Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

Yes.

From the time of the conception of the natural sciences, one of the most enduring postulate is the conservation of mass and energy. Presently, we know that cme is being violated in the sub-atomic level. In physical cosmology, it is believed that the tensile tendency of the universe is a function of the expansion of space. As space expands, the tensile tendency, lambda, also increases.

Where lambda comes from is anybody's guess. One might as well say god made it so.

That is intriguing. Do you have any links?

 

[Dr.Who]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.

Except for the Law of Entropy which states that entropy is always increasing in the universe. If it is always increasing then the further back in time we look the smaller it is. If time were to extend infinitely back then at some point entropy would be zero or the rate of change of entropy would be so small as to demand that all activity were virtually non existent. It cannot get smaller than zero so the universe could not have existed further back than than when entropy was zero.

That is of course assuming that the laws of science are correct.

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point.

 

[bododie]

Hey dawkins, I thought you stated that you weren't going to bother this thread anymore. No honor? Or do you just make EVERYTHING that you say up? Tell me again about how we all must be the spawn of two men if there is a God...lol.

 

[The Scotsman]

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point.

.......it always amazes me that if just one of the 20 cosmological parameters differed by so much as a tiny fraction of a percent then the universe would not exist.....as if it was designed to an exacting standard! Take stars for example....the probablility that stars should exist is infinitesimal! If the gravitational constant differed by 0.00001% then stars could not exist! No Stars no.......well no nothing really!!

Cool huh!

 

[numinus]

That is intriguing. Do you have any links?

The cosmological riddles are often included in any discussion of the standard models of cosmology. It is commonly refered to as the lambda problem. To my knowledge, wikipedia has the simplest language possible.

 

[numinus]

Except for the Law of Entropy which states that entropy is always increasing in the universe. If it is always increasing then the further back in time we look the smaller it is. If time were to extend infinitely back then at some point entropy would be zero or the rate of change of entropy would be so small as to demand that all activity were virtually non existent. It cannot get smaller than zero so the universe could not have existed further back than than when entropy was zero.

That is of course assuming that the laws of science are correct.

Now if you want to argue that the laws of science are not correct then we can revisit the question about the existence of God with a new starting point.

Not only entropy but the expansion of space. Einstein postulated a steady-state universe because he wanted to believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist.

Hubble's observations roundly debunks a steady-state universe. It is expanding according to the hubble's separation. Since space cannot contract beyond the point of singularity, then expansion must have begun from that finite point.

 

[numinus]

But there isn't.

But there are criticisms -- the most popular of which is the assertion that the first cause is not necessarily god.

One can tell instantly that such an assertion is not fatal to the proposition presented -- merely word play.

It is enough to prove that a first cause exists, that this first cause is the cause of itself, that this first cause is both infinite and incontingent, and that the first cause is the cause of everything in everything.

Yep. Sounds exactly like god to me.

To say there is demeans philosophy.

Philosophy is subdivided into 4 major but inter-related branches -- metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence. No discussion in the other three main branches of philosophy is even possible without metaphysics. No discussion of metaphysics is possible without philosophical cosmology.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument etc have all been discredited and you will not find a philosophy faculty in a credible university anywhere in the world where they are regarded as anything but part of the history of philosophy.

But then you won't find a credible university teaching creationsim but it doesn't stop the lunatic fringe from thinking they have discredited evolution

If you have even set foot on any university, you would realize the supreme foolishness of such a claim. Heck there are even doctorate programs in theology in secular universities.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

.......it always amazes me that if just one of the 20 cosmological parameters differed by so much as a tiny fraction of a percent then the universe would not exist.....as if it was designed to an exacting standard! Take stars for example....the probablility that stars should exist is infinitesimal! If the gravitational constant differed by 0.00001% then stars could not exist! No Stars no.......well no nothing really!!

Cool huh!

What is even cooler is if one takes a look at the ratio of the total gravitational energy of the universe and the negative energy, lambda.

To get a flat spacetime geometry (the one we see right now) you need this ratio to be within 1.(add 49 zero)1 to 0.(add 50 9's). Otherwise, the universe would not exist (at least not for 13 billion years and counting).

Either that is a cosmic jackpot that would boggle the human imagination, or the initial conditions of the big bang were somehow tinkered to a perfect balance -- a balance that is being continously maintained for the last 13 billion years.

Neither of the two conclusions deserves any serious consideration from the scientific point of view.

 

[numinus]

I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.

The last time I checked, the truth value of any proposition rest solely on its logic -- not the character of the one proposing, nor the era in which it was proposed. No amount of religious fervor is capable of endowing logic to something that is illogical.

Your line of reasoning is typical of uneducated bigots who simply do not know any better.

It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context.

What absurd nonsense. No one is trying to prove a negative -- least of all the argument for universal causation.

It starts from a premise that all contingent phenomena have efficient causes. That is precisely the hypothesis of the scientific method, is it not?

Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.

You claimed that there is no compelling evidence, did you not? You went on to say that there are more compelling evidence for ufo's than god, did you not?

Isn't an argument based entirely on propositional logic evidence??? Isn't this form of evidence the strongest possible evidence to ascertain truth-value???

Not only are you a bigot but a liar as well.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Phds in Theology are studies for in the Theology department.

There is no argument for the existence of god as god is a logical impossibility.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And just in case you want to argue against that...

1) The christian god is illogical because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive

2) The idea of a non-christian god as say a supernatural unmoved mover as an initiator of everything faces the impossibility of the non-physical moving the physical.

Add to that the fact that there is no credible evidence either and you have a pretty weak argument for believing in god.

Why not just admit it?

You sooo desperately want there to be a god so that you can believe in an afterlife rather than face facts like an adult that when you die that's it.

And who would really want a christian god to exist?

He made the world knowing how it would all turn out but didn't change the plan to stop loads of people burining in hell forever for thinking the wrong way.

Evil bastard

 

[SW85]

There is no argument for the existence of god as god is a logical impossibility.

Surely then you can provide some rebuttal to the logical content of the cosmological argument. If, after all, god's existence is logically impossible than the argument must be fallacious.

An unsupported assertion to the contrary, for the record, doesn't count.

1) The christian god is illogical because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive

You have it backwards -- a god that is not omniscient cannot in any meaningful way be omnipotent.

Add to that the fact that there is no credible evidence either and you have a pretty weak argument for believing in god.

Sure there is: the cosmological argument, the substantive content of which you have yet to address.

At any rate, the proof is in the pudding, friend: you exist, ergo you were caused. What caused you was caused by something else, which was, itself, caused. And unless you propose that the fallacy of infinite regress is not, in fact, fallacious, you must concede the existence of a first cause that caused everything else.

You sooo desperately want there to be a god so that you can believe in an afterlife rather than face facts like an adult that when you die that's it.

Pop-psychology nonsense. And for someone who insists on rigid mathematical proofs for everything, you sure are sloppy when you make assertions yourself.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ypu have not addressed the points

How can you know the future if it is not fixed? How can you be omnipotent if you can't change the future?

Explain

How can the non-physical move the physical?

Explain

 

[bododie]

How can the non-physical move the physical?

Explain

Can't. I'm not God.

Explain why God has to exist by the physical properties of earth. The thread is prove that God DOESN'T exist. Not one of your scientists can.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your argument for the existence of god based on the idea that everything must have a cause is self defeating.

Making capital out of the impossibility of proving that god doesn''t exist is desperate.

It is a vacuous point that you can apply equally to anything including fairies and father xmas.

I would be embarrassed to cite such drivel as justification for one of my beliefs.

But then you have to be mad to believe in god