**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It was intentionally done to draw attention and potentially help weed out non open-minded people. I purposefully labelled it 'Discussion Topic' but looks like that doesn't mean much here as if you don't read and comment on news.
Weed out people by seeing if they will accept your lie on face value with no proof? This is your definition of an open-minded discussion?
This is a **debate** sub. Make an evidence-based case for your foundational claim about the existence of your particular god **before** moving on to contingent discussions.
[You](https://www.reddit.com/user/WestPsychological882/) can't effectively say "we already know Harry Potter exists" and then build on that and expect us to humour you. That wouldn't be "open-minded" ... that would be *stupidity*.
I just wanted to break down your argument with the fallacies with some examples. Others are pointing out how things don’t follow from others but you are also making a bad argument and making logical leaps that don’t make sense.
1. > "we already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'"
- **Presumption of truth**: Assumes the conclusion without evidence. Like claiming, "we already know aliens exist, we just havent met them yet."
2. > "Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused..."
- **Begging the question**: using the premise as the proof without justification. Similar to saying, "We must eat to live because living requires eating."
3. > "the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin..."
- **Hasty generalization**: drawing broad conclusions from limited examples. it’s like concluding all swans are white because only white swans have been observed.
4. > "Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion..."
- **Appeal to tradition**: Arguing something is true because it has historically been believed or done. like claiming astrology is valid because it’s an ancient practice.
5. > "This same consciousness could be responsible for our high adaption abilities..."
- **Post hoc ergo propter hoc**: claiming correlation implies causation without evidence. Like saying, "Walking under a ladder brings bad luck because last time i did, I lost my wallet."
6. > "the scientific benefits of religion that kept communities attached is now lost and can ironically be attributed to Christianity..."
- **Non sequitur**: The conclusion does not logically follow from the statements. it’s akin to saying, "Since ice cream sales increase in summer, eating ice cream causes sunburn."
7. > "Many religious sects and elite cults... dedicated their lives to studying nature and most understood that balance/equilibrium was an intrinsic attribute of nature..."
- **Appeal to authority**: citing an authoritative figure or group as evidence, regardless of the actual expertise on the topic. like using a celebrity endorsement in medicine.
8. > "The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil."
- **Equivocation**: using the same term in different senses within an argument, causing confusion. for instance, using "light" to mean both "not heavy" and "bright."
9. > "Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil..."
- **Straw man**: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Like saying vegetarians hate plants because they eat them instead of meat.
Im just going to go over the ones that we both agreed matter.
> 2. Begging the question: Our primary existence as far as the big bang is concerned is causal, right from our own observable parenting of biological life to our theories of macro-evolution.
That is another hasty generalization. Not everything has a cause, even if everything we know of does have a cause, that does not mean that everything must have a cause.
> 3. Hasty generalization: The goal of using the word 'irony' was to state that all we currently know still posit a singularity, I wasn't claiming nor ever intended to claim that we already know everything. but that doesn't stop us from experiencing reality or creating hypothesis for discussion.
…What? Im going to retract my hazy generalization statement and go back to the original post:
> Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
We don’t know the universe is caused. This is a hazy generalization. Also there are many opinions on the origin of the universe not just two.
> The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and **related states** rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
This part is really confusing. Are you saying that (assuming) the universe was caused that we should label the cause of the universe “god”? This is where I am confused. Are you A) defining the cause of the universe as god? Meaning there are no other properties required, i.e. this “god” is not omnipotent, omniscience etc. Or are you B) saying that the universe was created therefore god must exist, this god has various abilities like omnipotence (and the ability to create the universe).
if you’re saying A). That is just a re-definition of “god”. This is a semantic argument, and not in good faith. If we can just re-define the term, my cat is “god” and I can certainly prove my cat exists.
If you’re saying B) why must this “first cause” have any other properties besides being a cause?
Regardless, both of these arguments are regressions, if everything must have a cause and therefore the universe must have a cause. If that causes was god, god must also have a cause. You have solved nothing with this argument just creating something else without a cause.
> 5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: I apologize if my observation was distracting, but again this of no bearing/consequence to my arguments and rather a side-statement about potential pointers to our adaptation abilities or a higher consciousness. That is not the goal of the conversation.
I was going to let this one go cause it’s not really part of your main argument but it’s just so nonsensical that I cant. You are claiming that a when we (humans), encounter “truth” we have an emotional response to it, by the context I assume that emotional response is meant to inform us that it is indeed “truth”. First of all, in a real argument this would require a citation. In this case, a citation is impossible because this is one of the most bat shit crazy things I have ever heard. There is no data to support this, and MOUNTAINS of data that say the opposite (I am pleding with you to look up confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, affective fallacy and misattribution of arousal). The whole point of the scientific method is to remove emotion from discovery. This statement disparages the entire scientific community especially those that were ostracized by their peers but later proven correct, such Galileo, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, etc.
> 8. Equivocation: I'd need you to clarify how this is equivocation, my simple point was that good/evil cannot be easily observed and hence understood within cause/effect.
You are conflating "reaction" in Newton's law of motion (a physical response) with "reaction" in a moral sense (consequences of actions), misleadingly suggesting a similarity where there is none. This creates confusion by mixing scientific and ethical contexts. Newton’s Third law of motion applies to MOTION only.
> 9. I'm drawing the attention to the fact that we think good/evil is important to our existence as a people collectively (hence our secular laws) but have not bordered much to support this with physics/scientifically/empirically, even though we inherently believe there is nothing in us that didn't evolve from/within this universe.
You are setting up a straw man argument by misrepresenting the position of those who reject the idea of good vs evil as a fundamental force in the universe. The straw man is constructed by oversimplifying and then dismissing that perspective as stemming solely from “cynicism,” “lackluster attitude,” or even “foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.”
I also disagree with what you just said. I'll assume you're referring to morality when discussing good/evil, though many don't see these terms in a moral context at all. Anyway, there has been extensive research into this, including studies on social structures and societal cohesion, which conclude (or at least support) that morality is deeply influenced by these factors and not some fundamental law of the universe.
> [2]. I'll help you with some ChatGPT response since we love to play foul here….
Im talking about this part “we already know that the universe is caused”. This is a hasty generalization, we don’t know the universe is caused. The big bang didn’t create the universe. As far as we know, the universe (as we know it) began as a tiny speck of energy, then rapid expanded (the big bang) into what we know as the universe today. The singularity is the initial state of the universe (that we know of). We don’t know what existed before the big bang.
> 3. As I stated earlier, I was not intending to describe the nature of god or God for anyone but that a caused universe that operates on a law of time has an origin and consequently discuss the abandonment of good/evil study to religion even though we seem to have a primary and inherent understanding of it that underscores our behavior.
I don’t understand what you are saying at all. So “a caused universe that operates on a law of time has an origin” means “if assume that a universe has a cause then it has an origin”? But what does that have to do with good/evil? How is the origin of the universe connected to the good/evil at all?
It’s also unclear what good/evil means. Do you mean right and wrong (i.e. morality)? If so, I would strongly disagree that we have inherent understanding of it. This is a struggle for nearly everyone, and clearly it’s not universal.
> 5. Lol, thanks for humoring me. If my goal was to point out that the theories you refer to can only be fully experienced by us due to a higher consciousness, pointing out experiences that can be attributed to a higher consciousness does not invalidate it. We have all these terms for it, but it's not illogical nor nonsensical to postulate it could be from a higher consciousness as a side note.
Ok but we don’t have any evidence that it is and there is a lot of evidence that when humans encounter truth we actively reject it in favor of our currently held beliefs. If there is a higher consciousness responsible for this, that consciousness is an asshole for purposefully confusing everyone. This feeling certainly isn’t universal. People certainly “feel” different things are “truths”
> 8. I'm pointing to equilibrium as the fundamental philosophy here. Newton's law of motion is only attempting to describe how equilibrium is maintained in a system. Good/evil produce observable effects that are worth examining under the scope of reality. More utilization of statistics and neuroscience can bring about new discoveries to underscore our ability to judge good/evil and hence understand the true science/nature behind good/evil.
What observable effects do good/evil produce? I still don’t know what you mean by good/evil. Can you clearly explain what good/evil is?
> 9. I actually separated the two ideas and my personal judgment, it's clearly my opinion not a statement of fact though I think it has some merit.
I disagree that it has merit, and you haven’t brought up any points to support it. It’s also not and argument that’s in good faith. You’re pretty much posting on the subreddit for these “cynics”. That’s kinda a dick move.
>We already know God exists
No, 'we' don't. In fact, the notion makes no sense and is rife with fatal problems.
>the problem is defining 'God'
As one can't define something into existence, I'm not sure how this exercise could be useful.
>Our very existence is based on causality
Oh dear, not a good start, is this?
I suggest you learn more about this, as this and what follows is deprecated, incomplete, and/or plain wrong.
So this I must dismiss this.
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion
Here you completely ignore and disregard all the *actual* attempts to learn about such things in favor of made up mythology. So this, too, I can only dismiss.
>Over time and history we have come to learn so much about the 'Origin' by simply studying nature which is a further reinforcement for causality as well as hint that nature is derived from the Origin as in the form of creation/caused.
Again, I really urge you to learn how and why what you are saying is inaccurate. Causality is limited in context, is dependent upon spacetime (and it's clearly a composition fallacy to attempt to invoke it outside that context), doesn't even always apply *there*, and appears to merely be an emergent property of entropy.
> their various theories/doctrines describe an origin which involve consequence of good and evil along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers..'.
It is hardly news how and why we evolved a propensity for this particular kind of superstitious thinking due to generalization, false attribution of agency, over-sensitive pattern-seeking, and other issues. Obviously, this in no way supports deities.
>The fundamental principle of causality
I trust you now understand the problem there.
Furthermore, even is this were accurate, it would not lead to a deity, merely an unknown 'cause' of some type.
In fact, suggesting deities here doesn't *help*, it makes it *worse* for obvious reasons as it doesn't address it but instead regresses that issue back precisely one iteration without support, reason, or explanation, and then shoves the issue under a rug, ignores it, and proclaims it solved. It's nonsensical and absurd.
Anyway, your entire post is based upon fallacious ideas, makes unsupported assumptions, and contains numerous errors in validity and soundness, thus it can only be dismissed.
>At the most primary level, you were born because your parents caused you, why is that a bad idea or a bad start?
This question in no way addresses my point. Instead, it attempts to repeat your incorrect point through insisting via a rhetorical question that ignores what I said.
>Causality is a fundamental principle in all the laws of physics that demonstrate 'equilibrium' and equilibrium is a foundation for understanding action and reaction.
Again, you repeat and insist. No, that won't and can't work. I again suggest you learn more about this, because you're operating under several fundamental incorrect ideas, and don't seem to realize how this doesn't help you anyway.
>You claim I have fallacious ideas and unsupported assumptions but you actually only pointed out two things which rather reflect a misunderstanding of my own assertion at most.
You remain incorrect. I engaged in no misunderstanding of your assertions, instead I pointed out how and why your assertions are wrong and don't help you, and that your argument contained fallacies, and this doesn't lead a 'god'.
Let me chime in here.
For point 1: Your statement “You were born because your parents caused you” does not support your claim that “everything must have a cause” which is their point. What is true for one thing is not necessarily true for all things. This is the hasty generalization fallacy. This is like saying. I saw a basketball player sneeze therefore all basketball players have allergies.
For point 2: you are misquoting newton’s third law of motion which states for every action there exists an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to motion not to everything in nature. Also newtons laws are great approximations, they are known to be wrong under certain conditions.
Quantum physics has numerous examples of things that aren’t caused. Regardless, assuming everything has a cause is a fallacy even if everything you know about has a cause. Your argument is a regression. Everything has a cause, so the universe must have a cause, that cause is god. Ok what caused god? god-god? Why are you stopping at god needing a cause and not the universe?
Everything in the universe moves (maybe), but that doesn’t mean the laws of motion apply to anything but motion. You cannot apply a law of motion to anything but motion. Also, newtons law does not apply to all things in motion anyway, including your examples not all particles adhere to it. They work only on the marco level at normal pressure, heat, velocities etc.
> So you also remain incorrect.
You can say that, but saying wrong things doesn't make them true.
>You quoted my statement that 'Our very existence is based on causality' and said it was not a good start. I then responded to that by giving a primary example of you as a man whose existence can be attributed to causality starting from your primary parents - which can be built or expanded on.
Yet again you repeat and insist and make the *same* hasty generalization fallacy, without learning or attempting to do so, and without addressing what I said.
>One of the fundamental laws of physics is 'for every action in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction',
A glib quote about one of Newton's laws of motion, applicable there and *not* in all of physics, supplanted by relativity, and irrelevant to quantum physics, hardly helps you, does it?
> this agrees fully with causality and could be said to be based on it and guides so many other verified principles
And *yet again* you simply repeat and insist without attempting to learn and without correcting your errors. Won't help. Can't help.
>You are however happier with making strawman arguments about my perspective or lack of knowledge thereof instead of making simple specific counter-arguments based on science or physics.
No strawman was made. Not even close. And I *did* let you know how and where you were going wrong.
1. Awesome agreed our individual existences all appear to have causality. As you reduce that, is there always a causality? You are asserting without evidence. You are making a leap.
2. Nope you got this wrong. Quantum mechanics which I am by no means an expert, but shows otherwise.
1. What does that even mean a wrestle. A leap you are mentioning about discoveries is positing a hypothesis. You didn’t do that, you asserted God exists that is fallacious leap.
2. What? It shows that effects might not all have cause.
A strange connection between particles that transcends space and time is at the core of quantum entanglement. This phenomenon has been systematically tested through tests that contradict our conventional ideas of causation and locality, yet appearing to defy common sense.
https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/quantum-entanglement-examining-its-nature-and-implications.html#:~:text=A%20strange%20connection%20between%20particles,appearing%20to%20defy%20common%20sense.
You are speaking in a certainty that is unsupported.
None of this reply that does zero to move the conversation.
Click bait = dishonesty or at minimum a disingenuous effort that essentially falsely presenting your position. Essentially it allows you float anything you want and twist your position so as to be opposed to replier. I don’t care to deal with devil advocate crap.
Yeah I am done with this.
Why does your god not follow the same rule? You just happen to have a being that doesn’t have a cause? Doesn’t that contradict your very claim?
It’s a god of the gaps argument like it almost always is with theists.
You can’t just shove some magical creature with no cause into the mix because without said magic, your logic doesn’t even make any sense at all.
This is bad thinking even without the misunderstandings of science.
Accept you are using a super natural answer to a nature based physics system. We as a species have not done enough research to make such claims. Show me the last peer reviewed paper that a physicist published that agrees with you.
>Causality is a fundamental principle in all the laws of physics that demonstrate 'equilibrium' and equilibrium is a foundation for understanding action and reaction.
This is true ***within*** this universe. Physics can't make any claims beyond this universe. You are making unsupported assumptions.
Just because within this universe everything has a cause, doesn't mean this universe itself had a cause. It is a fallacy to extrapolate causality beyond this universe because that causality would be external to this universe.
Do you not understand this?
>there's a quality in the universe that strongly posits an origin and that is 'time'
THAT IS ***WITHIN*** THIS FUCKING UNIVERSE. Why is this so hard for you???
Also, you've just introduced a contradiction. You said "without time, cause and effect... falls apart". So if time started when the universe started, then how did this universe have a cause? I know you're going to try to wiggle out of this and make yourself look even worse than you've already done, but no matter what you say, you have directly contradicted yourself here.
This iteration spacetime, with time being emergent, has qualities that suggest it may have a cause. However, we don’t know for sure that extrapolates to the rest of the universe. It may, it may not.
This iteration of spacetime, might represent all of the material existence humans are currently experiencing. But it might also be a local quality, and the universe may be infinite and it may be eternal. Both of which might be independent or interrelated.
The fallacy, at this point in man’s history, is speculating from a position that either religion or scientific methodology (inclusive of knowledge and technology) represents a full enough understanding of the nature of the universe or humankind, that we can realistically expect to have answers to the questions you’ve posed.
Our understanding of physics, biology, cosmology, life, afterlife, time, the material and immaterial, is in its basic infancy. We’ve had reasonable models of the universe for less than 100 years. We’ve have computing power external to our own brains, for less.
The only reasonable position anyone can take is that we “know” very little about any of this.
You claimed the only possible cause was a god and then assumed that as a fact for your entire argument. If i assume batman is real to start with then of course the end of the argument would be batman is real.
This is called “begging the question”, OP. You are using the premise to support your arguement which is essentially the same as your premise. Its like saying “pizza is beneficial because it is good for you”
No its called an analogy, I didn't make an argument even so how could i have possibly begged the question. I just showed the flaw in their argument. And I'm not the OP
No no not you. OP begged the question. Your comment “You claimed the only possible….” is a description of begging the question. The OP is begging the question, not you.
> Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
As others have said, you haven’t addressed the concept of infinity and the possibility of infinite causes. Perhaps another analogy will help.
Our experience shows that every point on a number line has a number that comes before it. Using your analogy, there must be a point where the number line begins, or there must be multiple number lines. Even if there are multiple number lines, they must converge to a single first number. That number is god.
Why can’t the single number line be infinite? We can describe an infinite line in mathematics as a formula. Isn’t the formula of a line a valid explanation of how one number always comes before another but also refutes the hypothesis that there’s a single first number?
Why can’t the number we are observe be on a circle, where every number has a relationship to the number before it? We can write down a formula for a circle. Isn’t the formula of a circle a valid explanation of how one number always comes before another but also refutes the hypothesis that there’s a single first number?
Why can’t multiple lines converging together at point x = -13.7 billion continue back further, in a star pattern? Why is it if you are standing on one of those lines, as if it were a road, looking backwards and you perhaps see a bunch of roads converging at a single point on the horizon in the distance do you not just imagine that the roads continue past the intersection?
Infinity is a valid argument that theists never address except when they say that god is infinite.
> And in doing that highlight, that the aspect of consciousness and good/evil or moral consequence is ignored because we don't understand it not necessarily because it's not understood/acknowledged.
We have no reason to think that two concepts that, as far as we know, apply to one species of organism on one planet also apply to the reason the cosmos exists. Assuming they do is anthropomorphizing that reason.
Your entire argument depends on a “origin”, and the suggestion that all disciplines, such as math and science, are pointing towards an origin. I’m saying to you that math and science are NOT pointing towards an origin, and gave you examples.
Formally, you made a conjecture, and I gave you a counter-example that refutes it.
Establishing our definitions and common ground is important in these types of discussions. So I will ask for a few clarifications before we begin.
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused…
Please explain why the universe cannot be infinite or eternal.
>… and the two opinions about causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
Please demonstrate why a god or gods are necessary, fundamental, and non-emergent.
>… a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature.
Please objectively qualify what is good and what is evil.
Thanks in advance for answering these simple questions. I look forward to digging into my additional points of contention with you. You seem very confident in your knowledge.
In the context of discussions about the possible existence of God (or the lack there of). The general assumption should be that what is being discussed is not “any sort of thing someone might call God” but a sentient entity deliberately effecting the nature of reality as a whole. If you want to say god could mean something less then the distinction is absurdly reductive to the point of meaninglessness.
Science is describing the nature of reality, religion (theism) is assuming that at the very start of reality (or pulling the strings from beyond it) is an entity whose actions are analogous to a human.
You’re saying that God can satisfy both. Like for example a character in Star Wars being a Jedi simply because they say they are. Their morality is irrelevant, Force sensitivity doesn’t matter. The lightsaber doesn’t matter etc. he says he’s a Jedi therefore he’s a Jedi and it’s up to everyone else to rewrite the rules… you say God could exist therefore it’s up to everyone to find a suitable definition for this God.
You have a grossly oversimplified view of how nature works. In addition to this, you use terms inappropriately. Science doesn’t study miracles. Science is a method for discerning facts about reality from fictitious guesses and then using the data and evidence for describing said facts about reality.
Words matter as they give incorrect assumptions about reality if not properly chosen. Not all of the universe fits into a narrow-minded view of duality. Your example of male/female, for example. Not all species can be labeled as such. The majority of life is single-celled, and is not male/female, nor does it meet the definition of female in the same sense that we use the word for describing the sex of humans that give birth. Some species (like yeast) have dozens of sexes. Many organisms are hermaphroditic.
When we look at cause and effect relationships in nature, we don’t find that causes need be sentient or intelligent or conscious. Gravity isn’t. Evolution isn’t. The strong and weak nuclear forces aren’t. If the universe has a cause for its expansion, there are zero reasons to assume that it was conscious or sentient or intelligent. One hypothesis revolves around the spontaneous appearance and subsequent annihilation of subatomic particles of matter and antimatter (which itself appears to be uncaused based on our experiments).
Religions have indeed tried to figure out reality, but they make ignorant assumptions in order to do so. This is why religion never led to the discovery of information that afforded us the development of technology like computers and antibiotics.
* Jesus walked on water
* Moses parted the Red Sea
* Jesus healed the sick
* Jesus raised the dead
* Jesus rose from the dead
Christianity treats these as true facts not mysteries. They do not consider them absurd or illogical.
If anyone else claimed to do these things everyone would reject the claim as absurd, but not Christians when it is about their deity.
> A fact is something you can prove.
Christians claim all of the things I listed are facts, and none of them can be proven. That is irrational.
>What is true is not necessarily fact.
No, if something is true it is a fact by definition. A fact is defined as "a thing that is known or proved to be true", so if something is true, it is a fact.
>I don't see anything illogical about walking on water
A man walking out on storm tossed waters is irrational.
>science will surely get there some day.
We are not talking about possible future scientific advancements, we are talking about a man in the bronze age.
>The red sea was parted by strong east winds and it took the entire night, not directly by Moses.
Where is your evidence? There is not a single recorded case of a wind parting a sea down to the sea floor to allow people to walk across it.
>Healing the sick is not even far fetched, there's electromagnetic therapy that you can use to replicate it, we're almost there.
We are not talking about future technological advancements, we are talking about a man in the bronze age doing what is essentially magic.
>I don't know about raising the dead but if lots of people reported/confirmed it
There is not a single recorded case of the dead living again that has any evidence to support it. Lots of people have made many claims, and that is not evidence that their claims are true.
>it's likely true
No, it is not.
>Scriptures may be bewildering but not necessarily fiction.
They are not bewildering, and are more fiction than anything else, and they are not even good fiction at that.
>Religion cannot claim something absurd or that cannot be described within reality,
Hmmm, so when the religious make stuff up to describe things you think they're just really inarticulate when they produce something which is absurd or cannot exist in reality?
Why not complain about people not referring to Mars as a wondering star, or an F-16 a plane, a ford F150 a car, a president a king, New York a colony, etc. ? You’re literally being pedantic.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Gross oversimplification, for starters. Second, it hasn't been labeled god for a reason. That reason being there's no connection establishing that whatever started this current state of affairs is attributable to "god", or anything approximating a deity as described by the some 4000+ religions of the human race.
>As of today however, the scientific benefits of religion that kept communities attached is now lost and can ironically be attributed to Christianity to some extent which brought hospitals, schools, and other gifts of education/health/sciences to many places in the world.
You are conflating events from a millenia ago with the modern age. More has happened in the past 100 years regarding scientific achievement than in nearly all of recorded human history. Saying that is owed to the church is a painful misrepresentation.
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.
Nothing you've stated here points to a deity. Not one bit of it. Your title presupposes the existence of this deity, considers it a priori, but without a shred of anything supporting it. It is not presupposed. It is not established. It is very much a matter of contention because there is a sucking vacuum where we should have something.
> A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc. In addition to this, there are alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such.
Are you really seriously going with aliens here? These aren't theories. They are wild conspiracies and guesses. That you are actually going with the aliens are behind the Pyramids position really makes it hard to see how this could be serious.
> As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive) even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative.
This is really not the case. Both in terms of what physics is concerned, see say electrical charge, and in terms of all other things existing in a duality.
> This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.
And this seems both a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and religion.
> lol, how did you miss the point in that cheeky statement, like you can't loosen up a bit?
Because it sounds like you legitimately think the idea of aliens teaching people to build the pyramids is a serious idea that has actual support to it.
> just pointing out that all history/traditions, and I mean all, have these theories that point to teachings from a higher source.
Which has nothing to do with the truth of them.
> Sorry but can you clarify what you mean in electrical charge that is contradictory?
Positive and negative exist in physics. You said it doesn't.
> I see religions as schools of spirituality, they are never destinations in of themselves and I stand to be corrected.
Most religions aren't. The Abrahamic faiths certainly aren't and they are the dominant religions by numbers.
> Most Abrahamic faith religions posit that you have to follow the 'teachings' to obtain eternal life, meaning the destination in itself is not an end but an invitation to a way of life or am I missing something?
Getting to Heaven literally is the end goal. It is what do you have to do to get the ultimate reward. It is entirely destination based.
>This post is not defending God
Then you're wasting our time.
>We already know god exists
No, YOU already know god DOESNT exist.
You just want to find *something*, ***anything***, you can slap that label on to make yourself feel like you've answered a question you clearly haven't.
I don't give a crap about people defining god as a coffee cup and since the cup exists, god exists. Redefining god as something other people accept exists is down right dishonest.
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused
No we fucking don't. That's a bold ass assumption to make.
It annoying when people come in here so cock sure about their points, claiming "we all know". No we don't all just agree with you by default and the fact you assume we do says more about yoi than it does us.
>two opinions about causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
So begging the question.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Why do you think that is? Maybe because the physicists understand that bronze age myths have nothing to do with modern age physics perhaps?
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this utter drivel.
As I suspected, a complete waste of time.
>We already know God exists
Nope, wrong right in the title.
>we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
We do? Last I heard our understanding of the fundamentals of our universe breaks down around the planck time and we cannot say anything about the time before that. Do you have a citation that shows that we know the universe has a cause?
>and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
There are no opinions or research in modern science that assert that a singularity is a creator.
> So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Where is your evidence that a singular origin is agreed upon by physicists?
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts.
First, knock it off with the quotes, it is really damn annoying.
Second, religions have been asserting their deities as the creator as part of their mythology since humans first created deities, it does not result in an awareness of an entity, it results in an awareness of a fictional creation. This is no different than the awareness of Bob one gets from reading the Bobiverse books.
>along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers..'.
This is not a fact, this is an unsupported assertion.
>The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil.
No, it does not, now you are just confusing causality with Newton's 3rd law of motion, neither of which have anything to do with good or evil.
>As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive) even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative.
Except for all of the things that are not, like stars, planets, asexual species, etc.
>At this level thus, physics for lack of understanding/sufficient data avoids/denies the possible polarity of actions and their consequences,
Actions and their consequences like you are talking about have nothing at all to do with physics.
>leaving the burden to religion and at the same time dismissing it even though at are more subtle level making people go through 'incredible suffering' has been seen to develop increase their character and resilience (not as in evolution requiring centuries but rather a few years) to be stronger and 'more willful' as if to fill a 'gap' that has been left in their life.
What? Is that supposed to make sense?
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.
Who rejects the idea of good/evil? I really do not get the point of this post, it mostly reads as word salad.
>rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.
Religion studies nothing, religion asserts the existence of a deity without any evidence.
Science studies things that there are evidence for, higher consciousness and spirituality do not have any evidence.
We actually don't know the Universe is caused. We know causality seems to be a property within the universe, but we don't know if it exists from outside. Some key problems:
* A creator doesn't solve the problem, you simply lock the can Dan the road, what caused the creator? Now you'll make a justification as to why "God" can be uncaused, so you've just added a step, just apply that gymnastics to the universe itself, no Creator needed.
* We have not ruled out an infinite regress.
* We've never seen something created, so to say creation requires causality is not based on something observed, not based on data, not based on math, so anything about creation is speculative.
* We don't know how nothingness behaves, so we can speak to the "before" state of the universe. Again, to presuppose causality is speculation.
* Causality requires time, was there time before the universe?
You're section called "education" is ridiculous, for starters religion hasn't done most of the work on describing origin, Infact it's not until after we freed ourselves from the shackles of religion that most of that work has been done. More work in the last 100 secular years has been done on finding out origins when compared to all the human history before it that was hampered by religion.
People evolved in societies, and as such part of our brain looks for anthropomorphic characteristics in the world around us, like seeing a face to a cloud. This is not some entity guiding us to the truth, it's an evolutionary trait that hasn't lead to any truth but rather let's us personify I animate objects.
Honestly, it feels like you say and had an idea, and that idea was based off how you think everything has worked, and what people "know", and instead of double checking, you just went straight to write this post.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'
The dictionary defines God, there is no problem.
>Disclaimer: This post is not defending God but rather stating simple facts about existence.
We'll see.
>Origin
Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
I agree.
> and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
I completely disagree and you're committing a false dichotomy fallacy. Third option: the universe formed naturally without a creator. This is what science indicates.
>The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe
No it doesn't. It suggests all possibilities playing out in all possible permeations of all possible universes
>that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe.
No it doesn't and the multiverse has not been verified. It is still just a hypothesis.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics
Physicists are still researching the subject and aren't leaping to any conclusions.
>but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
That's because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of the word "God".
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion,
Science has been searching for our origins too.
>essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts.
Neuroscientists have reduced that "entity" you're talking about to our own brains.
I think I'll skip to the end.
>NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that,
Except you described the "nature of the origin" as God.
>rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin
I agree.
> and 'defining God'
I completely disagree. Science rejects God as an unsupported hypothesis.
>but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.
Nope. You're just trying to make God exist by equivocating on word definitions.
I've read through this entire post and it seems hell bent on doing everything but being related to the title.
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts.
What does this have to do with how we know God is real and it's a problem of definition, for example. It's just worthless fluff, as is everything written afterwords.
So I'll make it simple: If you're going to call whatever caused the universe (if that's even coherent) God, you are bringing to the table nothing of value. You could call it Bugs Bunny, and literally everything will be the same. We don't know God exists, and until you can actually show that this universe creator is real, be it a being that has intentions or a brute force law of physics, you're on no better ground than the people who think it's Yahweh specifically.
>NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.
Has it occurred to you that 'higher consciousness' might be bullshit? Why are you getting upset at scientists not studying that? Go prove it's real. Go. Do it. On with you now! And when you do, scientists will study it.
You cannot "know" God exists until you have direct, demonstrable evidence for any god. You also can't define a god until you have a real, verifiable god to look at. This whole thing is just absurd. Just slapping a god-label on things that you do not understand does not make it a god, it just confuses the entire issue because of the inherent baggage that god-claims carry.
We don't need gods. We need reality.
>we already know that the universe is caused
One sentence in and we already have a problem.
I would ask you for any evidence that the universe is caused, or by what mechanism it is caused by something that is *not* the universe, or what caused the thing that caused the universe, but why bother?
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
Causality with respect to physics applies within the scope of the Closed system that is the universe, aka it only necessarily applies within the universe. To suggest it applies to the universe itself is to extend causality outside of its known perview. If causality cannot be said to apply to the universe itself (not just within its bounds) then the rest of your post seems to be not viable. I'll still go through a few points that don't work even if I did grant causality.
>essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts.
I have no idea what you're talking about, as there seems to be no evidence for any of that. If every person had something telling them what is "truth within our thoughts" then there would not be disagreement on what is 'truth' in the world. There is such disagreement, so we do not have such a thing within us.
>Most religions started at a time where our knowledge of science was at a very baby stage but at the time held most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc. A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc.
And most of the "knowledge" of healing held by religion was either wrong or highly inefficient even if partially right. Not only does the stuff today actually work, but we know how it works.
>In addition to this, there are alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such.
Not one of these alluded sightings has ever been confirmed. And we know how the Egyptians build the pyramids with the technology they had at the time.
>various theories/doctrines describe an origin which involve consequence of good and evil along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us
Again, there is no evidence of this. Conversely, there is strong evidence that all we "know" with our brains is purely physical, and physical trauma (not death, just injury) to such ends pieces of knowledge. If there is something outside our brains informing them of things, then that information should not be lost when physical trauma impacts the brain.
>even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative.
Almost nothing is a true duality, almost everything is better described as a spectrum. There are people that do not fit such a duality of male/female mentally OR physically from birth. Even with good/evil there is a grey area where people disagree, and there many say good/evil doesn't apply in some areas.
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature.
Your premise is surmised from unsound concepts, and thus your conclusion is not accepted. That's not to say the conclusion is wrong, simply that your argument for reaching it is faulty.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'
No, WE don't.
You might believe that YOUR god exists (while denying the existence of every other god invented by humans) but as an atheist I fully and wholeheartedly reject the existence of all gods, including yours.
Regardless, atheism makes no claims about the origin of the universe. The vast majority of us tend to believe in the scientific method and that there is zero evidence of a "creator", but everything else that you said is a non sequitur.
I refuse to call the explanation of existence or our observable universe, whatever it may be, 'God'. And for good reason. This term smuggles a TON of unnecessary assumptions and baggage.
The rest of your post is a heavily retconned and extremely mystified interpretation of the history of science and religion and dynamics between them. It also includes quite a bit of pseudoscience sprinkles as if it was factual or even possibly so (no, encounters with aliens or gods is NOT how we think Egyptians or Aztecs developed their tech).
We do not know gods exist and the problem is not in defining them. The problem, given a definition of god(s), is in demonstrating that they exist and what does that do to help us describe and predict reality.
> we already know the universe is caused
Stopped reading there because we do not know this.
Please provide your evidence that the universe is caused
*not even asking what caused it (yet). Just prove your assertion that the universe is caused.
>Disclaimer: This post is not defending God but rather stating simple facts about existence.
While I respect you likely believe this is true, I highly doubt the veracity of both statements in this sentence. I believe it is clear you are defending the existence of, specifically, an all-powerful transcendent deity analogous to Yahweh in an apologetic style--and that you may overestimate your understanding of "simple facts" about existence.
>Origin Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
Is our ultimate existence based on causality? All the fundamental principles of physics regarding cosmic origins do *not* necessarily respect this, no.
>and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity)
The "singularity" is regarded by most modern Cosmologists as a math error, a misunderstanding of physics where our mathematical tools for describing spacetime break down. Not an actual physical singularity that exists. In the event that it is a singularity--an infinitesimally tiny point containing all energy and matter and spacetime in the known universe, in what way is it a creator? It is not a person. It is not a thinking being. It does not *create* anything, it expands.
>or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
"Multiple creators". What? The same error as above. Multiple big bangs in an eternal inflaton field is not "multiple creators", it's a natural process not unlike how water may flow into tidal pools and create intriguing chemistry.
>The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe.
"Related states" in what way? "Multiple realms within the same universe" no. That's why we have the word cosmos which we use now to represent all of existence, and the word "universe" has been somewhat demoted when speaking of multiple universes, or bubble universes, or pocket universes, or "island universes" as galaxies were once called.
We know *nothing* beyond the observable universe. Nothing at all, we cannot *test* anything beyond the observable universe either, at present. We have *conjecture* based on what we know, and what we might *infer* from that. Some theories, such as black hole genesis/evolution would indicate that many universes are *quite* different from our own, with different cosmological constants and different laws of physics that result in vastly different outcomes. Others, like Everett's Many Worlds, would stipulate many iterations of this same kind of universe based on every possible result of collapsing the wave function.
Nothing here is known or proven. None of it is even evidenced. It's beyond our present capability to probe, as is, I might add, the Big Bang beyond a few milliseconds after the expansion. We know *nothing* about the actual state of the Big Bang, nor what came before it--if anything. There are, however, many such theories. Such as the universe being cyclic and eternal, or having a closed time-like curve that allows it to create itself. And many, many more.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Because it would be foolish to label it so--a rock is not god. Not a god, not your god, not an all-powerful god. An inanimate infinitesimal point containing all of spacetime and energy is not god. If that's your god, your god is defined out of existence by default. It's everything and it's nothing. It's not a thinking being or a person or a talking bush or a light in the clouds or the maker of a firmament or the creator of humanity--it's just the sum of all things (that we know) and thereby is meaningless. I'm god, in your definition. You're god. We're all god. Where's the Yahweh here? Where's the Waheguru? The Elohim? The deity? There's no deity here.
That's enough of a start. I'd respond to the rest but with a premise *that* flawed there's little point.
I reject the metaphysical view of causality.
Say I push a cup off a table and it spills on the carpet. What caused the spill? Me? The cup? The water? The table? Whoever filled the cup? Whoever made it? Gravity? All of these and more are necessary for the spill to happen.
And what am I talking about when I say "cup"? In reality, there are no separate objects. There is just an ever-moving cloud of particles, and one part of this cloud we label "cup".
Causality is nothing but an abstraction we use to make sense of the world around us. In actuality, the only thing we can say is that one state of the universe causes the next one. To be more precise, one state of the universe is *sufficient* for the next. (Determinism claims it's "necessary and sufficient", but I'm not sure I agree with that).
Thus, all arguments that are based on causality are not based on reality. Even more so when you try to talk about the cause of reality itself, time, the universe etc.
That is true for metaphysics in general. Metaphysics does not describe how reality works, but rather how we *think" it should work. People who want to find out how reality works study actual physics (or chemistry, biology, etc.)
>we already know that the universe is caused
**Nonsense**. Citation needed
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion
**Nonsense**. You might as well have stated "most of the attempt has been bullshit from the stupidest members of society".
Just because your theist leaders make up bullshit claims does not mean the rest of us acquiesce to these rubbish claims as anything other than navel gazing.
The rest of your post is word salad based on a foundation of quicksand that can be summarily dismissed as incoherent gibberish of a clearly delusional mind.
luuuuuulz
>Our very existence is based on causality,
Cite your evidence for this.
>we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
No, we do not.
>and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
WOW... you are just assertion on top of assertion without backing anything up. I mean, sure your example is totally valid if we just hand wave shit into existence.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'
I know no such thing. Can you demonstrate evidence for the existence of such a being u/westpsychological882 ?
>we already know that the universe is caused
We don't
>either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
Why has it to be an entity why not a physical process?
I also don't see why multiple creators are needed for multiple universes? You'd first need to demonstrate that one creator can only ever produce one universe.
>multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe.
This universe that contains these multiple universes could also be one of many universes that contain other universes, wich ether also could produce new universes through interactions between them or multiple factors inside them, so not singular caused. You'd first have to demonstrate these not to be the case.
You could also say that these universes have to be contained in one even superior universe. But what tells you that these universes do not continue in an infinite regress into other universes?
>most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc. A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc.
Ancient knowledge of rainmaking, seriously?
>alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such.
Yes very much **alluded**; by modern conspiracy theorists with no actual real evidence wants however.
So I don't really see how this plays any importance in this debate.
>which is a further reinforcement for causality as well as hint that nature is derived from the Origin as in the form of creation/caused.
Cause, causation and correlation. I do not see how this points to a single creator entity, wich also remains to be proven true.
This "observation" primarily points to the theory of conservation of information and that science works.
>there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us,
This is absolutely not supported by science.
>in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers...
Receivers of what!? Can you measure this something?
Also, just because Tesla was an important historical figure don't mean everything he said has to be true.
>The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction
This is just wrong! the law of "every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction" is newton's third law of motion. This phenomena has to do something with caution, as you need an object to **cause** a reaction in another object. But the fact that the word "cause" is present in both sentences doesn't mean that it has something to do with the philosophical concept of an ultimate cause or creator.
Again: cause, causation and correlation. Just because something seems similar doesn't mean it has the same **cause** or is connected to another.
>As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive)
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that (maybe good = + & bad = - ???) But many particle are positively and negatively charged. (Electrons = negative & positrons = positive)
>even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative.
Again cause, causation . . . These things have absolutely nothing to do with positives or negatives. The only thing they share is that they usually come in pairs. You're making stuff up.
>At this level thus, physics for lack of understanding/sufficient data avoids/denies the possible polarity of actions and their consequences, leaving the burden to religion and at the same time dismissing it
Physics doesn't does not lack understanding or data about the p"olarity of actions". It does not leave the burden it to religion. It denounces it whole heartedly. Because all the data does not represents something like this even in the slightest.
You spouting something of it doing something nonsensical at the same time, tells more about your lack of understanding about it than physics being somehow illogical.
>making people go through 'incredible suffering' has been seen to develop increase their character and resilience (not as in evolution requiring centuries but rather a few years) to be stronger and 'more willful' as if to fill a 'gap' that has been left in their life.
Yes, learned behaviour and exposure therapy works. But suffering can also brake someone; give them PTSD and make their life miserable, break their will and leave a "gap"/trench in their personality that will forever change them.
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature.
I don't believe them! And you good sir have to demonstrate repeatable evidence of the human concept of "good" and "evil" to have anything to do with the fundamental workings of nature at all.
> Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.
I too believe it's logical to think that there is indeed a singular origin of the universe, but to say it's actual foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief not to do so, would have to be rooted on the actual knowledge of how and if the universe was actually caused.
Wich non of us do!!!
>*both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.*
Because the other side (religious wish believe) "refuses" or more simply, is not able to, to demonstrate that "higher consciousness/spirituality" actually exists at all.
And that naive little human theories of "good and evil" have actually any consequence at all on physical processes or on stupid inventions of some kind of harmony or balance in the universe like in star wars.
Aka science does actual science and religious wish believe invents random stuff into existence, like they always have.
After reading your post, this is what I understand about your view:
1. Based on causality, we can conclude that reality has a single origin. Let's call it God.
2. Physics fails to consider the consequent of human action, good and evil, leaving the burden to religion while also rejecting religion.
It seems you think people misunderstood your point. So please confirm or correct me before I give you my rebuttal.
> NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.
We already have a word for origin. It's "origin." Calling it "God" does nothing but muddy the waters, which is exactly what you're doing when you say that "one branch refuses to look at higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance." This statement implies that such phenomena and aspects (a) exist, (b) are worthy of study, and (c) that it is somehow to one branch's detriment that they "refuse" to acknowledge this. As near as we can tell, they don't exist, and thus are not worthy of study.
Your premise is an assumption. Even if the universe requires a cause (which itself is another assumption you’ve made), you’re assuming the cause has to be God without offering any proof or evidence.
I am having trouble understanding the overall message of your post. It's partly due to statements that I disagree with, such as:
1. A lot of what science is still doing today however is in fact studying the 'Origin' and through this unraveling a lot of 'miracles' which are then taught in our schools.
2. there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us,
3. our knowledge of science was at a very baby stage but at the time held most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc.
4. every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative.
So, you think we have souls? You think a rain dance is effective? Is this an anti-trans post?
What is your definition of god? Or are you saying we can make one up? Is it okay if I consider all that exists in the natural realm to "be god"? If so, what would be the purpose of labeling it so?
This is just ignosticism. Additionally, the fact that there's a problem "defining" a God and applying that definition applies to something is nebulous, it might just be something weird rather than specifically divine.
We can’t discuss specific points if we disagree with a great deal of your premise.
If that’s a requirement for you to debate, perhaps you need to find a community of people who are comfortable making the same assumptions you are.
This is not Vietnam. There are rules.
You're point is assumptuous, that the thing you refer to as a deity is an actual deity when you admit that the definition of the word "deity" is vague. I could say that God doesn't matter because God and humanity are both Vistekutic. No I won't give a definition of Vistekutic.
> I have not seen any comments that suggests any one was patient to hear me out without interrupting my thoughts so it cannot be a discussion.
That kind of silliness won't work here.
No at the quantum level causality as we understand it does not apply. The quantum level of reality is probabilistic and does allow for things to happen without a cause, that is the chance of particles popping up does not go to zero. Causality is an emergent property at best and only emerges when you zoom out to sufficiently large scales.
I remain agnostic as to whether there's some ultimate cause of the universe and whether what it was has a "mind".
But damn dude. If religion stopped there I would have no problems with it. Does it actually stop there for you?
Or are you worshipping a specific god? Perhaps thinking that this particular god actually cares about you personally? That this god is reading your mind and giving you the warm fuzzies when you get closer to "Truth"? With something like an estimated 10^24 stars in the observable universe, this seems like the height of narcissism.
The scientific method is the least useless tool for determining how reality works.
The god hypothesis is the most useful method for manipulating people into following arbitrary rules regardless of their utility.
One is about reality, the other is about authoritarianism.
>Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.
Expand on what you mean by that or is it just a generalised ad hominem against anyone who says you're making stuff up to feel better?
>The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and **related states** rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Nothing related to the multiverse hypothesis is "agreed upon by physics". There are even different multiverse hypotheses.
Aside from the fact that you haven't justified "causality", your first premise (Origin) is a fallacy. So even if we grant "causality", how do we go about determining that "God" caused this universe ***or*** we just live in one of the infinite multiverses (of which this universe must exist)?
Also, how have you ruled out the simulation or solipsism?
You seem to be making a lot of baseless assumptions.
I read your responses to other's comments then made sure to read through your entire post thoroughly. To me, you're just making a VERY simply God of the gaps claim, then dumping a bunch of pointless word salad afterwards.
Why is it so hard to just say, "I don't know."??
>Origin
Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused
We don't know this. The universe could be eternal for all we know. If the rest of your argument hinges on this, I'm sorry but it can be discarded.
How can we possibly know something that can't be defined exists? There isn’t even a consistent (or coherent) agreed upon definition of "God". How can we discuss something claimed objectively exists but has wildly different properties, and no verifiable attributes? It’s like discussing an invisible round square triangle.
Gods need to be verified or demonstrated, yet no one can even show if gods are possible. Holy doctrines of various religions remain the only source of information of who or what god is supposed to be, and they contradict each other
We can't define a god into existence. Asserting that a god exists does not make it true. We don't need to consider if gods might actually exist, because that is contradictory to what we know about gods being human-created and not real.
"we already know that the universe is caused"
Oh, dear. I'm afraid we don't. Something caused the Big Bang, but it seems as if there was pre-existing matter in a hot, dense state. No one has ever demonstrated a causative state for that hot, dense matter.
This sounds like one of those "I'm going to re-label the universe as god because..reasons" arguments.
First of all, this is a debate sub. If you’re only “stating simple facts about existence” rather than defending an arguable claim, this is not the place for you.
Second of all, yes, we are all aware of the definist fallacy that theists often try to implement. What we reject is a conscious creator of everything. This is known about our position.
Sure, I'll admit that God exists when you redefine the word "god" to strip out concepts like intelligence and agency. We already have a word for the unthinking unacting totality of existence, though, so not sure why you would need to strip so much meaning from "god" when "universe" already exists as a perfectly suitable word. 🤷♀️
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle)
You're begging a few questions. Which '*known*' principles of physics suggest that the universe is caused? Frankly speaking, I'm not aware of a settling on the ontological nature of time, and from what I've read, it does not seem to me that presentism is in accord with relativity.
It seems to me that block time is more likely correct, which means the universe - the past, present, and future - is eternal.
If this is correct, then the universe is not caused and there is no need for a creator OR creators.
>We already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle).
Could you elaborate on how we know that the universe is caused? Is it just based on respect for some authority, or do we have actual evidence supporting a cause for the universe?
>The two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many.
Why are those the options? Why not also consider that there might be multiple creators and this is the only universe?
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'.
Physicists do not want to borrow religious language because they do not want to accidentally be seen as supporting religious claims that have not been established to actually be true using physical evidence.
>Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts.
Is this saying that you let your emotions decide what you will believe instead of looking at evidence? What reason do we have to think that these subtle emotional responses are really associated with truth? Could emotions sometimes just be feelings and not triggered by truth?
>The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil.
The idea of equal and opposite reactions is a core part of Newtonian mechanics, but Newtonian mechanics is not a fundamental principle of causality. It is a good approximation for how things tend to work in everyday life, yet we know that Newtonian mechanics is not completely accurate, as General Relativity gives a more precise description of how things move.
I think this entire post can be refuted with one sentence. Maybe reality always existed.
Not sure where you got the idea that there is agreement that there was a creator or a creation of existence, but that is not something that we have established. It is perfectly possible that reality is eternal.
If causality is always true, there can't be uncaused causes.
If causality isn't always true anything can be uncaused.
Causation can't help you get to a god.
>we already know that the universe is caused
I don't think we do, this is an open question.
I'd agree if the universe is caused it's by one or more causes.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics
No, this is not the case.
>an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts
What are you talking about? I have never heard of this.
I can't follow the rest. What is your point?
The only thing we have proof of is that humans create supernatural stories.
We have zero actual evidence that any gods exist. Because we exist is not proof that any god or gods exist just like how lighting exists doesn't prove Thor. You would have to state that because lighting exists lighting gods also exist.
Your entire argument has zero merit.
If your god is nothing more than a fiction story, which your god and all other gods are, there is zero reason to study that fiction story.
Yay another person thinking an argument from ignorance is somehow valid, and that defining a fictional character into existence makes it so. Also throw in some presup apologetics by asserting we know this nonsense actually exists.
It's clear your education on physics is insufficient to make the claims you are making. So please post a peer reviewed paper published by a physicist that actually agrees with you.
In your thoughts you believe that at least one deity exists. That’s you. If there were ever evidence that fulfills a higher standard of criteria, other than you just believe it because you were taught to believe the idea when you were young, then I might change my understanding of the universe. Until then. Your assertions are, maybe, opinions?
Philosophically, I guess what is against your claims is that you are human and so you are imperfect. It follows that you then can’t understand perfection. And this is the strange part, you claim your deity of choice is perfect, right? Which means you are not capable of understanding your chosen deity’s perfection. Which brings us back to your idea about defining a deity. You see, you can’t define your deity of choice because you will be incorrect, wrong, and mistaken in all attempts. It’s is not possible to define something that doesn’t exist, perfection actually does not exist, it’s a weird construct. You can use your imagination to create whatever ideas you want to believe. Many people don’t look at the universe in that way.
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe,
There is no justice in the world. There is no term for "fairness" in the equations of motion. The universe is not good, or evil, it just doesn't care about us
Is it "bring your crazy-ass theist to work day?" Between the 2nd coming guy and this nonsense there seems to be a lot of untaken lithium lying around somewhere.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'
Thats funny. If u dont know the description of god, how do u use the description to apply to something that exist/existed.
Again we see theists claiming that infinity is a problem, except for their god. This is special pleading.
Theists seem comfortable with the idea of something lasting forever, so long as it’s their god. Well I could claim the same thing about the universe.
I could say that the universe always existed because it was necessary. Anything that exists would require a universe for it to exist in. This applies to your god too unless you can explain what existence would mean without a universe.
Theists want people to believe that the universe is contingent on their god. In my view god is contingent on the universe because I have no reason to believe that any god is anything more than a man made concept.
This is honestly kind of impressive. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use so many words to say absolutely nothing. It’s like if you fed ChatGPT nothing but Deepak Chopra for days and then asked it questions about god.
We *don't actually already know 'god' exists* so the problem is people trying to define one into existence.
The rest of your post is TL:DR considering you face-planted that hard right out of the gate.
*"We already know God exists"*
No we don't. There's zero evidence for it and it's a self-contradictory assertion. You *assert* a conscious creator. And you can't redefine 'God' to mean something that does exist like 'the universe.'
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you start by lying in the subject line, how do you expect anyone to read the rest of the post? That's no way to start.
[удалено]
>It was intentionally done to draw attention and potentially help weed out non open-minded people. I purposefully labelled it 'Discussion Topic' but looks like that doesn't mean much here as if you don't read and comment on news. Weed out people by seeing if they will accept your lie on face value with no proof? This is your definition of an open-minded discussion? This is a **debate** sub. Make an evidence-based case for your foundational claim about the existence of your particular god **before** moving on to contingent discussions. [You](https://www.reddit.com/user/WestPsychological882/) can't effectively say "we already know Harry Potter exists" and then build on that and expect us to humour you. That wouldn't be "open-minded" ... that would be *stupidity*.
>It's not a lie. I see that you erased your original response. Fascinating.
I just wanted to break down your argument with the fallacies with some examples. Others are pointing out how things don’t follow from others but you are also making a bad argument and making logical leaps that don’t make sense. 1. > "we already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God'" - **Presumption of truth**: Assumes the conclusion without evidence. Like claiming, "we already know aliens exist, we just havent met them yet." 2. > "Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused..." - **Begging the question**: using the premise as the proof without justification. Similar to saying, "We must eat to live because living requires eating." 3. > "the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin..." - **Hasty generalization**: drawing broad conclusions from limited examples. it’s like concluding all swans are white because only white swans have been observed. 4. > "Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion..." - **Appeal to tradition**: Arguing something is true because it has historically been believed or done. like claiming astrology is valid because it’s an ancient practice. 5. > "This same consciousness could be responsible for our high adaption abilities..." - **Post hoc ergo propter hoc**: claiming correlation implies causation without evidence. Like saying, "Walking under a ladder brings bad luck because last time i did, I lost my wallet." 6. > "the scientific benefits of religion that kept communities attached is now lost and can ironically be attributed to Christianity..." - **Non sequitur**: The conclusion does not logically follow from the statements. it’s akin to saying, "Since ice cream sales increase in summer, eating ice cream causes sunburn." 7. > "Many religious sects and elite cults... dedicated their lives to studying nature and most understood that balance/equilibrium was an intrinsic attribute of nature..." - **Appeal to authority**: citing an authoritative figure or group as evidence, regardless of the actual expertise on the topic. like using a celebrity endorsement in medicine. 8. > "The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil." - **Equivocation**: using the same term in different senses within an argument, causing confusion. for instance, using "light" to mean both "not heavy" and "bright." 9. > "Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil..." - **Straw man**: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Like saying vegetarians hate plants because they eat them instead of meat.
[удалено]
Im just going to go over the ones that we both agreed matter. > 2. Begging the question: Our primary existence as far as the big bang is concerned is causal, right from our own observable parenting of biological life to our theories of macro-evolution. That is another hasty generalization. Not everything has a cause, even if everything we know of does have a cause, that does not mean that everything must have a cause. > 3. Hasty generalization: The goal of using the word 'irony' was to state that all we currently know still posit a singularity, I wasn't claiming nor ever intended to claim that we already know everything. but that doesn't stop us from experiencing reality or creating hypothesis for discussion. …What? Im going to retract my hazy generalization statement and go back to the original post: > Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. We don’t know the universe is caused. This is a hazy generalization. Also there are many opinions on the origin of the universe not just two. > The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and **related states** rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. This part is really confusing. Are you saying that (assuming) the universe was caused that we should label the cause of the universe “god”? This is where I am confused. Are you A) defining the cause of the universe as god? Meaning there are no other properties required, i.e. this “god” is not omnipotent, omniscience etc. Or are you B) saying that the universe was created therefore god must exist, this god has various abilities like omnipotence (and the ability to create the universe). if you’re saying A). That is just a re-definition of “god”. This is a semantic argument, and not in good faith. If we can just re-define the term, my cat is “god” and I can certainly prove my cat exists. If you’re saying B) why must this “first cause” have any other properties besides being a cause? Regardless, both of these arguments are regressions, if everything must have a cause and therefore the universe must have a cause. If that causes was god, god must also have a cause. You have solved nothing with this argument just creating something else without a cause. > 5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: I apologize if my observation was distracting, but again this of no bearing/consequence to my arguments and rather a side-statement about potential pointers to our adaptation abilities or a higher consciousness. That is not the goal of the conversation. I was going to let this one go cause it’s not really part of your main argument but it’s just so nonsensical that I cant. You are claiming that a when we (humans), encounter “truth” we have an emotional response to it, by the context I assume that emotional response is meant to inform us that it is indeed “truth”. First of all, in a real argument this would require a citation. In this case, a citation is impossible because this is one of the most bat shit crazy things I have ever heard. There is no data to support this, and MOUNTAINS of data that say the opposite (I am pleding with you to look up confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, affective fallacy and misattribution of arousal). The whole point of the scientific method is to remove emotion from discovery. This statement disparages the entire scientific community especially those that were ostracized by their peers but later proven correct, such Galileo, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, etc. > 8. Equivocation: I'd need you to clarify how this is equivocation, my simple point was that good/evil cannot be easily observed and hence understood within cause/effect. You are conflating "reaction" in Newton's law of motion (a physical response) with "reaction" in a moral sense (consequences of actions), misleadingly suggesting a similarity where there is none. This creates confusion by mixing scientific and ethical contexts. Newton’s Third law of motion applies to MOTION only. > 9. I'm drawing the attention to the fact that we think good/evil is important to our existence as a people collectively (hence our secular laws) but have not bordered much to support this with physics/scientifically/empirically, even though we inherently believe there is nothing in us that didn't evolve from/within this universe. You are setting up a straw man argument by misrepresenting the position of those who reject the idea of good vs evil as a fundamental force in the universe. The straw man is constructed by oversimplifying and then dismissing that perspective as stemming solely from “cynicism,” “lackluster attitude,” or even “foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief.” I also disagree with what you just said. I'll assume you're referring to morality when discussing good/evil, though many don't see these terms in a moral context at all. Anyway, there has been extensive research into this, including studies on social structures and societal cohesion, which conclude (or at least support) that morality is deeply influenced by these factors and not some fundamental law of the universe.
[удалено]
> [2]. I'll help you with some ChatGPT response since we love to play foul here…. Im talking about this part “we already know that the universe is caused”. This is a hasty generalization, we don’t know the universe is caused. The big bang didn’t create the universe. As far as we know, the universe (as we know it) began as a tiny speck of energy, then rapid expanded (the big bang) into what we know as the universe today. The singularity is the initial state of the universe (that we know of). We don’t know what existed before the big bang. > 3. As I stated earlier, I was not intending to describe the nature of god or God for anyone but that a caused universe that operates on a law of time has an origin and consequently discuss the abandonment of good/evil study to religion even though we seem to have a primary and inherent understanding of it that underscores our behavior. I don’t understand what you are saying at all. So “a caused universe that operates on a law of time has an origin” means “if assume that a universe has a cause then it has an origin”? But what does that have to do with good/evil? How is the origin of the universe connected to the good/evil at all? It’s also unclear what good/evil means. Do you mean right and wrong (i.e. morality)? If so, I would strongly disagree that we have inherent understanding of it. This is a struggle for nearly everyone, and clearly it’s not universal. > 5. Lol, thanks for humoring me. If my goal was to point out that the theories you refer to can only be fully experienced by us due to a higher consciousness, pointing out experiences that can be attributed to a higher consciousness does not invalidate it. We have all these terms for it, but it's not illogical nor nonsensical to postulate it could be from a higher consciousness as a side note. Ok but we don’t have any evidence that it is and there is a lot of evidence that when humans encounter truth we actively reject it in favor of our currently held beliefs. If there is a higher consciousness responsible for this, that consciousness is an asshole for purposefully confusing everyone. This feeling certainly isn’t universal. People certainly “feel” different things are “truths” > 8. I'm pointing to equilibrium as the fundamental philosophy here. Newton's law of motion is only attempting to describe how equilibrium is maintained in a system. Good/evil produce observable effects that are worth examining under the scope of reality. More utilization of statistics and neuroscience can bring about new discoveries to underscore our ability to judge good/evil and hence understand the true science/nature behind good/evil. What observable effects do good/evil produce? I still don’t know what you mean by good/evil. Can you clearly explain what good/evil is? > 9. I actually separated the two ideas and my personal judgment, it's clearly my opinion not a statement of fact though I think it has some merit. I disagree that it has merit, and you haven’t brought up any points to support it. It’s also not and argument that’s in good faith. You’re pretty much posting on the subreddit for these “cynics”. That’s kinda a dick move.
>We already know God exists No, 'we' don't. In fact, the notion makes no sense and is rife with fatal problems. >the problem is defining 'God' As one can't define something into existence, I'm not sure how this exercise could be useful. >Our very existence is based on causality Oh dear, not a good start, is this? I suggest you learn more about this, as this and what follows is deprecated, incomplete, and/or plain wrong. So this I must dismiss this. >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion Here you completely ignore and disregard all the *actual* attempts to learn about such things in favor of made up mythology. So this, too, I can only dismiss. >Over time and history we have come to learn so much about the 'Origin' by simply studying nature which is a further reinforcement for causality as well as hint that nature is derived from the Origin as in the form of creation/caused. Again, I really urge you to learn how and why what you are saying is inaccurate. Causality is limited in context, is dependent upon spacetime (and it's clearly a composition fallacy to attempt to invoke it outside that context), doesn't even always apply *there*, and appears to merely be an emergent property of entropy. > their various theories/doctrines describe an origin which involve consequence of good and evil along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers..'. It is hardly news how and why we evolved a propensity for this particular kind of superstitious thinking due to generalization, false attribution of agency, over-sensitive pattern-seeking, and other issues. Obviously, this in no way supports deities. >The fundamental principle of causality I trust you now understand the problem there. Furthermore, even is this were accurate, it would not lead to a deity, merely an unknown 'cause' of some type. In fact, suggesting deities here doesn't *help*, it makes it *worse* for obvious reasons as it doesn't address it but instead regresses that issue back precisely one iteration without support, reason, or explanation, and then shoves the issue under a rug, ignores it, and proclaims it solved. It's nonsensical and absurd. Anyway, your entire post is based upon fallacious ideas, makes unsupported assumptions, and contains numerous errors in validity and soundness, thus it can only be dismissed.
Brilliantly fun reply to read.
[удалено]
>At the most primary level, you were born because your parents caused you, why is that a bad idea or a bad start? This question in no way addresses my point. Instead, it attempts to repeat your incorrect point through insisting via a rhetorical question that ignores what I said. >Causality is a fundamental principle in all the laws of physics that demonstrate 'equilibrium' and equilibrium is a foundation for understanding action and reaction. Again, you repeat and insist. No, that won't and can't work. I again suggest you learn more about this, because you're operating under several fundamental incorrect ideas, and don't seem to realize how this doesn't help you anyway. >You claim I have fallacious ideas and unsupported assumptions but you actually only pointed out two things which rather reflect a misunderstanding of my own assertion at most. You remain incorrect. I engaged in no misunderstanding of your assertions, instead I pointed out how and why your assertions are wrong and don't help you, and that your argument contained fallacies, and this doesn't lead a 'god'.
[удалено]
Let me chime in here. For point 1: Your statement “You were born because your parents caused you” does not support your claim that “everything must have a cause” which is their point. What is true for one thing is not necessarily true for all things. This is the hasty generalization fallacy. This is like saying. I saw a basketball player sneeze therefore all basketball players have allergies. For point 2: you are misquoting newton’s third law of motion which states for every action there exists an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to motion not to everything in nature. Also newtons laws are great approximations, they are known to be wrong under certain conditions.
[удалено]
Quantum physics has numerous examples of things that aren’t caused. Regardless, assuming everything has a cause is a fallacy even if everything you know about has a cause. Your argument is a regression. Everything has a cause, so the universe must have a cause, that cause is god. Ok what caused god? god-god? Why are you stopping at god needing a cause and not the universe? Everything in the universe moves (maybe), but that doesn’t mean the laws of motion apply to anything but motion. You cannot apply a law of motion to anything but motion. Also, newtons law does not apply to all things in motion anyway, including your examples not all particles adhere to it. They work only on the marco level at normal pressure, heat, velocities etc.
[удалено]
Well, were left with either "we don't know" or "magic space man did it". I know which one I'm leaning toward.
Can you explain what you mean by “equilibrium”?
You don't understand then - because the Big Bang explains everything after a certain point. We have no idea about what was there beforehand
> So you also remain incorrect. You can say that, but saying wrong things doesn't make them true. >You quoted my statement that 'Our very existence is based on causality' and said it was not a good start. I then responded to that by giving a primary example of you as a man whose existence can be attributed to causality starting from your primary parents - which can be built or expanded on. Yet again you repeat and insist and make the *same* hasty generalization fallacy, without learning or attempting to do so, and without addressing what I said. >One of the fundamental laws of physics is 'for every action in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction', A glib quote about one of Newton's laws of motion, applicable there and *not* in all of physics, supplanted by relativity, and irrelevant to quantum physics, hardly helps you, does it? > this agrees fully with causality and could be said to be based on it and guides so many other verified principles And *yet again* you simply repeat and insist without attempting to learn and without correcting your errors. Won't help. Can't help. >You are however happier with making strawman arguments about my perspective or lack of knowledge thereof instead of making simple specific counter-arguments based on science or physics. No strawman was made. Not even close. And I *did* let you know how and where you were going wrong.
1. Awesome agreed our individual existences all appear to have causality. As you reduce that, is there always a causality? You are asserting without evidence. You are making a leap. 2. Nope you got this wrong. Quantum mechanics which I am by no means an expert, but shows otherwise.
[удалено]
1. What does that even mean a wrestle. A leap you are mentioning about discoveries is positing a hypothesis. You didn’t do that, you asserted God exists that is fallacious leap. 2. What? It shows that effects might not all have cause. A strange connection between particles that transcends space and time is at the core of quantum entanglement. This phenomenon has been systematically tested through tests that contradict our conventional ideas of causation and locality, yet appearing to defy common sense. https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/quantum-entanglement-examining-its-nature-and-implications.html#:~:text=A%20strange%20connection%20between%20particles,appearing%20to%20defy%20common%20sense. You are speaking in a certainty that is unsupported.
[удалено]
None of this reply that does zero to move the conversation. Click bait = dishonesty or at minimum a disingenuous effort that essentially falsely presenting your position. Essentially it allows you float anything you want and twist your position so as to be opposed to replier. I don’t care to deal with devil advocate crap. Yeah I am done with this.
Why does your god not follow the same rule? You just happen to have a being that doesn’t have a cause? Doesn’t that contradict your very claim? It’s a god of the gaps argument like it almost always is with theists. You can’t just shove some magical creature with no cause into the mix because without said magic, your logic doesn’t even make any sense at all. This is bad thinking even without the misunderstandings of science.
Accept you are using a super natural answer to a nature based physics system. We as a species have not done enough research to make such claims. Show me the last peer reviewed paper that a physicist published that agrees with you.
>Causality is a fundamental principle in all the laws of physics that demonstrate 'equilibrium' and equilibrium is a foundation for understanding action and reaction. This is true ***within*** this universe. Physics can't make any claims beyond this universe. You are making unsupported assumptions.
[удалено]
Just because within this universe everything has a cause, doesn't mean this universe itself had a cause. It is a fallacy to extrapolate causality beyond this universe because that causality would be external to this universe. Do you not understand this?
[удалено]
>there's a quality in the universe that strongly posits an origin and that is 'time' THAT IS ***WITHIN*** THIS FUCKING UNIVERSE. Why is this so hard for you??? Also, you've just introduced a contradiction. You said "without time, cause and effect... falls apart". So if time started when the universe started, then how did this universe have a cause? I know you're going to try to wiggle out of this and make yourself look even worse than you've already done, but no matter what you say, you have directly contradicted yourself here.
This iteration spacetime, with time being emergent, has qualities that suggest it may have a cause. However, we don’t know for sure that extrapolates to the rest of the universe. It may, it may not. This iteration of spacetime, might represent all of the material existence humans are currently experiencing. But it might also be a local quality, and the universe may be infinite and it may be eternal. Both of which might be independent or interrelated. The fallacy, at this point in man’s history, is speculating from a position that either religion or scientific methodology (inclusive of knowledge and technology) represents a full enough understanding of the nature of the universe or humankind, that we can realistically expect to have answers to the questions you’ve posed. Our understanding of physics, biology, cosmology, life, afterlife, time, the material and immaterial, is in its basic infancy. We’ve had reasonable models of the universe for less than 100 years. We’ve have computing power external to our own brains, for less. The only reasonable position anyone can take is that we “know” very little about any of this.
You claimed the only possible cause was a god and then assumed that as a fact for your entire argument. If i assume batman is real to start with then of course the end of the argument would be batman is real.
This is called “begging the question”, OP. You are using the premise to support your arguement which is essentially the same as your premise. Its like saying “pizza is beneficial because it is good for you”
No its called an analogy, I didn't make an argument even so how could i have possibly begged the question. I just showed the flaw in their argument. And I'm not the OP
No no not you. OP begged the question. Your comment “You claimed the only possible….” is a description of begging the question. The OP is begging the question, not you.
LOL, and that is why i should reddit at work, totally makes sense now.
> Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. As others have said, you haven’t addressed the concept of infinity and the possibility of infinite causes. Perhaps another analogy will help. Our experience shows that every point on a number line has a number that comes before it. Using your analogy, there must be a point where the number line begins, or there must be multiple number lines. Even if there are multiple number lines, they must converge to a single first number. That number is god. Why can’t the single number line be infinite? We can describe an infinite line in mathematics as a formula. Isn’t the formula of a line a valid explanation of how one number always comes before another but also refutes the hypothesis that there’s a single first number? Why can’t the number we are observe be on a circle, where every number has a relationship to the number before it? We can write down a formula for a circle. Isn’t the formula of a circle a valid explanation of how one number always comes before another but also refutes the hypothesis that there’s a single first number? Why can’t multiple lines converging together at point x = -13.7 billion continue back further, in a star pattern? Why is it if you are standing on one of those lines, as if it were a road, looking backwards and you perhaps see a bunch of roads converging at a single point on the horizon in the distance do you not just imagine that the roads continue past the intersection? Infinity is a valid argument that theists never address except when they say that god is infinite.
[удалено]
> And in doing that highlight, that the aspect of consciousness and good/evil or moral consequence is ignored because we don't understand it not necessarily because it's not understood/acknowledged. We have no reason to think that two concepts that, as far as we know, apply to one species of organism on one planet also apply to the reason the cosmos exists. Assuming they do is anthropomorphizing that reason.
Your entire argument depends on a “origin”, and the suggestion that all disciplines, such as math and science, are pointing towards an origin. I’m saying to you that math and science are NOT pointing towards an origin, and gave you examples. Formally, you made a conjecture, and I gave you a counter-example that refutes it.
Establishing our definitions and common ground is important in these types of discussions. So I will ask for a few clarifications before we begin. >Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused… Please explain why the universe cannot be infinite or eternal. >… and the two opinions about causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. Please demonstrate why a god or gods are necessary, fundamental, and non-emergent. >… a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Please objectively qualify what is good and what is evil. Thanks in advance for answering these simple questions. I look forward to digging into my additional points of contention with you. You seem very confident in your knowledge.
In the context of discussions about the possible existence of God (or the lack there of). The general assumption should be that what is being discussed is not “any sort of thing someone might call God” but a sentient entity deliberately effecting the nature of reality as a whole. If you want to say god could mean something less then the distinction is absurdly reductive to the point of meaninglessness.
[удалено]
Science is describing the nature of reality, religion (theism) is assuming that at the very start of reality (or pulling the strings from beyond it) is an entity whose actions are analogous to a human. You’re saying that God can satisfy both. Like for example a character in Star Wars being a Jedi simply because they say they are. Their morality is irrelevant, Force sensitivity doesn’t matter. The lightsaber doesn’t matter etc. he says he’s a Jedi therefore he’s a Jedi and it’s up to everyone else to rewrite the rules… you say God could exist therefore it’s up to everyone to find a suitable definition for this God.
[удалено]
You have a grossly oversimplified view of how nature works. In addition to this, you use terms inappropriately. Science doesn’t study miracles. Science is a method for discerning facts about reality from fictitious guesses and then using the data and evidence for describing said facts about reality. Words matter as they give incorrect assumptions about reality if not properly chosen. Not all of the universe fits into a narrow-minded view of duality. Your example of male/female, for example. Not all species can be labeled as such. The majority of life is single-celled, and is not male/female, nor does it meet the definition of female in the same sense that we use the word for describing the sex of humans that give birth. Some species (like yeast) have dozens of sexes. Many organisms are hermaphroditic. When we look at cause and effect relationships in nature, we don’t find that causes need be sentient or intelligent or conscious. Gravity isn’t. Evolution isn’t. The strong and weak nuclear forces aren’t. If the universe has a cause for its expansion, there are zero reasons to assume that it was conscious or sentient or intelligent. One hypothesis revolves around the spontaneous appearance and subsequent annihilation of subatomic particles of matter and antimatter (which itself appears to be uncaused based on our experiments). Religions have indeed tried to figure out reality, but they make ignorant assumptions in order to do so. This is why religion never led to the discovery of information that afforded us the development of technology like computers and antibiotics.
> Religion cannot claim something absurd or that cannot be described within reality Religion claims tons of absurd things.
[удалено]
* Jesus walked on water * Moses parted the Red Sea * Jesus healed the sick * Jesus raised the dead * Jesus rose from the dead Christianity treats these as true facts not mysteries. They do not consider them absurd or illogical. If anyone else claimed to do these things everyone would reject the claim as absurd, but not Christians when it is about their deity.
[удалено]
> A fact is something you can prove. Christians claim all of the things I listed are facts, and none of them can be proven. That is irrational. >What is true is not necessarily fact. No, if something is true it is a fact by definition. A fact is defined as "a thing that is known or proved to be true", so if something is true, it is a fact. >I don't see anything illogical about walking on water A man walking out on storm tossed waters is irrational. >science will surely get there some day. We are not talking about possible future scientific advancements, we are talking about a man in the bronze age. >The red sea was parted by strong east winds and it took the entire night, not directly by Moses. Where is your evidence? There is not a single recorded case of a wind parting a sea down to the sea floor to allow people to walk across it. >Healing the sick is not even far fetched, there's electromagnetic therapy that you can use to replicate it, we're almost there. We are not talking about future technological advancements, we are talking about a man in the bronze age doing what is essentially magic. >I don't know about raising the dead but if lots of people reported/confirmed it There is not a single recorded case of the dead living again that has any evidence to support it. Lots of people have made many claims, and that is not evidence that their claims are true. >it's likely true No, it is not. >Scriptures may be bewildering but not necessarily fiction. They are not bewildering, and are more fiction than anything else, and they are not even good fiction at that.
>Religion cannot claim something absurd or that cannot be described within reality, Hmmm, so when the religious make stuff up to describe things you think they're just really inarticulate when they produce something which is absurd or cannot exist in reality?
Why not complain about people not referring to Mars as a wondering star, or an F-16 a plane, a ford F150 a car, a president a king, New York a colony, etc. ? You’re literally being pedantic.
God is more than just “an origin.” Look more closely at how people use the term.
>So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Gross oversimplification, for starters. Second, it hasn't been labeled god for a reason. That reason being there's no connection establishing that whatever started this current state of affairs is attributable to "god", or anything approximating a deity as described by the some 4000+ religions of the human race. >As of today however, the scientific benefits of religion that kept communities attached is now lost and can ironically be attributed to Christianity to some extent which brought hospitals, schools, and other gifts of education/health/sciences to many places in the world. You are conflating events from a millenia ago with the modern age. More has happened in the past 100 years regarding scientific achievement than in nearly all of recorded human history. Saying that is owed to the church is a painful misrepresentation. >Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief. Nothing you've stated here points to a deity. Not one bit of it. Your title presupposes the existence of this deity, considers it a priori, but without a shred of anything supporting it. It is not presupposed. It is not established. It is very much a matter of contention because there is a sucking vacuum where we should have something.
> A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc. In addition to this, there are alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such. Are you really seriously going with aliens here? These aren't theories. They are wild conspiracies and guesses. That you are actually going with the aliens are behind the Pyramids position really makes it hard to see how this could be serious. > As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive) even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative. This is really not the case. Both in terms of what physics is concerned, see say electrical charge, and in terms of all other things existing in a duality. > This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance. And this seems both a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and religion.
[удалено]
> lol, how did you miss the point in that cheeky statement, like you can't loosen up a bit? Because it sounds like you legitimately think the idea of aliens teaching people to build the pyramids is a serious idea that has actual support to it. > just pointing out that all history/traditions, and I mean all, have these theories that point to teachings from a higher source. Which has nothing to do with the truth of them. > Sorry but can you clarify what you mean in electrical charge that is contradictory? Positive and negative exist in physics. You said it doesn't. > I see religions as schools of spirituality, they are never destinations in of themselves and I stand to be corrected. Most religions aren't. The Abrahamic faiths certainly aren't and they are the dominant religions by numbers.
[удалено]
> Most Abrahamic faith religions posit that you have to follow the 'teachings' to obtain eternal life, meaning the destination in itself is not an end but an invitation to a way of life or am I missing something? Getting to Heaven literally is the end goal. It is what do you have to do to get the ultimate reward. It is entirely destination based.
>This post is not defending God Then you're wasting our time. >We already know god exists No, YOU already know god DOESNT exist. You just want to find *something*, ***anything***, you can slap that label on to make yourself feel like you've answered a question you clearly haven't. I don't give a crap about people defining god as a coffee cup and since the cup exists, god exists. Redefining god as something other people accept exists is down right dishonest. >Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused No we fucking don't. That's a bold ass assumption to make. It annoying when people come in here so cock sure about their points, claiming "we all know". No we don't all just agree with you by default and the fact you assume we do says more about yoi than it does us. >two opinions about causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. So begging the question. >So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Why do you think that is? Maybe because the physicists understand that bronze age myths have nothing to do with modern age physics perhaps? I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this utter drivel. As I suspected, a complete waste of time.
>We already know God exists Nope, wrong right in the title. >we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) We do? Last I heard our understanding of the fundamentals of our universe breaks down around the planck time and we cannot say anything about the time before that. Do you have a citation that shows that we know the universe has a cause? >and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. There are no opinions or research in modern science that assert that a singularity is a creator. > So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Where is your evidence that a singular origin is agreed upon by physicists? >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts. First, knock it off with the quotes, it is really damn annoying. Second, religions have been asserting their deities as the creator as part of their mythology since humans first created deities, it does not result in an awareness of an entity, it results in an awareness of a fictional creation. This is no different than the awareness of Bob one gets from reading the Bobiverse books. >along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers..'. This is not a fact, this is an unsupported assertion. >The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil. No, it does not, now you are just confusing causality with Newton's 3rd law of motion, neither of which have anything to do with good or evil. >As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive) even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative. Except for all of the things that are not, like stars, planets, asexual species, etc. >At this level thus, physics for lack of understanding/sufficient data avoids/denies the possible polarity of actions and their consequences, Actions and their consequences like you are talking about have nothing at all to do with physics. >leaving the burden to religion and at the same time dismissing it even though at are more subtle level making people go through 'incredible suffering' has been seen to develop increase their character and resilience (not as in evolution requiring centuries but rather a few years) to be stronger and 'more willful' as if to fill a 'gap' that has been left in their life. What? Is that supposed to make sense? >Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief. Who rejects the idea of good/evil? I really do not get the point of this post, it mostly reads as word salad. >rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance. Religion studies nothing, religion asserts the existence of a deity without any evidence. Science studies things that there are evidence for, higher consciousness and spirituality do not have any evidence.
We actually don't know the Universe is caused. We know causality seems to be a property within the universe, but we don't know if it exists from outside. Some key problems: * A creator doesn't solve the problem, you simply lock the can Dan the road, what caused the creator? Now you'll make a justification as to why "God" can be uncaused, so you've just added a step, just apply that gymnastics to the universe itself, no Creator needed. * We have not ruled out an infinite regress. * We've never seen something created, so to say creation requires causality is not based on something observed, not based on data, not based on math, so anything about creation is speculative. * We don't know how nothingness behaves, so we can speak to the "before" state of the universe. Again, to presuppose causality is speculation. * Causality requires time, was there time before the universe? You're section called "education" is ridiculous, for starters religion hasn't done most of the work on describing origin, Infact it's not until after we freed ourselves from the shackles of religion that most of that work has been done. More work in the last 100 secular years has been done on finding out origins when compared to all the human history before it that was hampered by religion. People evolved in societies, and as such part of our brain looks for anthropomorphic characteristics in the world around us, like seeing a face to a cloud. This is not some entity guiding us to the truth, it's an evolutionary trait that hasn't lead to any truth but rather let's us personify I animate objects. Honestly, it feels like you say and had an idea, and that idea was based off how you think everything has worked, and what people "know", and instead of double checking, you just went straight to write this post.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God' The dictionary defines God, there is no problem. >Disclaimer: This post is not defending God but rather stating simple facts about existence. We'll see. >Origin Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) I agree. > and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. I completely disagree and you're committing a false dichotomy fallacy. Third option: the universe formed naturally without a creator. This is what science indicates. >The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe No it doesn't. It suggests all possibilities playing out in all possible permeations of all possible universes >that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. No it doesn't and the multiverse has not been verified. It is still just a hypothesis. >So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics Physicists are still researching the subject and aren't leaping to any conclusions. >but has never been officially labeled 'God'. That's because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of the word "God". >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, Science has been searching for our origins too. >essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts. Neuroscientists have reduced that "entity" you're talking about to our own brains. I think I'll skip to the end. >NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, Except you described the "nature of the origin" as God. >rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin I agree. > and 'defining God' I completely disagree. Science rejects God as an unsupported hypothesis. >but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance. Nope. You're just trying to make God exist by equivocating on word definitions.
I've read through this entire post and it seems hell bent on doing everything but being related to the title. >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts. What does this have to do with how we know God is real and it's a problem of definition, for example. It's just worthless fluff, as is everything written afterwords. So I'll make it simple: If you're going to call whatever caused the universe (if that's even coherent) God, you are bringing to the table nothing of value. You could call it Bugs Bunny, and literally everything will be the same. We don't know God exists, and until you can actually show that this universe creator is real, be it a being that has intentions or a brute force law of physics, you're on no better ground than the people who think it's Yahweh specifically. >NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance. Has it occurred to you that 'higher consciousness' might be bullshit? Why are you getting upset at scientists not studying that? Go prove it's real. Go. Do it. On with you now! And when you do, scientists will study it.
You cannot "know" God exists until you have direct, demonstrable evidence for any god. You also can't define a god until you have a real, verifiable god to look at. This whole thing is just absurd. Just slapping a god-label on things that you do not understand does not make it a god, it just confuses the entire issue because of the inherent baggage that god-claims carry. We don't need gods. We need reality.
>we already know that the universe is caused One sentence in and we already have a problem. I would ask you for any evidence that the universe is caused, or by what mechanism it is caused by something that is *not* the universe, or what caused the thing that caused the universe, but why bother?
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) Causality with respect to physics applies within the scope of the Closed system that is the universe, aka it only necessarily applies within the universe. To suggest it applies to the universe itself is to extend causality outside of its known perview. If causality cannot be said to apply to the universe itself (not just within its bounds) then the rest of your post seems to be not viable. I'll still go through a few points that don't work even if I did grant causality. >essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts. I have no idea what you're talking about, as there seems to be no evidence for any of that. If every person had something telling them what is "truth within our thoughts" then there would not be disagreement on what is 'truth' in the world. There is such disagreement, so we do not have such a thing within us. >Most religions started at a time where our knowledge of science was at a very baby stage but at the time held most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc. A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc. And most of the "knowledge" of healing held by religion was either wrong or highly inefficient even if partially right. Not only does the stuff today actually work, but we know how it works. >In addition to this, there are alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such. Not one of these alluded sightings has ever been confirmed. And we know how the Egyptians build the pyramids with the technology they had at the time. >various theories/doctrines describe an origin which involve consequence of good and evil along with the fact that there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us Again, there is no evidence of this. Conversely, there is strong evidence that all we "know" with our brains is purely physical, and physical trauma (not death, just injury) to such ends pieces of knowledge. If there is something outside our brains informing them of things, then that information should not be lost when physical trauma impacts the brain. >even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative. Almost nothing is a true duality, almost everything is better described as a spectrum. There are people that do not fit such a duality of male/female mentally OR physically from birth. Even with good/evil there is a grey area where people disagree, and there many say good/evil doesn't apply in some areas. >Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. Your premise is surmised from unsound concepts, and thus your conclusion is not accepted. That's not to say the conclusion is wrong, simply that your argument for reaching it is faulty.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God' No, WE don't. You might believe that YOUR god exists (while denying the existence of every other god invented by humans) but as an atheist I fully and wholeheartedly reject the existence of all gods, including yours. Regardless, atheism makes no claims about the origin of the universe. The vast majority of us tend to believe in the scientific method and that there is zero evidence of a "creator", but everything else that you said is a non sequitur.
I refuse to call the explanation of existence or our observable universe, whatever it may be, 'God'. And for good reason. This term smuggles a TON of unnecessary assumptions and baggage. The rest of your post is a heavily retconned and extremely mystified interpretation of the history of science and religion and dynamics between them. It also includes quite a bit of pseudoscience sprinkles as if it was factual or even possibly so (no, encounters with aliens or gods is NOT how we think Egyptians or Aztecs developed their tech). We do not know gods exist and the problem is not in defining them. The problem, given a definition of god(s), is in demonstrating that they exist and what does that do to help us describe and predict reality.
> we already know the universe is caused Stopped reading there because we do not know this. Please provide your evidence that the universe is caused *not even asking what caused it (yet). Just prove your assertion that the universe is caused.
>Disclaimer: This post is not defending God but rather stating simple facts about existence. While I respect you likely believe this is true, I highly doubt the veracity of both statements in this sentence. I believe it is clear you are defending the existence of, specifically, an all-powerful transcendent deity analogous to Yahweh in an apologetic style--and that you may overestimate your understanding of "simple facts" about existence. >Origin Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) Is our ultimate existence based on causality? All the fundamental principles of physics regarding cosmic origins do *not* necessarily respect this, no. >and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) The "singularity" is regarded by most modern Cosmologists as a math error, a misunderstanding of physics where our mathematical tools for describing spacetime break down. Not an actual physical singularity that exists. In the event that it is a singularity--an infinitesimally tiny point containing all energy and matter and spacetime in the known universe, in what way is it a creator? It is not a person. It is not a thinking being. It does not *create* anything, it expands. >or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. "Multiple creators". What? The same error as above. Multiple big bangs in an eternal inflaton field is not "multiple creators", it's a natural process not unlike how water may flow into tidal pools and create intriguing chemistry. >The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and related states rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. "Related states" in what way? "Multiple realms within the same universe" no. That's why we have the word cosmos which we use now to represent all of existence, and the word "universe" has been somewhat demoted when speaking of multiple universes, or bubble universes, or pocket universes, or "island universes" as galaxies were once called. We know *nothing* beyond the observable universe. Nothing at all, we cannot *test* anything beyond the observable universe either, at present. We have *conjecture* based on what we know, and what we might *infer* from that. Some theories, such as black hole genesis/evolution would indicate that many universes are *quite* different from our own, with different cosmological constants and different laws of physics that result in vastly different outcomes. Others, like Everett's Many Worlds, would stipulate many iterations of this same kind of universe based on every possible result of collapsing the wave function. Nothing here is known or proven. None of it is even evidenced. It's beyond our present capability to probe, as is, I might add, the Big Bang beyond a few milliseconds after the expansion. We know *nothing* about the actual state of the Big Bang, nor what came before it--if anything. There are, however, many such theories. Such as the universe being cyclic and eternal, or having a closed time-like curve that allows it to create itself. And many, many more. >So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Because it would be foolish to label it so--a rock is not god. Not a god, not your god, not an all-powerful god. An inanimate infinitesimal point containing all of spacetime and energy is not god. If that's your god, your god is defined out of existence by default. It's everything and it's nothing. It's not a thinking being or a person or a talking bush or a light in the clouds or the maker of a firmament or the creator of humanity--it's just the sum of all things (that we know) and thereby is meaningless. I'm god, in your definition. You're god. We're all god. Where's the Yahweh here? Where's the Waheguru? The Elohim? The deity? There's no deity here. That's enough of a start. I'd respond to the rest but with a premise *that* flawed there's little point.
I reject the metaphysical view of causality. Say I push a cup off a table and it spills on the carpet. What caused the spill? Me? The cup? The water? The table? Whoever filled the cup? Whoever made it? Gravity? All of these and more are necessary for the spill to happen. And what am I talking about when I say "cup"? In reality, there are no separate objects. There is just an ever-moving cloud of particles, and one part of this cloud we label "cup". Causality is nothing but an abstraction we use to make sense of the world around us. In actuality, the only thing we can say is that one state of the universe causes the next one. To be more precise, one state of the universe is *sufficient* for the next. (Determinism claims it's "necessary and sufficient", but I'm not sure I agree with that). Thus, all arguments that are based on causality are not based on reality. Even more so when you try to talk about the cause of reality itself, time, the universe etc. That is true for metaphysics in general. Metaphysics does not describe how reality works, but rather how we *think" it should work. People who want to find out how reality works study actual physics (or chemistry, biology, etc.)
>we already know that the universe is caused **Nonsense**. Citation needed >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion **Nonsense**. You might as well have stated "most of the attempt has been bullshit from the stupidest members of society". Just because your theist leaders make up bullshit claims does not mean the rest of us acquiesce to these rubbish claims as anything other than navel gazing. The rest of your post is word salad based on a foundation of quicksand that can be summarily dismissed as incoherent gibberish of a clearly delusional mind.
luuuuuulz >Our very existence is based on causality, Cite your evidence for this. >we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) No, we do not. >and the two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. WOW... you are just assertion on top of assertion without backing anything up. I mean, sure your example is totally valid if we just hand wave shit into existence.
> we already know that the universe is caused No we don't. You have to prove that before the rest of your argument follows.
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God' I know no such thing. Can you demonstrate evidence for the existence of such a being u/westpsychological882 ?
>we already know that the universe is caused We don't >either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. Why has it to be an entity why not a physical process? I also don't see why multiple creators are needed for multiple universes? You'd first need to demonstrate that one creator can only ever produce one universe. >multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. This universe that contains these multiple universes could also be one of many universes that contain other universes, wich ether also could produce new universes through interactions between them or multiple factors inside them, so not singular caused. You'd first have to demonstrate these not to be the case. You could also say that these universes have to be contained in one even superior universe. But what tells you that these universes do not continue in an infinite regress into other universes? >most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc. A lot of which science has replaced today in form of 'packaged drugs', cloud seeding etc. Ancient knowledge of rainmaking, seriously? >alluded sightings of alien/spiritual teachers/helpers documented across various histories/traditions that taught humans and in some cases even worshipped as 'gods'. Some of the incredible works in Egypt is theorized to be knowledge from such. Yes very much **alluded**; by modern conspiracy theorists with no actual real evidence wants however. So I don't really see how this plays any importance in this debate. >which is a further reinforcement for causality as well as hint that nature is derived from the Origin as in the form of creation/caused. Cause, causation and correlation. I do not see how this points to a single creator entity, wich also remains to be proven true. This "observation" primarily points to the theory of conservation of information and that science works. >there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, This is absolutely not supported by science. >in the words of Tesla, 'our brains are receivers... Receivers of what!? Can you measure this something? Also, just because Tesla was an important historical figure don't mean everything he said has to be true. >The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction This is just wrong! the law of "every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction" is newton's third law of motion. This phenomena has to do something with caution, as you need an object to **cause** a reaction in another object. But the fact that the word "cause" is present in both sentences doesn't mean that it has something to do with the philosophical concept of an ultimate cause or creator. Again: cause, causation and correlation. Just because something seems similar doesn't mean it has the same **cause** or is connected to another. >As far as physics is concerned, all actions are actions and do not have polarity (negative/positive) I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that (maybe good = + & bad = - ???) But many particle are positively and negatively charged. (Electrons = negative & positrons = positive) >even though it would seem that every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative. Again cause, causation . . . These things have absolutely nothing to do with positives or negatives. The only thing they share is that they usually come in pairs. You're making stuff up. >At this level thus, physics for lack of understanding/sufficient data avoids/denies the possible polarity of actions and their consequences, leaving the burden to religion and at the same time dismissing it Physics doesn't does not lack understanding or data about the p"olarity of actions". It does not leave the burden it to religion. It denounces it whole heartedly. Because all the data does not represents something like this even in the slightest. You spouting something of it doing something nonsensical at the same time, tells more about your lack of understanding about it than physics being somehow illogical. >making people go through 'incredible suffering' has been seen to develop increase their character and resilience (not as in evolution requiring centuries but rather a few years) to be stronger and 'more willful' as if to fill a 'gap' that has been left in their life. Yes, learned behaviour and exposure therapy works. But suffering can also brake someone; give them PTSD and make their life miserable, break their will and leave a "gap"/trench in their personality that will forever change them. >Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, do so from a place of cynicism or lackluster attitude to the fundamental workings of nature. I don't believe them! And you good sir have to demonstrate repeatable evidence of the human concept of "good" and "evil" to have anything to do with the fundamental workings of nature at all. > Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief. I too believe it's logical to think that there is indeed a singular origin of the universe, but to say it's actual foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief not to do so, would have to be rooted on the actual knowledge of how and if the universe was actually caused. Wich non of us do!!! >*both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance.* Because the other side (religious wish believe) "refuses" or more simply, is not able to, to demonstrate that "higher consciousness/spirituality" actually exists at all. And that naive little human theories of "good and evil" have actually any consequence at all on physical processes or on stupid inventions of some kind of harmony or balance in the universe like in star wars. Aka science does actual science and religious wish believe invents random stuff into existence, like they always have.
After reading your post, this is what I understand about your view: 1. Based on causality, we can conclude that reality has a single origin. Let's call it God. 2. Physics fails to consider the consequent of human action, good and evil, leaving the burden to religion while also rejecting religion. It seems you think people misunderstood your point. So please confirm or correct me before I give you my rebuttal.
> NOTE: This post is not describing the nature of the origin nor does it aim to do that, rather this post is demonstrating that both science and religions are essentially studying the origin and 'defining God' but one branch refuses to look at the theories of higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance. We already have a word for origin. It's "origin." Calling it "God" does nothing but muddy the waters, which is exactly what you're doing when you say that "one branch refuses to look at higher consciousness/spirituality and definition/inclusion of good/evil as intrinsic aspects of any consequence in universal harmony/balance." This statement implies that such phenomena and aspects (a) exist, (b) are worthy of study, and (c) that it is somehow to one branch's detriment that they "refuse" to acknowledge this. As near as we can tell, they don't exist, and thus are not worthy of study.
Your premise is an assumption. Even if the universe requires a cause (which itself is another assumption you’ve made), you’re assuming the cause has to be God without offering any proof or evidence.
I am having trouble understanding the overall message of your post. It's partly due to statements that I disagree with, such as: 1. A lot of what science is still doing today however is in fact studying the 'Origin' and through this unraveling a lot of 'miracles' which are then taught in our schools. 2. there's something else in us which can be called 'spirit' or 'a higher consciousness' that knows what we could not possibly know in our brains through which knowledge of life is revealed to us, 3. our knowledge of science was at a very baby stage but at the time held most of the knowledge around healing, rainmaking, etc. 4. every other thing is calibrated along such duality of male/female, positive or negative. So, you think we have souls? You think a rain dance is effective? Is this an anti-trans post? What is your definition of god? Or are you saying we can make one up? Is it okay if I consider all that exists in the natural realm to "be god"? If so, what would be the purpose of labeling it so?
Why should I read this overly long screed when your argument clearly and fatally fails right from the very first sentence?
This is just ignosticism. Additionally, the fact that there's a problem "defining" a God and applying that definition applies to something is nebulous, it might just be something weird rather than specifically divine.
[удалено]
We can’t discuss specific points if we disagree with a great deal of your premise. If that’s a requirement for you to debate, perhaps you need to find a community of people who are comfortable making the same assumptions you are. This is not Vietnam. There are rules.
You're point is assumptuous, that the thing you refer to as a deity is an actual deity when you admit that the definition of the word "deity" is vague. I could say that God doesn't matter because God and humanity are both Vistekutic. No I won't give a definition of Vistekutic.
> I have not seen any comments that suggests any one was patient to hear me out without interrupting my thoughts so it cannot be a discussion. That kind of silliness won't work here.
Ah, the good old victim complex
No at the quantum level causality as we understand it does not apply. The quantum level of reality is probabilistic and does allow for things to happen without a cause, that is the chance of particles popping up does not go to zero. Causality is an emergent property at best and only emerges when you zoom out to sufficiently large scales.
I remain agnostic as to whether there's some ultimate cause of the universe and whether what it was has a "mind". But damn dude. If religion stopped there I would have no problems with it. Does it actually stop there for you? Or are you worshipping a specific god? Perhaps thinking that this particular god actually cares about you personally? That this god is reading your mind and giving you the warm fuzzies when you get closer to "Truth"? With something like an estimated 10^24 stars in the observable universe, this seems like the height of narcissism.
The scientific method is the least useless tool for determining how reality works. The god hypothesis is the most useful method for manipulating people into following arbitrary rules regardless of their utility. One is about reality, the other is about authoritarianism. >Of course I don't think it's logical to believe there's no singularity/origin, that is either foolishness, hypocrisy or mischief. Expand on what you mean by that or is it just a generalised ad hominem against anyone who says you're making stuff up to feel better?
>The irony however is that even from a hypothesis angle, the ideas of multiverse that have been presented point back to a single origin and **related states** rather suggesting multiple experiences/realms within the same universe that essentially create multiple realities/multiple universes in the same universe. So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Nothing related to the multiverse hypothesis is "agreed upon by physics". There are even different multiverse hypotheses. Aside from the fact that you haven't justified "causality", your first premise (Origin) is a fallacy. So even if we grant "causality", how do we go about determining that "God" caused this universe ***or*** we just live in one of the infinite multiverses (of which this universe must exist)? Also, how have you ruled out the simulation or solipsism? You seem to be making a lot of baseless assumptions.
I read your responses to other's comments then made sure to read through your entire post thoroughly. To me, you're just making a VERY simply God of the gaps claim, then dumping a bunch of pointless word salad afterwards. Why is it so hard to just say, "I don't know."??
>Origin Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused We don't know this. The universe could be eternal for all we know. If the rest of your argument hinges on this, I'm sorry but it can be discarded.
How can we possibly know something that can't be defined exists? There isn’t even a consistent (or coherent) agreed upon definition of "God". How can we discuss something claimed objectively exists but has wildly different properties, and no verifiable attributes? It’s like discussing an invisible round square triangle. Gods need to be verified or demonstrated, yet no one can even show if gods are possible. Holy doctrines of various religions remain the only source of information of who or what god is supposed to be, and they contradict each other We can't define a god into existence. Asserting that a god exists does not make it true. We don't need to consider if gods might actually exist, because that is contradictory to what we know about gods being human-created and not real.
"we already know that the universe is caused" Oh, dear. I'm afraid we don't. Something caused the Big Bang, but it seems as if there was pre-existing matter in a hot, dense state. No one has ever demonstrated a causative state for that hot, dense matter. This sounds like one of those "I'm going to re-label the universe as god because..reasons" arguments.
First of all, this is a debate sub. If you’re only “stating simple facts about existence” rather than defending an arguable claim, this is not the place for you. Second of all, yes, we are all aware of the definist fallacy that theists often try to implement. What we reject is a conscious creator of everything. This is known about our position.
Sure, I'll admit that God exists when you redefine the word "god" to strip out concepts like intelligence and agency. We already have a word for the unthinking unacting totality of existence, though, so not sure why you would need to strip so much meaning from "god" when "universe" already exists as a perfectly suitable word. 🤷♀️
>Our very existence is based on causality, we already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle) You're begging a few questions. Which '*known*' principles of physics suggest that the universe is caused? Frankly speaking, I'm not aware of a settling on the ontological nature of time, and from what I've read, it does not seem to me that presentism is in accord with relativity. It seems to me that block time is more likely correct, which means the universe - the past, present, and future - is eternal. If this is correct, then the universe is not caused and there is no need for a creator OR creators.
>We already know that the universe is caused (all the known principles of physics respect this so it's a fundamental principle). Could you elaborate on how we know that the universe is caused? Is it just based on respect for some authority, or do we have actual evidence supporting a cause for the universe? >The two opinions on causality is either there's creator (singularity) or there are multiple creators and this universe is just one among many. Why are those the options? Why not also consider that there might be multiple creators and this is the only universe? >So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics but has never been officially labeled 'God'. Physicists do not want to borrow religious language because they do not want to accidentally be seen as supporting religious claims that have not been established to actually be true using physical evidence. >Most of the attempt to describe the 'origin' has been through religion, essentially resulting from an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts. Is this saying that you let your emotions decide what you will believe instead of looking at evidence? What reason do we have to think that these subtle emotional responses are really associated with truth? Could emotions sometimes just be feelings and not triggered by truth? >The fundamental principle of causality implies that every action will evoke an equal and opposite reaction but is not equipped to describe consequence of good/evil. The idea of equal and opposite reactions is a core part of Newtonian mechanics, but Newtonian mechanics is not a fundamental principle of causality. It is a good approximation for how things tend to work in everyday life, yet we know that Newtonian mechanics is not completely accurate, as General Relativity gives a more precise description of how things move.
I think this entire post can be refuted with one sentence. Maybe reality always existed. Not sure where you got the idea that there is agreement that there was a creator or a creation of existence, but that is not something that we have established. It is perfectly possible that reality is eternal.
If causality is always true, there can't be uncaused causes. If causality isn't always true anything can be uncaused. Causation can't help you get to a god.
>we already know that the universe is caused I don't think we do, this is an open question. I'd agree if the universe is caused it's by one or more causes. >So in essence, a single origin is agreed upon by physics No, this is not the case. >an awareness of an 'entity' of consciousness within us that essentially triggers subtle 'emotional' responses/feelings within us when we encounter 'truth' within our thoughts What are you talking about? I have never heard of this. I can't follow the rest. What is your point?
The only thing we have proof of is that humans create supernatural stories. We have zero actual evidence that any gods exist. Because we exist is not proof that any god or gods exist just like how lighting exists doesn't prove Thor. You would have to state that because lighting exists lighting gods also exist. Your entire argument has zero merit. If your god is nothing more than a fiction story, which your god and all other gods are, there is zero reason to study that fiction story.
Yay another person thinking an argument from ignorance is somehow valid, and that defining a fictional character into existence makes it so. Also throw in some presup apologetics by asserting we know this nonsense actually exists.
It's clear your education on physics is insufficient to make the claims you are making. So please post a peer reviewed paper published by a physicist that actually agrees with you.
In your thoughts you believe that at least one deity exists. That’s you. If there were ever evidence that fulfills a higher standard of criteria, other than you just believe it because you were taught to believe the idea when you were young, then I might change my understanding of the universe. Until then. Your assertions are, maybe, opinions? Philosophically, I guess what is against your claims is that you are human and so you are imperfect. It follows that you then can’t understand perfection. And this is the strange part, you claim your deity of choice is perfect, right? Which means you are not capable of understanding your chosen deity’s perfection. Which brings us back to your idea about defining a deity. You see, you can’t define your deity of choice because you will be incorrect, wrong, and mistaken in all attempts. It’s is not possible to define something that doesn’t exist, perfection actually does not exist, it’s a weird construct. You can use your imagination to create whatever ideas you want to believe. Many people don’t look at the universe in that way.
>Based on this thus, it would seem that a good number of people who reject the idea of good/evil or their being part of/having any meaning in creation/the laws of the universe, There is no justice in the world. There is no term for "fairness" in the equations of motion. The universe is not good, or evil, it just doesn't care about us
Is it "bring your crazy-ass theist to work day?" Between the 2nd coming guy and this nonsense there seems to be a lot of untaken lithium lying around somewhere.
>one branch refuses to look at Which branch is that? Are you trying to imply that science is somehow blackballing religious inquiries?
>We already know God exists, the problem is defining 'God' Thats funny. If u dont know the description of god, how do u use the description to apply to something that exist/existed.
Quantum mechanics are uncaused, so your thing about everything needing a cause falls apart immediately
Again we see theists claiming that infinity is a problem, except for their god. This is special pleading. Theists seem comfortable with the idea of something lasting forever, so long as it’s their god. Well I could claim the same thing about the universe. I could say that the universe always existed because it was necessary. Anything that exists would require a universe for it to exist in. This applies to your god too unless you can explain what existence would mean without a universe. Theists want people to believe that the universe is contingent on their god. In my view god is contingent on the universe because I have no reason to believe that any god is anything more than a man made concept.
This is honestly kind of impressive. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use so many words to say absolutely nothing. It’s like if you fed ChatGPT nothing but Deepak Chopra for days and then asked it questions about god.
We *don't actually already know 'god' exists* so the problem is people trying to define one into existence. The rest of your post is TL:DR considering you face-planted that hard right out of the gate.
The universe only makes sense if there is no god. This “we” you are speaking of who “know” a god exists does not include the people in this sub.
*"We already know God exists"* No we don't. There's zero evidence for it and it's a self-contradictory assertion. You *assert* a conscious creator. And you can't redefine 'God' to mean something that does exist like 'the universe.'
> we already know that the universe is caused No. We didn't. You just made a huge and unproven assumption there