Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| GendoIkari | $19.12 | stewie | $9.41 |
| Peterguy | $9.41 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $37.94 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.95) | 2,637 | 228 | 2,543 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 57,855 |
Inbound links:
lol even though i know this video is wrong, there is already a perfect detailed explaination in my mind to how the universe starated without a god and evolved to what it is today.
besides that and you are religious, what are you religious about since all the religions out there are completely retarded and make zero sense
the most smartest religion out there would be one that says god created the big bang and then he went to sleep, thats about it really, if your religion is like that then good.
Good hard work with this. I'm not going to vote on it, however, because your logic doesn't sit right with me. It was going nicely until the end when you said "That sounds like God to me". That parallel is based on a human concept of what god is, not a scientific proof of what god is. Furthermore, this more than likely sounds like god because that is what we have defined god as, this definition resulting directly from acknoledgement of these facts. So to keep god coinciding with modern science....
...It was required for the definition to be revamped. The god we think of today has been formatted to fit this screen, so to speak. And I also must inquire what, then, was the causality of the first cause? FURTHERMORE, because something is dependent on an element, does not exempt the cause of that something from being dependent. I need nutrients, I am a cause of my parents. My parents are also dependent on nutrients. You see? Anyways... Good show old boy, but I think your theory needs a little work.
Even though no one will probably read this, I think your logic becomes flawed when you jump from "something caused the universe" to "God caused the universe". It's flawed in that there's no evidence and no reason to jump to the conclusion that there's a god. For all you know it could've been caused naturally or by multiple gods that look like pink pandas. And like others have said, did this god just create the universe and take a nap for the rest of time?
The big obvious flaw for anyone not looking to eat this up wholesale occurs when you "prove" that something must have caused the universe, and then decide that must be God. Your only reason provided that for this is because you believe so. Another big problem is your accepting of theories to try to form a proof. Really Max said it right when he said anyone with half a brain could pick this apart instantly [sic]
According to this definition of god, an atheist's belief in god is far more reasonable than a theist (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.). After all, look at the definition of atheist, "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme deity." This definition eliminates the idea of a supernatural force and creates god as an entity of science and logic. He's not a bearded dude riding on a cloud. Despite this, you have ignored many other hypothesis about inter-dimensionality, and the nature of infinity.
I agree with this guy. I am an atheist by definition, but god can be whatever you want it to be, no matter what you believe in. I like to think of everything in existence as energy. I'm no scientist, but the way I understand it is, everything that exists can be broken down into base molecules. Molecules can have their chemical bonds broken, releasing energy. Even the atoms that are contained in those molecules can be split or fused (think stars), releasing energy.
Everything in your body was created when a star went supernova, making elements like calcium in your bones. That supernova hurled these elements into space. Eventually these elements would coalesce back into what currently is our solar system. You wouldn't be here debating on this subject if a gigantic star didn't explode. To go one further, we wouldn't be here if a Mars sized planet didn't slam into proto-earth 4.5 billion years ago, creating our moon (which keeps our planet stable on its axis).
At least we have physical evidence as a base for these hypotheses. The fact that humans sit around and talk about stuff like this, wasting time, not physically exploring space, should be insulting. We only have a few billion years of life-giving sunlight left, before the sun starts burning helium and grows so large and hot that the earth will be devoured by it. We need to start looking for new places to colonize, or we'll end up like the dinosaurs. Deities are the most insidious inventions in history.
whetstone u should drop the insurance broker job and head for the monestary! I assume your resident philosopher at your brokerage? Why do you choose to forgoe the essence of God which is the only real meaning any human can derive from it? U seem to just be caught up in a dry logical analysis of a first cause, hence bypassing any human significance that the concept has... U realize one can take first cause to mean anything they really want? What is God to you personally would be a more substantial YTMND
Very well done and logically thought out. I think, though, that it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of a singularity being the beginning. A singularity implies infinity gravity and as the gravity approaches infinity, time begins to act weird. An infinite amount of mass in an infinitely small space causes quantum behavior to become more pronounced. If the entire universe was less than a Planck, quantum fluctuations would affect the entire universe. Because of the impossibility of predicating what
will happen under these conditions, time matter and energy all break down (theoretically). Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that ruling out that possibility is both premature and foolish as the quantum fluctuations make everything much to unpredictable. Dunno if you check this anymore, but I'm interested to hear what you think of this.
Many people have already posed the question, "Where did god come from then?". And Rightly so, since we are following your rather "simple" logic. But beyond that question is a more important one:
"Is it more logical to assume that a complex universe started off with simple origins and gradually became more complex, or that a already superior complex being was already in place and created a less complex system."
Theists "believe" that by adding a deity to the equation, they make the problem less complex, when, in reality, they've actually made it harder to figure out; because now we have to explain the origins and existence of this deity. Then, because they are unimaginative hypocrites, they abandon their original thesis/argument, because they realize it is a logical fallacy; claiming without evidence or explanation, that this deity always existed.
Well, if we can just make rather pathetic statements like this, why can't an Atheist respond in kind by saying :"The universe has always existed." This is a more sound logical argument than "god has always existed", since we can pretty much prove that the Universe exists. There are no easy answers, but one thing is clear; This weak type of argument has not, and will not break real logical thinking, since all you have done it make some assumptions by following a logical path, that you will eventually abandon
According to more recent "multiple universe" theories, the Universe could have been created by several theorized causes, including the collision of two universe "membranes". I don't want to go into too much detail on a comment, but if you research it online, you'll find information on it. Point is, this logic does prove that the Universe was caused by something, but you can't say that it's definitely God, beyond a doubt.
The fact that this is even three stars speaks poorly of the average person's intellect.
Either you accept God on blind faith, or you don't. Stupid pseudo-scientific "proofs" that, in the end, *always* make leaps of faith to say "God did it" instead of "We don't know how that happened, yet... but we're actually trying to find an answer!" are nothing but attempts to increase the size of your flock (of sheep).
Sorry bro, the ontological argument is the linchpin of the cosmological argument, and the latter is false by Kant's critique, "Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing." Since the cosmological argument relies on the false ontological argument, it too is false.
The Universe is NOT steady state. It had a beginning, and it will have an end. What caused the Universe? There are several theories, but a common one is that our Universe is just resting on top of a membrane in hyperspace. The cause of the Universe may have been two membranes colliding. But what caused the membranes to exist? We don't know. Because even though our own universe had a finite beginning, hyperspace could have always existed, and it doesn't have to obey our laws of physics or causality, because physics breaks down when you leave the scope of our universe. Point is, there is nothing disproving the existence of God, and there is nothing proving his existence either.
I am eating red hot chilli pasta. From "HWENCE" did this pasta come? The saucepan? The merry ladle that doth pour mine saucy mince laden mixings upon my plate? My mama's special recipe?
NO!!!! (yes?) That which had already predetermined the existence of this fateful and savoury supper, and all the preceding and following moments. Perhaps...as Einstein once remarked, time is a mere illusion, and exists only within human frameworks.
Your theory is the marshmallow to my cocoa. Pink and squishy.
NO!!!! (yes?) That which had already predetermined the existence of this fateful and savoury supper, and all the preceding and following moments. Perhaps...as Einstein once remarked, time is a mere illusion, and exists only within human frameworks.
Your theory is the marshmallow to my cocoa. Pink and squishy.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link