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 | Peterguy | $9.41 |
| stewie | $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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 57,882 |
Inbound links:
I'd like this if it were an original idea, but it's not. You take things we "know" for "fact" like three-dimensional space, linear time, etc, and then add in something completely unrelated: Causality. 20000 years ago, fire was (probably) magic. 2000 years ago, electricity was magic. 200 years ago a butane lighter was magic. Imagine what you "know" is the "magic" of "God" will be the humdrum-ho-hum of everyday life tomorrow.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
2 Big, Fat, Faulty assumptions:
1) Intelligence cannot be created from non-intelligence: there was intelligent life at the genesis of the universe? It came to be
over billions of years, and though "infinitely" unlikely, it is a statistical necessity when the size of the universe is taken into account.
2) Assumption that current scientific understanding of the universe is complete and impeccable. Being religious, you call the unexplained "supernatural," or god instead of waiting for science.
say that you believe in the process of evolution and the big bang. even though all creation radiated from a single infinitely dense point in space, what created that point? say that point was created from the collapsing of the entire universe into a single point. this would suggest a cycle. but when did this cycle begin? how was it started? even believing god is essentially a watchmaker and created the universe and then sat back and watch still proves that an intelligent being was in fact responsible.
hi.
You have only proven (and very well!) that we do not really totally understand the nature of our reality, our universe and life. There may be something beyond us. (most likely)
However, You have NOT proven that God is ALIVE by using the "non-life cannot create life" statment. Thats just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Please read about this. It was a simple experiment where inorganic molecules preceded organic molecules. Ie. the building blocks of life, from non-life.
Okay, well answer me this. Biologists and chemists have proved that the primordial ooze could have spawned life, as they took the inorganic ingredients around since the planet was first created and the result under conditions much like those around Earth's beginning produced organic matter that presumably over timeless years could evolve into intelligent life. (source: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html) How do you justify "life cannot be created by non-life?"
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
I could think of SO many arguments to this. You're just saying "God was first and that's that". I could also apply the same logic as yours, and say that the Big Bang was the "First Cause", and that nothing preceded that. As for the intelligence thing: how many monkeys can write college papers? Well guess what! We evolved from monkeys! It's called EVOLUTION...it's EXTREMELY slow...monkeys didn't just start giving birth to humans being able to write college papers...man oh man...
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
This is the most intelligent argument i've seen on YTMND as to the existence of God, but I would say that it's fundamentally flawed in a couple ways.
Firstly, just because humans are complex and intelligent organisms, it does not mean that we were created by any sort of God; imagine the size of the universe, and all of the things in it - well, with that in mind, and through the chaotic (entropic) nature of the universe, humanity easily could have arisen on it's own through the process of evolution.
Evolution, ironically, is not a theory mutually exclusive of religion as people so often make it out to be. Another flaw I found in your argument was that of the entropic universe - sure, it is entropic, and with our universe seeming to be somewhat flat it's the way the universe is going to die. But as the universe gets smaller and smaller, entropy decreases. The conservation of matter states that energy is never lost, only transferred.
M-theory n*gg*. Science has explanations for where this universe came from now, and what there was before it started. And since when is it impossible for non intelligence to form into intelligence? Who says non-life cannot become life? You are jumping to a conclusion when you say that only an intelligent force could create the universe. The "who created God question" is valid, as indicated by causality itself. YOU are the one who assigned God first cause. You use logical fallacies in your explanations.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
As such (depending on the definition of "observer") only those universes which contain observers will actually exist, which could be taken to mean only those universes which contain life at any point in their existence will collapse from their wavefunction. (Which is essentially the same as the strong anthropic principle).
As to the idea that "time" itself had a beginning.. Well, why did it have to? If you can believe that God is omnipotent how hard is it for you to consider that time had no beginning?
You make the claim that life cannot create life and that non-intelligence cannot create intelligence, and expect us to accept them as common knowledge, but why is this such a necessity? To accept that life cannot come from non-life basically requires belief in God, which is a point of debate throughout your whole YTMND. the proof of a point cannot rely on accepting that point itself as true. For all you and I know, the universe did come from non-intelligent non-life...
..and since this outside force has no basis for comparison within the universe that it created, it cannot be accepted as intelligent or alive in any of the ways we view these concepts. On the other hand, I respect the effort and thought you put into this, and therefore give it a solid 3 despite your unfounded and unsupported generalizations.
Very intelligent, thought-out, and well-done. I'm actually surprised this is rated so high - usually YTMND'ers are quick to downvote stuff like this. Anyway, though it does not prove the existence of a "Christian" or whatever God, it does prove the existence of SOMETHING intelligent that, even if not around now, created the universe we know now. Which, you all have to realize, is all that really matters. So 5, and favorite'd, for you.
guys u dont get it god wants us to persue him so we can get to know him better (just think no one has been able to figure out what REALLY happened, hes had the answer right before us, u just havent got it yet. if u follow him and listen to what he is teaching, youll find out who god really is) ...if he lets u understand what he did, whats the point of trying to make you love him if u no mostly about him.
God may exist but nobody really knows. The Univserse did come from somewhere, a little sphere. This sphere expanded very rapidly creating the universe that we have today aka the big bang. The question that we're trying to prove is how did that happen. Well sicentists don't know, they can only explain what happened after that and that's all based on theory. IMO I do not believe in God because I cannot sense him with any of my 5 senses therefor he does not exist. I see you put a lot of effort into this but
I think your answer to "who created god" goes against everything you point out.you say everything that existes must be caused by something and if god exisests something must of caused him these conflictions is why this argument goes on. you make a good point but so do the ainti god advocates the truth is we will never know if god exists or if theres a hevan or a hell. the best thing that humans can do is make EARTH hevan and live good honest lives.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
That's the best argument I've ever seen put together. However you will not sway me to believe in the God which you described. You described a sentient god, capable of the rational decision to begin the universe. I believe that god is space, time, and matter, all of which are linked through the undiscovered fundemental foundation of existence. My qualm is that you portray god as "Him" and though you do not make this comment but that people believe that men, specifically jesus christ, mohammad, and Moses...
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
Props on design, but very flawed logic. No basis for asserting that life or intelligence can't arise independently, and the "outside of natural law" quality of anything preceding the Big Bang removes it from the bounds of casuality. If the points you cited were all that was necessary to prove God, Hawking, who used theory to predict subsequently discovered phenomena like black holes, would have announced his "proof" of God. God's existence- either way- is unprovable, and a matter of faith.
Time never began. Time is a dimension. By definition, dimensions have no beginning and no end. Also, the universe began when a singularity which ALREADY EXISTED expanded due to a large amount of energy. That singularity was the result of a collapsed previous universe, seeing as time and space are infinite.
Please address these issues.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
...were in contact with an omniscient being which created existence in a manner which has been proven false. Theists everywhere hate science for attacking their claims on a homo-centric set of beliefs. It ignorant to do so if "god" is everything. There are things smaller than the smallest know subatomic particles and perhaps things smaller than that. They exist everywhere and comprise all matter, define our concept of time and build our concept of space... that is what god is and that is everything.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
Intelligence CAN come from non-intelligence (btw, you offer no operational definition of intelligence), and life CAN come from non-life. You assume that these are correct, but give no proof. single-celled organisms have been shown to result from a collection of particles with sufficient energy, also, intelligence comes from electrical pulses.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
Your first assumptions were fine, but you began to make some other ones that were completely out of the blue and went by so fast and without any real backing that it was obvious you did not want them to be thought out.
Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. You cannot a) prove this and b) there are examples of expanding intelligence (ie humans discovering more about the universe) but there is no evidence of it being unable to happen.
Life cannot come from non-life. Same deal.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
not much of a ytmnd. it's the same patronizing religious bullsh*t that I come to ytmnd to avoid. they've asserted that life CAN come from non-life when carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen (elements religious nuts don't believe in) coalsce to from bubbles that can form a sort of proto-life. Also, saying that all arguments against your ideas are flawed is just you being a dick. downvote.
nice music, though.
1) You put forth that intelligence cannot have come from non-intelligence, yet all life evolved from non-intelligence (microbes, which became from the random assembly elements). The same can be said about life coming from non-life.
2) You put forth that asking where God came from is unreasonable, because it would be considered the first cause. Yet it is just as reasonable to consider the big bang the first cause, and go from there. Unlike religion however, science refuses to settle for that.
I love the first cause theroy, though I remember the problem my philospohy teacher showed us in it, it's circular. It uses beliefe that all actions have causes to prove that there is a cause. That is like saying that all people will eventually die. While it is PROBABLY true, philospohy denies it because it is not concrete. Best arguement for it though.
2006-09-07 00:47:15
SinisterCRX
5 stars
Wow, thats crazy, I have used the exact same reasoning in the past! The
problem is it confuses people and they tell me well God just doesn't exist.
2006-09-07 00:47:15
Khaotic
5 stars
Voted 5 ♠Passed♠
2006-09-07 00:49:21
rylasasin
3 stars
you don't get it do?
2006-09-07 00:49:48
Chichiri
1 star
KCA. Yawn.
2006-09-07 00:49:59
clydefr0g
1 star
if god existed.... he would have smited you a long time ago
2006-09-07 00:5
lol, you forget quantum physics... some believe the universe is cyclical process which, when it reaches the "end" it is actually just repeated with a new "beginning" and never really "began" ... just because our current universe was caused by something doesn't mean it is god... you just want to believe it is...
5'd because you managed to address a complex subject without being preachy or demaning. BUT! I question (because I can)your assertations of the pre-universe causality needing to be intelligent/alive. Do gamets have intelligence? Do the creation of sequential viral elements or combusion require that viruses/fire be alive?
Your logic is flawed, you seem to think that God is above the causal nature that you use to explain his existence. There is no reason you cannot have "an infinite regression of causes." You are prematurely "drawing the line heah." You stop regressing when you get the answer you want, which is that God exists. You fail. Try again.
Your started out pretty good with your logic and then went downhill with pure speculation. I do believe somewhat in a creator of the universe, but I am secure enough to say that i dont know what it is, whether it is intelligent or not, and what kind of power it has. you however, need a god to stick onto to feel comfortable. 2'd for uninternesting and taking science into bullsh*t philosophy.
Welcome to the internet. You have your opinion; others have theirs. Due to the ignorance of people you will NEVER get them to see things the way you do. Just because you decide to back it up with facts doesn't make the next person automatically believe it. you get three stars for effort, but it needs more funny.
You make a strong case. But, life cannot come from non-life? That's not entirely true. It CAN happen, it's just incredibly unlikely. As for causality, what caused god? You're using faulty logic. Something significant like god would also need a cause. If not, then why would the universe's creation need a cause?
OK. At first I thought, alright this is pretty good. You did a great thing with this. I don't believe in religion but still, its some fine work. Then you answered a question proving yourself wrong.
Q: "So who made god?"
A: "...God is the First Cause, Nothing came before..."
THERE! THERE IT IS!!! YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING COULD EXIST WITHOUT A CAUSE, your entire other reasoning was EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A SUFFICIENT & PRIOR CAUSE!!!
You just proved that either a cause created 'god' or (continued...)
Religion, in a world of evidence and judgement based on proofs, is like a good ytmnd fad; slowly dying as people become aware that they have individual thought, and that everyone sins, and everyone dies, and no one can do anything to change it. And that's how I like my reality; with a side of cold hard truth.
you are an idiot.
1. we have already shown that life forms from non-life.
2. Because something has cause doesn't mean it has sufficent reason. (colladerall effect)
3. you drew out one tiny argument over the course of 5 minutes, for which i could sue you for stealing of my life.
4. this is not a reason to believe god, because then who made god? if the universe can't be static, as predicted by the steady state theorum, why can god be? you are very far from proving the existance of any supernatural bein
very nice editting if you put it to use in something funny youll probably get a top site really quickly,
btw nobody comes to ytmnd for philosphical stuff so even trying to start something like that here gets a no. It's like if you sit down at a movie and they show you a different movie than the one you payed for admission.
i had no problem with your arguments except for the following: why does God, that is, as written of in the bible, have to exist? it seems to me that your argument would suggest a supernatural un-caused cause, something we might describe as a 'god' or god-like. however, if you are, in fact, speaking of the christian god, no where in the bible can we find any evidence of any of the events you described actually taking place. in fact, the bible would suggest the opposite, earth before the universe.
FLAW- If matter and space are more that 1 dimentional, than why would we assume time is too? We are assuming that the "begining" acctually was the "begining" and not just a point in time where all matter was condensed into one object, prior to the "big bang". Perhaps, time is circular, amd we will eventually return to that one ball of matter after most of the energy has declined and the universe starts to contract. What if there was no begining of time, like there is no begining of a circle. you dumbf*ck.
The problem with the Causality principle in this particular case is this: If "God" created the universe and therefore was the cause of the universe, what caused HIM? Unanswerable, and because it cannot be answered, it effectively disproves the theory's relevance. If "God" does not have a cause, it renders the original principle of the concept (Cause/Effect) irrelevant.
Very good YTMND. 5*
Woah, wait. He exists outside matter and beauty and blah, blah, blah...?
Why does he then follow the natural laws? What's to say he IS unintelligent or alive? He is exempt from causality but not the others you brought up to dtermine his characteristics?
I give you no vote, as you obviously put a good deal of effort into this and properly cited everything despite clearly being mentally impaired.
My ONLY issue about it is that your two statements pertaining intelligence and life are flawed. First and easiest, life can infact come from nonlife, as is self evident as there was no life at the time of the big bang and there is life after the big bang. Intelligence is LARGELY over emphasised in intelligetn beings, as all it is is electrons firing in a certain pattern to better allow a creature to respond to its environment.
You are without a doubt clever, but how do you know that this "First Cause" isn't simply the big bang? Also, if the law that there is a prereqisite for something cannot be destroyed by the "Because he's god" anwser you gave. This is the christian belief that god can prove your point because he's all-powerful coming into play. You basically made your entire argument null with that. 2 for effort.
So you've proven that something created the universe. But you haven't neccesarily proven that it was God who created the universe. WHICH God, anyway? There are many religions with many Gods. The Christian God? What in your animation proved that the Christian God created the universe? Something created the universe, yes, but you can't prove WHAT it was.
One man who founded something about science 400 years ago made a *hypothesis* and you are presenting it as fact. If this were true, then something would have been needed to create god. Your statement that "Life cannot come from the unliving" is based in theory. And even if what you were saying was true, how does it prove that there is a magical all-powerful diety that burns you up when you masturbate? You also cited Wikipedia. +1 for NEDM however.
You forgot one thing - F*CKING SCIENCE. Causality is simply a logic tool, not an explanation of the origins of the universe.
Oh - and if you need some help, let me point you somewhere; www.youareabigf*ckingidiot.com/bigbangtheory. Don't quote or talk about Hawkins without prior knowledge of his various universe creation theories.
And your God still doesn't exist. You're faith and dedication is worthless, worm-food.
definately a 5 for the time and effort, but if a question such as "Who created God?" is founded in ignorance than a question such as "Who/what created the universe/time ect..?" is also founded in ignorance. I do not claim there to be a god, or no god...i dont know but i dont think this proves anything. IMHO the universe cycles as does anything, it begins and eventually ends...with the big bang and a collapse to the pre-big bang form infinitely. Just as there are infinite universes.
there are a couple of things that are wrong. 1. intelligence does noit have to be created by intelligence. for instance, evolution. the creatures we evolved from were not smart, but we emerged from them anyway. 2. life does not have to be created by life. for instance, before the first bacteria, there was no life; just carbon. by some sequence, these carbon molecuels bonded with other molecuels to form living organisms. voila, life from not-life.
other than that, that's a very interesting hypothesis.
"Totally Fav'd. It's amazing how someone would think on a level of science
that would include these teachings of Religion. I find it frustrating that
some people wouldn't even THINK that one could support the other in some
ways, or atleast include both in to a theory. Very nice, by the way." While having faith is useful to science, trying to use science to prove faith is a poor idea, since a more plausible, simpler, and non-mystical way can come about.
I mean, saying that before the universe there was god is simple yes, but what if a universe similar to our own existed, and simply went into blue shift (caused by the gravity of all the mass in the universe pulling everything back in) caused all the matter to crunch into another singularity that would spawn our universe (which in turn will gain its own super singularity to spawn another). This certainly is simpler based on the astronomy we know about so far, then to claim a god (any god) did it all.
Dhaos endorses. The truth is simple: following logic, it all points towards God. However, since there is no giant flashing sign, atheist will deny it on their own cards. It is not that they don't see proof for God; it is that they are unwilling to give up their sinful nature. This does not apply to all atheist though, but rather those who deny God fervishly after being slammed with this rebuttle.
An interesting theory I heard recently is that the difference between Atheists and Agnostic is that Atheists do NOT want God to exist, because they are uncomfortable having someone watching everything they do. I always thought it was weird when people would just yell and curse when I asked if they believed in God, and what is their reasoning behind their decision. Now for the hate PMs to arrive.
***************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
****************All you upvoters, check out the rebuttal
site: http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com
*******************************************************
To end the "What caused the Big Bang" it was caused by unnatural amount of mass being packed into a small area (YOu really can't define "small" in this case) when too much gets in, well uh... BANG! Thus the Universe was made with Molecules still floating around like greased lightning, hitting each other. Fast speed = Sticking together = 1 trillion years later = planets! My logic might be flawed (Someone will show it) But I don't give a damn. 0
d for now
Proof by logic is a flawed argument as logic is of human creation and thus inherently flawed. The argument for God is identical to the argument against God which seems paradoxical though this has already been confronted via "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" and/or "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound" as well as such famous stories as "Oedipus Rex".
Still doesn't prove that "God(s)" exist(s). And also does not take into account beliefs of non christians, who believe in a different Creator, or Creators in the plural. There is zero proof that there is a man or being that created the universe, merely that the universe was created by some unknown force. You're yet another close-minded christian zealot who thinks that their beliefs are the only ones worthwhile. You fail.
Wow- you put it strait. I appreciate that you've stuck up for my and tons of other's beliefs in an actual intellegent manner. I see tons of people denoting this and no matter how many big words they use it all came down to "Well I'm an athiest so it doesn't matter" or "Well its wrong just because."
I'm sick of these kinds of excuses that lack logical reasoning which I feel you ARENT going to find much of here at YTMND. N E ways thx again!
A few points:
Entropy states that energy will become less concentrated/organized over time. It does not posit that energy actually DECREASES; it may be said to be "spreading out". Energy therefore seems to be constant within the bounds of our universe, but outside the bounds of our universe (singularities in black holes and the big bang) we cannot know.
Also: Causation, though it seems an elementary concept, becomes quite muddled and ill-defined in much of quantum physics; Causality as it related to the
You're explanation for why God doesn't have a cause isn't the strongest it could be... The only reason you gave for the universe not existing forever is entropy, and entropy doesn't necessarily affect anything outside the 'natural'. therefore, the first cause could have existed forever, and never have started.
also... your argument for life being created from non-life and inteligence being created from non-inteligence doesn't really hold up. the leading scientific theory for the start of life
big bang is not understood at all.
Ultimately, this is an apeal to ignorance. Yes, its true that science has no strong theories on the ultimate origin of the universe (yet), and it may never have such a theory. So, we do not know where we came from. While many at this point would declare that the answer must be "God", there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ultimate causation of our universe relates in any way to anything approximating the common idea of God.
(cont.) the leading theory beihind the start of life has it being a random event.
As well, think about the popular saying "stick a monkey in front of a typewriter for an infinite amount of time and he'll eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare. monkeys aren't the only way of producing random effects... and science has evolution starting out way less then college diplomas.
5'd for the truth. Not like something could have come from nothing. Heck, I believe in things from all sorts of religions. Not one is completely right or wrong, and that's a FACT. For all we know, our universe could be some kid's science project and his universe and so on. Only exception is Scientology. It's bullsh*t. Anyways, thanks for creating this, You have given much reasonable evidence and you have my respect.
Ugh. I utterly detest you for wasting my time with this bullsh*t. I usually don't write bad reviews, but after watching the whole thing I just have to spit out the bad taste in my mouth at the one who caused it. Since debating on the internet doesn't yield much gain, I'll just bitch at your stupidity. This is such an example of pompous, self-proclaimed wisdom. "Oh look, I'm distorting science to prove my irrational argument! Yay." F*ck you. You wasted my time. I hope you get badly crippled in a car accident
Lol, even if there had to be a causation, why couldn't it have been a pantheon of gods? Or a superior being that does not fit the human definition of deity, but we are more like cells in a giant, even more superior being? Why couldn't the universe itself be the first causation? I guess you could say then the universe itself would be god, but since that would be pretty deist I don't think it accomplishes your little preachy mission here :P
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link