Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    7,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Quote WesternGeo said View Post
    That is a poor reason to think the universe has a cause. You cannot pick a bunch of random processes on this planet, describe them as 'cyclic' (even though that in itself is contestable) and then assume this trend extends to before time and space existed in this universe.
    Thanks WesternGeo but why are you are misrepresenting what I said.

    I did not mention a cause or assume when or where it started or extends to before time and space existed.

    The things I mentioned are cyclic as everyone knows.
    You used the term "universe". At the very least, that includes all of spacetime.

    If that's not what you meant, you're using the language wrong.
    -Geoff Rogers

    @Goldenmane3


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    The subject line asks whether the evidence support NO god. But it's very difficult to provide evidence that something doesn't exist for certain. Such claims of certainty are the theists' usual modus operandi.

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    My assessment is there is no evidence of a caring God.
    This is different from the subject line, and it does echo the trilemma of Epicurus quoted above. Very solid, I love it. As far as we can tell from the scant remnants of his work, Epicurus was a top brain of history.

    Re a Creator God, well it certainly did not happen as per ancient texts would have us believe.

    But that said, our universe and all had to start with something so a name for that something could be "God" or "Wispofmagicsmokeanddoublesidedmirrors" or maybe something simple like "Fred."
    Flying Spaghetti Monster is a common one, too. It's a joke of course.

    Jokes aside, the evidence-based ideas about the nature of the universe, e.g. the stamp of the cosmic background radiation, are awe-inspiring enough for me. As for a name, things like "the early universe", "inflationary period" or "big bang", are good enough provisional names as long as the observations continue to support them.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Goldenmane said View Post
    You used the term "universe". At the very least, that includes all of spacetime.

    If that's not what you meant, you're using the language wrong.
    Spacetime is another assumption - you can discuss it if you choose, but don't blame me.

    The universe according to some scientists (Big bang then coming back together for another big bang) is cyclic too.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    7,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Quote Goldenmane said View Post
    You used the term "universe". At the very least, that includes all of spacetime.

    If that's not what you meant, you're using the language wrong.
    Spacetime is another assumption - you can discuss it if you choose, but don't blame me.

    The universe according to some scientists (Big bang then coming back together for another big bang) is cyclic too.
    Spacetime is not an assumption. "Universe" = "all that exists". Spacetime is a mathematical construct that thus far is only challenged by other mathematical constructs that have fuck all to do with anything you've thus far presented.

    And yes, the Cyclical Universe is an idea that is out and about, but generally speaking doesn't have much evidential support and even if it did, it doesn't remotely marry with the notion of shit having had to be started, by a god or anything else.

    The onus is on you, as the claimant, to demonstrate your claim. Thus far, all I see is piss and wind.
    -Geoff Rogers

    @Goldenmane3


  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,417

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Taking a step back.....

    The evidence certainly appears to support no caring God.

    Is there evidence of no God? That's asking the wrong question really. There is no good evidence of God, and no good logical reason to believe in Him.

    In terms of our universe requiring a beginning, we know that one-dimensional linear time is a property of our universe, and some say that that implies a starting point. But is one-dimensional linear time necessarily a property of some greater reality that spawned our universe? Is a "beginning" even a meaningful concept outside the context of a universe like ours (and I'm referring to "universe" in the way that scientists who hypothesise a multiverse refer to a universe).

  6. Like button Strato liked this post
  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    5,935

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    The depiction of the universe, of 'reality' as a system with all of its subsystems, as cyclic is really only a construct in human cognition. That is actually illusory, intuitively true as it might appear to us.

    There certainly is recurrence to be observed but really there are merely laws governing or inherent in forces, fields, like gravity, negative pressure (driving inflationary expansion), electromagnetism, which we describe under the broadest terms as say, conservation of energy, entropy, dimensionality, quantum perturbations.

    Gravity is ubiquitous. It seems it obtains regardless of the velocity a massive object or a particle is moving. Gravity is of major significance in the reality we observe, in the universe, in biology.

    The Earth orbits the Sun because of the gravitational and the centrifugal force due to momentum, a product of mass and velocity, being held in balance. Things fall into natural orbits at some distance and the trajectory acquires some mathematically determined degree of circularity or ellipse if they don't coalesce or escape gravitational attraction.

    So we see the sun and moon rise and set and we construe cycles. Biological life has adapted to the diurnal and lunar cycles, to seasonality and is deeply determined by these.

    Galaxies rotate. It's merely physics.

    We like watching the wheels go round and round (John Lennon), it is alluring, seductive to believe in the formulaic view of reality that everything is cyclic.

    There won't be a Big Crunch by the observation of the accelerating expansion of the universe and by the maths. Our universe, this universe will expand forever and will wind down into a heat death. That isn't sad. It just is.

    MT may I recommend The Hidden Reality, Brian Greene?

    https://www.bookdepository.com/searc...arch=Find+book

    And where is Hackenslash just when you need him?

    Would somebody go and get him?
    Wars begin in the minds of men.
    The UNESCO motto, in Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Goldenmane said View Post
    It's an interesting contention. Certain Daoist traditions - those who could comfortably be described as of the Natural Pilosophy ilk - contended that such cyclical behaviours were so ubiquitous as to be the underlying principle upon which everything rested. The c

    one of which goes any distance toward justifying the claim that shit had to be started. I mean, it seems intuitively true: there had to be a beginning. But cycles don't support that contention, and so far nothing else I've seen in this thread does either.

    So, I'll ask you again: what makes you think shit had to be started?
    A good question Geof

    I believe in the popular concept of time because without time we cannot have a sequence of events. We certainly do have a sequence of events many things cannot happen before something else happens.

    If it was there forever then that is what it started with.
    If it was not there forever and then it turned up then that is what it started with


    It had to start with something and that something could have been a bunch of gas or something we cannot conceive. That something does not have a popular name unless we count the word "God".

    People tho have defined their concept of a God as an architect, a designer, a creator, a planner, a manipulater, a carer, a counsellor and an invisible friend and comforter so they homage their God for a better deal in life and an after life. We can define any type of God we choose with any powers and controls we choose and we can homage if we choose.

    Personally I do not support any concept of God other than the laws of physics as we know them, and in fact I am totally disgusted with the way belief in God has been used for all the wars, crimes and social manipulations that everyone knows about.

    The nearest thing I can identify as a God is gravity - so far we have identified gravity as an energy and we know what it does - but we are still baffled by gravity because it does not consume anything (like the sun burns) or diminish (get used up) we cannot even insulate against the force of gravity.

    Gravity is (beyond doubt) the most baffling unexplained energy/force that influences all our lives and is even the visual cause of changing our appearance as we age. From a physics point of view gravity "just is" but it remains "just is" without the laws of physics.

    Of course we all know what gravity is but gravity is an energy and a force that consumes nothing, is not depleted with time and can't be insulated against. Everyone knows the effects of gravity and the need we have for gravity but we mostly just accept it and do not even think about gravity.

    If the universe and all only had one rule it would be,

    "Gravity shall prevail."
    Last edited by Madame Tarot; 12th May 2017 at 09:02 AM.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    What exactly do you mean by ""the popular concept of time"?

  10. Like button hackenslash liked this post
  11. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
    Posts
    1,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    The universe according to some scientists (Big bang then coming back together for another big bang) is cyclic too.
    No current cosmological model posits this, nor has done for about 30 years. Loop quantum gravity has something sort of cyclical, but not in the same sense.


  12. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
    Posts
    1,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote virphen said View Post
    What exactly do you mean by ""the popular concept of time"?
    This. Also, what do you mean by 'forever'?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •