, and in the Norse mythology, could even die. Do not claim sole use of the term "god" and attempt to bind it to your own homespun definition.

[Morilore]

I wasn't referring to a physical boundary of space, idiot. The relationship to a god being outside of the universe is in not being explained by current natural law. I was also touching on first cause and it's implicated lack of logic of any sort.

Maybe I should try to explain this graphically:

Code: Select all

SPACETIME            |        BEFORE/BEYOND/OUTSIDE
          BIG BANG>>>| GOD
     EXISTS          |     DOES NOT

So you see, nothing about the Big Bang requires something to "trigger" it. IT HAPPENED. Time began. There was no cause. There is no relation between the notion that the Big Bang was the first event that occured and the notion that God exists outside of space-time.

You're trying to debunk sophistry with sophistry.

Explain how.

My point was that it was a poor analogy. Thanks for not getting on me about my use of analogies instead of analogous. I'm used to posting on a forums where I can edit my posts where I've learned it's easiest to post then read over for a mistake.

In a word: "Preview." I did it just now to make sure those lines lined up.

[Zero]

The big bang has more evidence then just universal expansion. We also have that wacky background radiation, and the ratios of existing materials in the universe correlate strongly with what we would predict would occur if an expansion such as mentioned in big bang theory works. I don't agree that the concept of a first cause is illogical. It's certainly non-sensical, but we've never once observed the creation of the universe, and we know it happened because the universe exists, and everything in the universe is moving outward from it still, and many other observations fit big bang theory, so big bang is most reasonable. Much more reasonable then a dimensionless diety saying let there be light!

If you want to get into taking that shit completely literally, God hadn't invented air yet, so there was no such thing as sound, and he couldn't have spoke. If you don't want to take it literally, then the whole genesis story is quite out there, and it makes more sense to say it never happened.

[SirNitram]

It seems everyone here is trying to bind physical limitations on a god, which by definition would not be limited to any rules, to prove such a being does not exist - It's just a retarded thing to do.

Apparently you're just clueless.

1) No one's putting physical limitations on God. We're putting logical ones on him. I'm fine with a deity that can defy simple physical laws of motion, but one cannot incorporate a paradox into yourself. It's laughable.

2) No one proves things don't exist. It's simply impossible. It falls on those asserting it to prove it does exist and hope their arguments don't get shredded. That's called logic. You might want to get into it.

[arigo]

Maybe I should try to explain this graphically:

Code: Select all

SPACETIME            |        BEFORE/BEYOND/OUTSIDE
          BIG BANG>>>| GOD
     EXISTS          |     DOES NOT

So you see, nothing about the Big Bang requires something to "trigger" it. IT HAPPENED. Time began. There was no cause. There is no relation between the notion that the Big Bang was the first event that occured and the notion that God exists outside of space-time.

That is part of my point actually, but really there are two possibilities, and I don't believe there is any evidence to indicate one way or another:

1. It took place as you said. It just happened, resulting in time and space as we know it restricted by natural law. There was nothing that caused it because time, at least in our universe, did not exist. It would be plausible to say everything came from nothing. "Not subject to explanation according to natural laws" is the very definition of supernatural. To argue that a god does not exist since it is not a natural part of our universe is similar to arguing that our universe does not exist since it came from nothing. Both the existence of a universe and a god are special in that they do not necessarily have to follow any physical, and consequently logical expectations that we can hope to comprehend. This makes putting up a logically sound argument against either impossible.

2. The Big Bang was triggered in some way. Time, at least in our universe, did not exist until the big bang, so what triggered it was not bound to any comprehension of space time. Alas, the cause of the trigger is subject to the to the same two options.

Explain how.

I believe I've made that clear. You're either subjecting a god to rules of space/time it would not have to follow, or you are making the claim that what you do not experience does not exist.

Apparently you're just clueless.

1) No one's putting physical limitations on God. We're putting logical ones on him. I'm fine with a deity that can defy simple physical laws of motion, but one cannot incorporate a paradox into yourself. It's laughable.

Really, a god by definition would not have to abide to either. At any rate you're putting logical limitations on a god in accordance with physical limits. Different people here are using different ways to go about it, but no one here has done anything but. The main one is that a god is defined as, "outside the universe" so it does not exist. The problem is, you're defining anything out of this universe as non-existent, when the appeal to outside this universe makes a direct statement to the contrary. It's like me saying, "Pizza is bad." and you calling it a paradox because you define pizza as inately good. The reality of it is, we don't know if anything exists outside this universe; We simply have no way of reaching out and experiencing it. It is true that it doesn't exist in any state of reality that we can interact with, but I think both sides would agree this is obvious.

"
As god is defined, his existence cannot be disproven; As god is defined, he does not exist." Is a quote I came up with and ignorantly brandished back in 2002 on battle.net thinking I was voltaire. I realized it was stupid.

[SirNitram]

Apparently you're just clueless.

1) No one's putting physical limitations on God. We're putting logical ones on him. I'm fine with a deity that can defy simple physical laws of motion, but one cannot incorporate a paradox into yourself. It's laughable.

Really, a god by definition would not have to abide to either. At any rate you're putting logical limitations on a god in accordance with physical limits.

Really. Why is a divinity free of this? A Deist God can be reconciled within it. A number of Pagan ones can. So it appears you're full of it.

Different people here are using different ways to go about it, but no one here has done anything but. The main one is that a god is defined as, "outside the universe" so it does not exist. The problem is, you're defining anything out of this universe as non-existent, when the appeal to outside this universe makes a direct statement to the contrary.

Prove there's anything outside the universe. It's that fucking simple, assclown. There's no reason to think there's anything. You just make it up to support your own beleifs which harsh reality disagrees with.

It's like me saying, "Pizza is bad." and you calling it a paradox because you define pizza as inately good.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Sophists are back and they use pizza in their idiocy.

The reality of it is, we don't know if anything exists outside this universe; We simply have no way of reaching out and experiencing it. It is true that it doesn't exist in any state of reality that we can interact with, but I think both sides would agree this is obvious.

No. It doesn't exist. It is a logical impossibility to prove something doesn't exist, so any sane and intelligent being will realize they have to prove something's existance. It appears you are neither.

"
As god is defined, his existence cannot be disproven; As god is defined, he does not exist." Is a quote I came up with and ignorantly brandished back in 2002 on battle.net thinking I was voltaire. I realized it was stupid.

Yes. It is. You can't disprove something's existance, you pretentious little ignorant turd. It is therefore necessary to prove the existance.

So. Hop to, kiddie. Prove anything exists outside the universe, for your God to be there.

[arigo]

Prove there's anything outside the universe. It's that fucking simple, assclown. There's no reason to think there's anything. You just make it up to support your own beleifs which harsh reality disagrees with.

I can't. I made it quite clear I couldn't, but I logically justified all my posistions while you did not. Oh, and just for your information, I'm not religious.

You're opting for the tried and true pink invisible space aliens in the wrong context. My posistion was not to support the existence of anything outside this universe; Infact, I made it very clear. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, and that's where it stands. What I did was show why defining god as outside this universe was not a paradox. You're just being a big baby.

[SirNitram]

Prove there's anything outside the universe. It's that fucking simple, assclown. There's no reason to think there's anything. You just make it up to support your own beleifs which harsh reality disagrees with.

I can't. I made it quite clear I couldn't, but I logically justified all my posistions while you did not. Oh, and just for your information, I'm not religious.

Justify the position of 'Prove something exists'? Dear fucking god, you're a retard. Religious or not, it's clear you have no understanding of logical principles.

You're opting for the tried and true pink invisible space aliens in the wrong context. My posistion was not to support the existence of anything outside this universe; Infact, I made it very clear. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, and that's where it stands. What I did was show why defining god as outside this universe was not a paradox. You're just being a big baby.

Me being a big baby? I'm not the one insisting something must be 'grey area' if it's unproven, you ignorant child. I'm not raising my voice, I'm not threatening, I'm just calling you a retard, because you're trying to make an argument while jettisoning all logic. Go fuck a tree.

[arigo]

Justify the position of 'Prove something exists'? Dear fucking god, you're a retard. Religious or not, it's clear you have no understanding of logical principles.

It's really quite hilarious you call me the sophist. You didn't even read what I said or you purposely skewed it. I don't know which, but I suggest you reread everything I've said.

Me being a big baby? I'm not the one insisting something must be 'grey area' if it's unproven, you ignorant child. I'm not raising my voice, I'm not threatening, I'm just calling you a retard, because you're trying to make an argument while jettisoning all logic. Go fuck a tree.

Surely people fling insults out because they are just so darn apathetically calm and collected.

[Shroom Man 777]

Gee, and why don't you try to disprove leprechauns, Einstein?

You CAN'T disprove leprechauns, because they could be hoarding their gold inside pocket dimensions, while I on the other hand also cannot prove that leprechauns exist. How the hell this is useful, how the fuck this is relevant, what this means, I dunno. But I justified myself while you're wrong because you're a mean poo-poo head

[SirNitram]

Justify the position of 'Prove something exists'? Dear fucking god, you're a retard. Religious or not, it's clear you have no understanding of logical principles.

It's really quite hilarious you call me the sophist. You didn't even read what I said or you purposely skewed it. I don't know which, but I suggest you reread everything I've said.

My only position in all this, you lying little monkey, is that you must prove something exists, not rely on 'Well, it's not disproven!' You demanded I justify the position. Perhaps you're just talking out of your ass.

Me being a big baby? I'm not the one insisting something must be 'grey area' if it's unproven, you ignorant child. I'm not raising my voice, I'm not threatening, I'm just calling you a retard, because you're trying to make an argument while jettisoning all logic. Go fuck a tree.

Surely people fling insults out because they are just so darn apathetically calm and collected.

Oh noes, the man said the bad words. He must be flipping out.

I'm expressing contempt, you idiotic slug. Just because you're a fucking four year old who throws fits and yells does not mean everyone else is like you. Do you have an argument, you pathetic little monkey?

[arigo]

Gee, and why don't you try to disprove leprechauns, Einstein?

You CAN'T disprove leprechauns, because they could be hoarding their gold inside pocket dimensions, while I on the other hand also cannot prove that leprechauns exist. How the hell this is useful, how the fuck this is relevant, what this means, I dunno. But I justified myself while you're wrong because you're a mean poo-poo head

Read what I've said. I never made the argument that you have to prove something doesn't exist for it not to. My argument was that a theist's definition of god outside this universe is not a paradox. SirNitram is trying to turn it into for something it's not.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then what the hell does that prove? What is it worth? Nothing. It's absofuckinglutely worthless. Just about as useful as trying to say that the existance of leprechauns with phase-cloaking technology is a heap of tabloid bullshit.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ghetto edit:

Just about as useful as trying to say that the existance of leprechauns with phase-cloaking technology is a heap of tabloid bullshit.

I meant:

Just about as useful as trying to say that the existance of leprechauns with phase-cloaking technology is NOT a heap of tabloid bullshit.

[Zero]

He's admitted that he can't prove there is anything, and hasn't asked you to prove it wrong, simply said that it can't be proven wrong. Well, it is true that nothing can really be proven wrong, and there's no reason to believe in something that we have no evidence for. Why even debate if it can be disproven?

Arigo, the true paradox with God is that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do all things, then you can't restrict your own power, and if you do, then you're no longer omnipotent, and thus, isn't God. However, claiming that he exists outside of space and time is really stupid. Christians often try to use the analogy of us looking at a 2-d world, where they could never turn sideways, and see us, but the God they describe is dimensionless. He's not subject to time, and thus never changes, and isn't definable in any way. If this God does exist, he's singular, unchanging. something that doesn't change can't have sentience, as part of sentience is the ability to reflect upon your own thoughts. Without time, this can't be done. God, as described in the bible, and by fundamentalists, is still impossible.

[arigo]

Then what the hell does that prove? What is it worth? Nothing. It's absofuckinglutely worthless. Just about as useful as trying to say that the existance of leprechauns with phase-cloaking technology is a heap of tabloid bullshit.

The validty of an argument is important to me. This is a forum about logic after all.

[Shroom Man 777]

Okay. Whatever. You've proved that nobody can disprove the existance of leprechauns with phase-cloak technology, and you've proved that you can't prove that also. And? So? Therefore? That still does not change the fact that there's no logical reason to believe in sky pixies who have not a single shred of evidence, save for stark raving fundies, to support their existance.