Thread: God is the null hypothesis

Originally Posted by FriendlyFace

So you're a prophet now?

Seriously why do you keep making these threads? There has to be a better platform for trying to convert people.

I am not sure his goal is to convert anyone. I think his goal is to have conversations about this. DV community is very willing to have these conversations, notice that this is not one of those topics that remain unanswered or get just one reply.

That is not the sense I got from other threads he's made where he tries to convince people they'll go to hell if they don't listen to what he says, but whatever. I shouldn't have posted anyway. But just so I'm contributing something:

Originally Posted by knight31

If you start with nothing, can you end up with something? No.

Can anything create itself? No

So, by your own logic, god cannot exist.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I think his goal is to have conversations about this.

I seriously doubt he came here to learn anything or change his opinions. I haven't seen him give any leeway so far, even about stuff that has been solidly disproven.

Originally Posted by Xei

I seriously doubt he came here to learn anything or change his opinions. I haven't seen him give any leeway so far, even about stuff that has been solidly disproven.

Oh, I agree that he does not want to be converted to different views, but I am not sure whether he is really trying to convert you.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

belief in God requires a leap of faith and is not based on logic alone, and if one is not willing to make that leap of faith, there is room for doubt, because this is not a question to be solved or dismissed by logic alone.

This argument fundamentally flawed.

Before we can ever make a leap of faith shouldn't we have a justification that the position to which we are jumping will guarantee us a profitable outcome?. Anyone who has not yet made the leap of faith does not have the sufficient knowledge to truly understand god, and thus cannot make a judgement outside of logic, in turn that said person must use logic to decide in which religion to place his "leap of faith".

What if it turned out that the Islam was right and that Catholicism was wrong and you placed your leap of faith in the wrong one.

Basically your argument states that to reach an alleviated state of knowledge without the need for logic, you first have to logically assume that the leap of faith in your chosen religion is the right one, but you cannot say for certain because you have no idea if said religion exists because you are confined to logic.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

This argument fundamentally flawed.

Before we can ever make a leap of faith shouldn't we have a justification that the position to which we are jumping will guarantee us a profitable outcome?. Anyone who has not yet made the leap of faith does not have the sufficient knowledge to truly understand god, and thus cannot make a judgement outside of logic, in turn that said person must use logic to decide in which religion to place his "leap of faith".

What if it turned out that the Islam was right and that Catholicism was wrong and you placed your leap of faith in the wrong one.

Basically your argument states that to reach an alleviated state of knowledge without the need for logic, you first have to logically assume that the leap of faith in your chosen religion is the right one, but you cannot say for certain because you have no idea if said religion exists because you are confined to logic.

Not necessarily. Your argument presupposes that one religion is right and that this means that all others are wrong. I believe that there is more than one path to salvation, and that every religion has some truth in it and some things that are wrong because all religion are flawed because they are human interpretations based on human bias and political and cultural misinterpretations, but that does not mean that they do not have some truth in them as well. Personally I am Christian, and I believe/hope that Christianity has enough right to lead to salvation, although I do believe that I can and should try to learn from other faiths as well and be open minded in my spirituality. I also do not believe that if you are an Atheist that necessarily means that you are doomed to hell, and I understand your reluctance to make the leap of faith. Personally I think that any spiritual faith is preferable to none at all, but even someone who has no faith can be a good person, and I believe in a loving God, who through his infinite grace will forgive mistakes and misunderstandings, as long as a person made the best effort to be the best they can be and to seek out knowledge and improve their understanding to become a better person. I believe that it is our responsibility to question and to seek out truth. Now my understanding of truth is not based on logic alone, but logic is one of the tools available to us.

Edit: To clarify, when I say that personally I believe that any faith is better than none, I do not mean that I am better than you if you are an atheist. I am not trying to convert you. What I mean by it is that I believe that faith is valuable in all kinds of religious flavors, and I believe that people who do not have any faith in any spirituality may have a harder time grasping the truth which I believe will be revealed to all when God is ready for that. I believe that having the willingness to have faith is a virtue in and of itself, and while of course it does matter what one believes but I think that many beliefs that we believe to be contradictory may not actually be - there may be more false dichotomies in religions than believers are willing to admit in closed minded biased belief.

Edit2: I also do believe that I am likely wrong in some of my beliefs. In fact I am sure I am wrong in some of them. I try to improve them, and try to figure out what is true, and I hope and believe that over time I am moving in the right direction in my spirituality, which has and continues to evolve.

What it really comes down to is that your premises are too vague, and your conclusions seem questionable even if the premises were clearly defined.

Originally Posted by knight31

1) Infinity exists

Infinity is just a hypothetical concept. It may be said to exist in some ways which are mostly conceptual (ex: Numbers can be counted endlessly, or we may be able to imagine that volumes of space can be broken down into infinitely smaller chunks). Is that the kind of thing that you mean?

Originally Posted by knight31

2) Possibility is real

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Possibility is a concept that we have. In that sense it's real, just as 'validity' or any other concept is real. Do you mean to say that anything is possible? If so then you're right; because our minds can make mistakes, anything is possible from each person's perspective. However, that doesn't mean anything is objectively possible. Perhaps the theory of gravity cannot be altered for reasons unknown to us. Then, gravity ceasing would be impossible objectively, just not subjectively since we can never know that for sure.

Originally Posted by knight31

3) Therefore infinite possibility is real

No. You can't arrive at this conclusion from the above two premises. Just because two things exist separately, doesn't mean they can exist together. Cats are real and dogs are real, but that doesn't mean cat-dogs are real. And what does 'infinite possibility' even mean? Are you just saying that anything is possible? If so, it seems you're just reiterating premise 2.

Originally Posted by knight31

4) Therefore with infinite probability of anything as real the idea of an intelligent designer as creator is certain

Even if all of the above premises were clarified and made sense, this conclusion wouldn't result. Firstly, you reiterate the 'infinite possibility' premise except you've changed it to 'probability', which means something different. Secondly, if anything you could conclude that an intelligent designer is possible. Where do you get 'certain'? It seems you're saying that the existence of an intelligent designer is the only way to explain that anything is possible. But that isn't true. Anything may be possible from our human viewpoints. It may be possible that 1+1=3 since our minds can be flawed. But that would also be true if you assume there is no creator, so this conclusion doesn't follow at all. Maybe if your premises were clarified this would make more sense.

Originally Posted by knight31

If you start with nothing, can you end up with something? No.

Why do you assume that you have to start with nothing? Our minds cannot comprehend nothingness. By definition it could not be observed or made sense of. We don't even know what it means. Perhaps it's impossible. I'm not considering whether or not a creator exists at all here. But if that is considered, it seems you're arguing against a creator as much as you are for one. If you say something cannot come from nothing, under the assumption that there was nothing 'in the beginning', then you're saying it's impossible for anything to exist right now - even a creator. But, as we know, things do exist right now, so obviously either our whole concept of time is flawed, or something can come from nothing, or there was always something, whether it's a creator or something else.

Originally Posted by knight31

Can anything create itself? No
Therefore something created the universe it didn't just fall into place on it's own.

And how did that creator come into being? If the answer is that it always was, why can't the universe have always been?

It's fairly common to see an argument where one of steps is a flawed premise or a fallacious inference, and thus the argument faulty. But I think this could well be the first time I've seen an argument where somehow every single step is totally erroneous. That degree of illogical thinking takes dedication.

Hi Dianeva, will go through your points

Infinity is just a hypothetical concept. It may be said to exist in some ways which are mostly conceptual (ex: Numbers can be counted endlessly, or we may be able to imagine that volumes of space can be broken down into infinitely smaller chunks). Is that the kind of thing that you mean?

You can assume infinity is only hypothetical, but if that was really true we wouldn't have anything in the universe that is finite because without the infinite you couldn't have the finite, that is how you know that it's not just hypothetical. And yeah numbers can go on forever, space goes on forever. Words can be arranged in infinite ways, ect.

Possibility is a concept that we have. In that sense it's real, just as 'validity' or any other concept is real. Do you mean to say that anything is possible? If so then you're right; because our minds can make mistakes, anything is possible from each person's perspective. However, that doesn't mean anything is objectively possible. Perhaps the theory of gravity cannot be altered for reasons unknown to us. Then, gravity ceasing would be impossible objectively, just not subjectively since we can never know that for sure.

In other words what I was saying is if you have infinite time in which something is to happen, sooner or later it's going to happen, based on the concept of probability in the face of eternity. Infinite time increases the possibility of something happening to certain. If you started with nothingness though there would be no space or time or anything to start anything, so that concept wouldn't apply. This is how we know that god always existed for things to exist.

Just because two things exist separately, doesn't mean they can exist together.

It does when you can link them together, Jockeys exist and horses exist, And horse riders exist.
Infinite exist, and Possibility exists. Infinite possibility is certain based on probability statistically, with eternity as the variable.

Why do you assume that you have to start with nothing? Our minds cannot comprehend nothingness. By definition it could not be observed or made sense of. We don't even know what it means. Perhaps it's impossible. I'm not considering whether or not a creator exists at all here. But if that is considered, it seems you're arguing against a creator as much as you are for one. If you say something cannot come from nothing, under the assumption that there was nothing 'in the beginning', then you're saying it's impossible for anything to exist right now - even a creator. But, as we know, things do exist right now, so obviously either our whole concept of time is flawed, or something can come from nothing, or there was always something, whether it's a creator or something else.

You have to grasp the concept that under the theory that things evolved gradually over time by chance, under that assumption only your starting point has to be nothingness. If you believe that there is an uncaused cause then you don't have to start from nothingness. An uncaused cause would by it's nature have to have infinite intelligence and self existing in order to produce and rule over the causes that come after it that it creates. Only definition that fits that description is god.

And how did that creator come into being? If the answer is that it always was, why can't the universe have always been?

Because according to the Big bang there was nothing before it. So they say or suggest. And if we want to scientifically rule out a creator you need to start from what you have, nothing. Else if you have something other than nothing you would have to explain how it got there, without a god, and that's basically impossible to find a cause that was uncaused, hence you can never explain something that does not have a creator behind it. That is why there is no theory or reason why they say the big bang happened, they just say it went "bang" and it was there. That's the best they can come up with without a god, and that's why it's flawed.

If you accept a creator exists however, you don't have the problem of starting from nothingness, like with the big bang theory, because you accept an uncaused cause of things, by it's nature it already has infinite knowledge to create to be able to be uncaused.

Atleast you made a proper attempt to reply to this thread, especially without belittling, which is quite rare, that's one of reasons I respect you.

Why does the uncaused cause have to be a god?

Originally Posted by knight31

You can assume infinity is only hypothetical, but if that was really true we wouldn't have anything in the universe that is finite because without the infinite you couldn't have the finite, that is how you know that it's not just hypothetical.

etc. etc.

Do you ever perform any kind of self-criticality on your own arguments? Because, honestly, it looks to me like you just throw together a bunch of words that have a vague semantic resemblance to an actual argument, and say, "right, that'll do", and then post it. It's like you're not even trying to convince yourself.

Do you never look for counterexamples? It's extremely easy to find them for pretty much everything you say. Seriously have a go at finding one to the above quote, and post it if you think of one. If you can't...

Spoiler for Random answer:

You can assume that impossible things are only hypothetical, but if that was really true we wouldn't have anything in the universe that is possible because without the impossible you couldn't have the impossible.

N.B. impossible things don't actually exist; this argument is nonsense.

On-topic response only please.

Last thing Extended Discussion needs is a bevy of trolls.

If only a infinitely powerful being could create something out of nothing, then only a more infinitely powerful being could create that first being, and it would take an even more powerful one to create that being. The massive flaw in your logic, is that god can't create him self from nothing because he wouldn't have existed yet, and he can't have always existed because you claimed that was possible.

The only way god could exist is if he spontaneously created him self, and if god can spontaneously create him self, then the universe could of spontaneously created it self as well. So really, there is absolutely no logical reason to believe in a god.

Personally what I happen, is that the universe did in fact create it self, and that it is common for universes to create them self. This is because nothing isn't as stable as universes are, so when you have nothing it has a tendency to split into positive and negative energy and universes are created. Some theories suggest if you added up all the energy in the universe it would equal 0. In other words when the universe was 'created' no matter was created or destroyed the universe simply shifted forms, and the reason it shifted is because a universe is a more stable form than nothing.

Strange, strange thread.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

Not necessarily. Your argument presupposes that one religion is right and that this means that all others are wrong. I believe that there is more than one path to salvation, and that every religion has some truth in it and some things that are wrong because all religion are flawed because they are human interpretations based on human bias and political and cultural misinterpretations, but that does not mean that they do not have some truth in them as well. Personally I am Christian, and I believe/hope that Christianity has enough right to lead to salvation, although I do believe that I can and should try to learn from other faiths as well and be open minded in my spirituality. I also do not believe that if you are an Atheist that necessarily means that you are doomed to hell, and I understand your reluctance to make the leap of faith. Personally I think that any spiritual faith is preferable to none at all, but even someone who has no faith can be a good person, and I believe in a loving God, who through his infinite grace will forgive mistakes and misunderstandings, as long as a person made the best effort to be the best they can be and to seek out knowledge and improve their understanding to become a better person. I believe that it is our responsibility to question and to seek out truth. Now my understanding of truth is not based on logic alone, but logic is one of the tools available to us.

Edit: To clarify, when I say that personally I believe that any faith is better than none, I do not mean that I am better than you if you are an atheist. I am not trying to convert you. What I mean by it is that I believe that faith is valuable in all kinds of religious flavors, and I believe that people who do not have any faith in any spirituality may have a harder time grasping the truth which I believe will be revealed to all when God is ready for that. I believe that having the willingness to have faith is a virtue in and of itself, and while of course it does matter what one believes but I think that many beliefs that we believe to be contradictory may not actually be - there may be more false dichotomies in religions than believers are willing to admit in closed minded biased belief.

Edit2: I also do believe that I am likely wrong in some of my beliefs. In fact I am sure I am wrong in some of them. I try to improve them, and try to figure out what is true, and I hope and believe that over time I am moving in the right direction in my spirituality, which has and continues to evolve.

Thank you for the long reply.
I don't intend on going in on an argument because I do think that you are to an extent right, and the last edit you made is certainly an admirable point of view and I respect that

Refuting your points logically is easy, yet not very fun, try something more spiritual in this sub-board any maybe I will enjoy it.


I'll try make this as simple as possible.

Simplicity in god... hah

In order to assume God isn't real you have to disprove these facts

By assuming you need not prove anything, that's what assumptions are. and Facts on theoretical ideals?

1) Infinity exists

What we can understand mathematically infinity is still defined by logical bounds, in physics the same, however, in spirituality, infinity has no bounds and is simply a product of our minds, since we are speaking of god, then infinity, while a definable value, exist beyond of consciousness, so since we cannot consciously perceive it, it does not exist to us. Therefore infinity is an ideology which we can never accept as a proofed idea.

2) Possibility is real

True, we measure probability each day, therefore the possible outcomes exist.
3) Therefore infinite possibility is real

true, but up to a point, anything outside our realm of conscious reasoning, including quantum physics does not exist to us, therefore while our minds might accept, outside of subconscious reasoning we do not, therefore it does not exist to us.

4) Therefore with infinite probability of anything as real the idea of an intelligent designer as creator is certain
Creating a persona of intelligence to random chance and possibility, is something even our subconscious mind has problems with. No matter how much you alter your conscious you can never reasonably accept that there is a force higher than the one who can exist on multiple and all planes, which is our minds. Therefore believing in an intelligent designer as a creator is not certain but impossible, because it would have to transcend every existential plane we could ever hope to realize. At best it would be a force so out of tune with the universes that it could not possibly create anything in it, or influence them in any way.


Now lets take what we know, to verify this

what you assume, by trying to use flawed logic to dispute a point of a creationist being. To continue assuming that

If you start with nothing, can you end up with something? No.

Attempting to use laws of physics one can end up with flawed logic? yes. Our brains allow that.

Can anything create itself? No

Except for the bacteria and viruses that self-replicate? or even gravity that increases free-fall speed up to a maximum simply because it is already acting on an object.

Therefore something created the universe it didn't just fall into place on it's own

Because withdrawing from one of your original points of possibility is going to further your argument.

If something created the Universe, then that something is god because no other thing could create it unless it is defined as god.
An infinitely powerful being is the only explanation that could cause something other than nothing to exist at the beginning.

Because if the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, than that monster is god, because we are unable to dispute something so far greater than ourselves because it only shows our own ignorance, oh right, because if there isn't a god, than we must simply exist in a universe where all the right things happened to allow us to think as such, and then every other possible *infinite* reality would have to have occurred allowing us to live through every possible choice made within those. MAN it's a good thing we have God to thank for that random possi.... creation.

Done.

Oh, are you?

Originally Posted by knight31

God is the alpha and omega, so god was there.

The flying spaghetti monster could only be as powerful as god decided. I don't have to disprove it exists. You are the one that has to explain how something came from nothing. Not me. It doesn't matter how many outrageous creatures you think of, My idea still trumps it all without a need to disprove your ideas.

In the face of nothingness, not even any principles could exist cause then that would be something.

Explain to me again how something evolves from nothing?

The amount of semantic maneuvering and intellectual dishonesty in this post is saddening. Do us all a favour and dispense of juvenile ideas about effective arguing having anything to do with how vehemently you believe in what you're saying or how insistently you assert your claims. Stop reiterating that it is true and making appeals to why we should believe you and instead explain to us why what you say is true.

I don't think there will be any further replies on this topic from the OP, but you're all welcome to continue discussing this topic.

Wow! That was some pretty silly stuff! I was so bored until I found this (work is slow), but this was some good humor.

It was already said, but I will chime in, just a tiny bit.

I have heard that if the universe is infinite, then every thing does exist. How silly is that? If a roulette wheel hits red 10 times in a row, then it is time to bet on black,,, right? No, the chance is the same with every spin regardless of past spins. So if something is improbable, it does not nessarilly become more probable with each cast of chance. It is like saying because when a roulette wheel is spun, there is a chance that a wormhole will eat the entire casino, that given enough spins,,, watch out! The chance that something will happen does not mean that it will happen, no matter how many times the dice role.

Even something simple like 1 in 1,000,000 may never come up given 100,000,000 oppertunities. If the chance of 1 in 1,000,000 coming up 7 times in a row exists, it may never happen despite an infinate amount of time and oppertunities.

But, what do I know?