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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 58,227 |
Inbound links:
Cojafo, it is a protestant innovation to seperate logic and facts from religion. Catholics taught 'the faith' (meaning, the beliefs) and prots hundreds of years later took that word and twisted it to mean inspiration apart from reason. Religion is the study of our reality. That includes the study of science and logic, and the use of both to learn more. Read Aquinas or Augustine or any of the other religious philosophers.
Question: Your theory is that something that is beyond cause and effect, was the cause of the universe? Something, existing in a state without space/time/mass, and thusly have no concept of space/time/mass, created space/time/mass? Tell me, can you imagine something in your mind that doesnt involve space/time/mass in any way? Can you imagine something that is beyond our comprehension of existance? Can you imagine something, anything, that you dont know what is? Can you imagine something that you have no concept of? If you cant, then why do you think that something was able to create a universe with concepts that didnt exist before the universe itself did?
Ok, Look. This is what I think your saying (I could be totally wrong though) It seems you are saying since everything has to have a beginning it must have been god. But then if EVERYTHING must have a beginning, who created god? And please (not saying that you would) don’t respond with he just did because he is god or something close to that.
This “something” that exists beyond space/time/mass, must have, according to your theory, created concepts that are beyond the concepts of its own existence. By that logic, we too can create something that exists beyond our concepts of existence, but we would never be able to observe, to know, or to feel something that does not exist within our own concepts of existence. The same would be true for that “something” in your theory.
Edit: I rephrased the content of my previous comment to clearify what I meant:
This “something” that exists beyond space/time/mass, must have, according to your theory, created concepts that are beyond the concepts of its own existence. By that logic, we too can create concepts that exists beyond our concepts of existence, but we would never be able to observe, to know, or to feel concepts that does not exist within our own concepts of existence. The same would be true for that “something” in your theory.
Ok. I have to start by saying that this is a good theroy. But it doesn't prove anything persay. While it is a possibliliy, we can't say that it is fact. Why? For the simple reason that all science breaks down completely before the Big Bang. We can be one one millionth or so seconds after it and have some science to cling to, but before that, we're floating in a dark and unfamiliar place, and we have no flashlight. And we'll never get a flashlight. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, or that anyone is wrong, I'm just saying we can't prove anything because of the lack of ways to prove things. And 5'd for good YTMND.
OK then, let's continue with Axiom 1: all things are the product of a cause. And, according to your analysis, there is a "First Cause" that created the universe. But, then, by extension, what is reponsible for this; i.e. what is the Zero-th Cause, if you will? By relying specifically from this axiom in further attribution, the pattern extends backwards infinitely, beyond one point. So, any defined "First Cause" becomes arbitrary, since something must have caused that by your own axioms.
So, by claiming the existence of a "First Cause", you inherently break your own first axiom. This leaves 2 options: There is some event which is excluded from your axiom, destroying your analysis, or that there is no original source, and any attempt to pin one can be traced back in an infinite reduction of cause-effect relationships. Well done, and bravo for intelligent discourse, but your seams are showing.
So what if this First Cause created Space Matter and Time? Many causes are simply accidents, and some are unconscious reactions. Why should I worship a "first cause" that could've sneezed out the universe during a bad spaceflu? Interesting reasoning, but does nothing to prove or even show INTENT or PURPOSE in the cause.
YOU F*CK! Intelligence comes from intelligence? Listen numb nuts, intelligence is built in. I ask you, who taught you 2hats 2+2? A teacher right? Well who taught that teacher? That teachers teacher? You can go back all the way to the first person to figure out whats 2+2, and no one taught them. It was already there and intelligence didnt breed it.
5. We may not know anything outside of time space and matter but there is something responsible for our existance and that is God. Call it what you want, go as far back in time as you want but there is an ultimate power somewhere down the line and that is what we as human beings should call God. From a religious standpoint, putting your faith in an idea that cannot be proven (by proven I mean visible by in the spectrum that our human eyes can see or believable by modern logical thought) and worshiping (feeling fear and gratitude) it is part of what seperates us from the other species on earth. Some people don't worship or think of God as a being that created us but I think a basic belief in a higher power somewhere is essential to every great human mind.
There's a problem with everyone else's arguments: you're assuming your working in the same rule system. The set-up involves a set of axioms that may or may not necessarily be true; you can't argue about triangles having 180 degrees outside of Euclidean geometry. To dismantle the system, you have to find INHERENT flaws, not flaws that depend on specific "truths" that the general axiom set does not account.
Well, you've revised your argument and made a very convincing case that something did indeed create the universe. Allow me to express my utter shock at this revelation. Then you screw it up by saying, "It created the universe, so it's God, lol!" Just because something provided the impetus for the universe to form does not mean that it was directly involved in galaxies, DNA, and all the rest of it -- unless you're arguing simply that "The universe started with the speck at the beginning of the Big Bang; God made the speck."
Your answer to potential objections in the afterword, ironically, is much less sound. You say that since time did not exist before the universe, the first cause didn't have to "begin" because beginnings are impossible outside of time. Sorry, but that makes no sense. Also, even if it did, it would still not exclude the possibility that some other universe or reality with its own time created this universe. Sir, your argument, in this case, has been OMGWTFPWND.
This is a very unfounded and, for lack of a better word, bad argument. Just because you've discovered that "things generally have to come from something" doesn't mean that "god" exists. Please stop pretending that you have scientific credentials behind this - atheists have for the longest time understood cause and effect. The difference is that we admit that we admit we don't know what caused the universe; you, on the other hand, assume it must have been "god"; entirely possible, sure, but at this point it's just guesswork and you aren't capable of finding a shred of evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to downvote you because I didn't think it was a bad presentation, but if you bring this up in civil discourse your argument isn't likely to hold up.
Asserting that an entity called "god", which transcends space, time, and matter, was somehow the creator of space, time, and matter, is an inherent contradiction, because it would mean god does not reside in the knowable realm of space, time and matter, thus he himself is not knowable to us in the realm of space, time and matter, thus it is an assertion that one knows the unknowable, thus, the theory is invalid as inherently self-contradictory.
This is one of the more intelligent arguments, so nothing I say is bashing really. I do have one argument/question though. Let's rule out the universe as meaning time space and matter and instead as the expanding body that did indeed begin. Yes, the body began, but if it is expanding, would it not have to have something to expand into? The best analogy I have is to compare it to fire, but it's hardly sufficient. I don't claim to be knowing enough to truly take on your theory, but this was all I asked. By the way, although it's logical, there are multiple logical explanations to lots of individual issues, that doesn't make them right.
1) not sure it's a good idea to try and prove God's existence through any philosophical or cosmological argument. Give GOOD evidence, yes, but not PROVE.
And wow...Max, I'm gonna have to say that I lost worlds of respect for you. I think much less of you for that comment, and that nwsf image you put in a comments section. Tool.
5'd for managing to apparently piss off the entire internet with one ytmnd.
To the haters - you realize that he's arguing the fundamentals of causality in this YTMND, right? Even if you don't want to call it "God" you still have to deal with the concept of a first cause... especially when recent astronomy and cosmology has shown the universe is in fact NOT going to "reset" and start the cycle over again.
it isn't very logical to assume that there was nothing prior to the big bang, because the observeable universe to you starts at a single point does not mean that there was something before it, you are basing your "logic" as to the nature of the universe from a point within and completely missing what is outside our 4th dimensional world (time+3 spatial dimensions)
the growing acceptance of the birth of the universe being caused by the collision of 5th dimensional membranes or branes for short shows that there was no single point and that time existed prior to the big bang. your first cause wasn't god but a cosmic fender bender
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
I find your argument lacking to say the least. It was nicely displayed however. I must admit. Regardless, attempting to prove the existence of God is fruitless. This only defines the nature of the argument once more. I consider myself a Secular Humanist. In my opinion, the question of God's existence is unanswerable and unknowable. I do feel strongly that the Abrahamic version of God is highly suspicious. Forgive me, but I fail to understand why a God would "bless" humans with the ability to reason, and then condemn them to suffer in the afterlife for denying him by using the very gift that he granted them. I do not know if a deity exists, however I greatly suspect that you have no more proof or knowledge of that deity than I do. If we are to be condemned to Hell (or some such) for questioning our world, then I'll see you all there. Good day.
Though I find myself a believer in science and not in religion, most definetely not the Christian religion, I must say that was the most logical, well-thought out, and well-presented argument i've ever heard/seen/read/whatever. I hope you read this comment. I really enjoyed it and it is very well done. Didn't sway me to any religion, mind you, but gives one something to ponder, and not in the traditional form most religion arguments are (aka: "**** YOU!" "NO, **** YOU!!!")
Great job.
The world should be all about science and not about religious crap like this! The bible was written by people! People made up stupid stories and put it into it! You are a religious nut whetstone! you have become so obsessed with religion you have to put stupid sh*t like this up on ytmnd! There is no such thing a god becuase there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE SO!
I have lost a lot of faith in the YTMND community lately. Out of all the people here, no one knew of the Kalam Cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
It is apparent that you have not taken a REAL philosophy class, because if you did, you would have found out that this argument has been ARGUED TO DEATH, with the final result being that YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS MANNER.
In conclusion, THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED ALREADY AND IT IS A DEAD END, GO FIND A NEW ONE.
No offense of course.
But the cause is not necessarily God. Could be anything. We simply CANNOT know what did it, ever, at it is outside the laws that we trust and can measure. Plus, even if there is a definite cause, what makes that cause a sentient being with intent? Why worship what caused the universe? *And* it's not completely out of the question that something else could cause the creation of a universe. Maybe the universe was created as a result of something that happened in another universe? Who knows? We'll NEVER know. So why speculate? Or even believe in anything concrete?
You have proven that, according to scientific beliefs currently agreed upon, something outside of our current space, time, and matter trinity "caused" our universe.
However, you have not proven that the cause of the universe is a conscious all knowing God. That's jumping to conclusions.
There could very well be a physical process outside of out current space, time, and matter that served as the cause for our universe. According to String Theory, there probably is.
Wow, all I can say is I'll still inhabit YTMND and range around...but geez, no offense Max. But Don't be such a dick. The fact is you attacked this because you are Athiest? Evolutionist? Blah, whatever the reasoning obviously you have the manners of a goat since you attacked this site. I think this YTMND was just an opinion and valid point brought up. Prior to only seeing your pictures and seeing a couple of your ytmnds I immedietly thought you were a dick. Then your news updates were actually solid and not full of asshatery...well, back to being a dick you are Max, Good one Mate!
Your argument doesn’t stand up. You use too much inductive reasoning and you have no proof that says that god is the first cause, anything could be the first cause you could say a magical fish was the first cause. You could then say it was before the universe and time and matter so those rules don't apply to it. Also you made up the criteria for cause number 1 to fit what you believe god to be. In reality there should be no criteria for cause number 1 according to what you’re saying because the rules of physics and time and space don’t apply to it because it was the one that made all those rules. Therefore there may be a cause before the universe that made it but you can’t go off and say its god.
Hello. Your argument presents interesting points and it has piqued my interest. I am a believer in God, but a man of science. Science does not rule out the possibility of God. However, when something cannot be disproved or proved it is irrelevant to Science. Many people present philosophical or mathematical arguments to science thinking they can somehow still apply. However, science follows fact, and fact can defy logic whilst changing it. If one were to simply assess the universe in a logical sense, there would be no development in science because the scientific method is experimenting and observing. Causality assumes that an effect has been observed and implies that a cause must be present. Such is the basis of how all scientific experiments are carried ou
However, one cannot imply that creation has occurred without observing it. It is much like seeing an apple in a tree and an apple on the ground. You cannot prove scientifically that the apple fell from that particular tree or even fell from anything just because your scope of the world dictates logically that apples don’t sprout from the ground. It could be a special mushroom. You must view that apple falling to actually scientifically show that the apple fell from the apple tree. Such a trivial fact like that is up for debate in science, and the universe is up to far more scrutiny. What this leads to is that there may be evidence of the universe existing and expanding, but this is viewed in eyes that are bound to particular laws. Our eyes are not able to se
see anything except photons and our brain is bound to a certain electrochemical speed that dictates our passage through time as we know it. We are not aware of our own beginning or ending, much less the universes. Everything is relative. Space is relative to our size, time is relative to our speed through space, and existence is anything we define it as. Trying to prove the universe began through a philosophy that created science is not proof of creation. Seeing creation itself is the only proof of creation. Creation in itself is irrelevant to science because it cannot be proved or disproved and so is God. Therefore the two do not belong in the realm of fact and should be relegated to personal beliefs. It is non sequitor to say otherwise.
You ask us to judge this based on its merits as a YTMND not on our beliefs. For that it gets a 1 alone since this fails the funny test by a mile. Unless we are supposed to laugh at the fact ath EVERY point you make has been thoroughly and accuartely debunked by previous posters so I won't go into it.
Sorry, but I can tear down that logic very easily. You say that God must exist because what else could have caused all that we know to come into being? But then where did God come from? If you are going to answer by saying that God always existed and was not brought into existence through any cause, well why not just save a step and say the universe always existed even when it was just emptiness?
Also
"how can something exists outside time space and matter yet still effect
time space and matter?"
Is a good point. We cannot describe this 'God' beyond immaterial. If we cannot define this entity at all, appearance or ability, then it is impossible to label it and furthermore, pointless to argue, especially if you want to attach it to a religion.
-3 for fatal error when assuming that entropy, which means to disperse energy over an increasing distance means that energy disappears. I'm sorry friend but energy does not disappear it simply changes form and is PERFECTLY conserved 100% of the time. Please read the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS before quoting the second.
wow great job there buddy "god is outside of time" so that explains why god has always been there exactly wow omfg blowing my mind here well in rationality insted of a god couldnt it just be a single molicule that had a random process of dividing itself and multipling and through random events creating life wow gg im not impressed at all and the theory of god in itself is a creative of man to give yourself answers to that is not known the equivelent of greek myths so good job on wasteing your time. the thought of a single being that has been around forever and has always just been there is has no logic to it and is just a way for you to sleep safe at night not pondering a real answer to the question "how did we come to be?"
YTMND is not a place for religion, ppl here do not want to listen to anything that involves religion, we believe what we believe and why can't you religeous ppl understand that? why can't you stop making YTMND's about it? we respect your views now respect ours. Also trying to use sience to explain your views when religion and sience are deeply opposed makes me wonder about the sanity of the world.
All you are doing is simply identifying that there must be a 'First Cause' and putting a name to it with all that your simple human mind can relate to. God is an imaginary term coined by humanity on earth. No-one even knows what God is or anything, so saying 'God' exists in the first place is meaningless. Humans cannot observe or see or understand enough to discuss this. You are just taking science and then just saying this 'God' thing is all behind it.
Just a heads up. This argument, the Kalam cosmological First Cause, has been argued to death. In fact, it ultimately started with Aristotle and has been regurgitated ever since in many different variants. It continues to be discussed to this day. The point is, you're more than welcome to make these ytmnds (just don't call it "art" please) but try not to get excited and feel as if you're contributing to the field of Metaphysics. This particular argument for God's existence (whatever "God" means in that context) gets me personally sick to my stomach, as a student of Philosophy, and your 5 second explanation of Causation didn't help. But to be honest, why choose ytmnd of all places for this?
"Claptrap. Mysticism will die out. There's nothing you can do to stop it."
LOL that's a rational thing to say. Sounds more like a prediction, or an anti-religious religious prophecy...
"In the meantime, stop trying to teach people to believe in magic. That's the sh*t that gets people to launch crusades and fly planes into buildings. Please die before you breed. Thanks."
Religious extremists =/ religion. Grow up.
VERY nice. You do miss the point that nothing may have created something though. It's like a mobius loop. Nvm... Thing is, you're right. But you still are far from proving God, since people define God as a being, with a conciounce.
If that definition is not met, it's far from a God in my eyes. Nice YTMND though.
Half the downvoters are either too ADD-ridden to watch the whole thing, or are too immature to post something that isn't along the lines of "OMFG gay!". I found it to be enlightening, giving me something new to ponder about. I thought I might throw something into this huge brainstorm:
What if the universe repeats? Time, space and matter. Time exists, even without the other two. If there is no time, then space and matter cannot be born. So let's say hypothetically, space and matter disappear, then the only way they can come back is time. Basically, for space and matter to exist there must be time. Also there probably should be space for matter to exist in, right? Where else would it go? Thanks for giving me something to think about! 5'ed!
"KingD: Remember, we win if we are rejected in His name. We win if others laugh and
mock us. We win when people say we're lunatics and curse us in His name. We win." EXACTLY PROVING MY EARLIER POINT. It's always about PRIDE, PRIDE, PRIDE. It's not really about learning and doing what's best to help your fellow man, is it? In the end, you follow your faith because you want to WIN. You say you help other humans because you're good, but the reality is clear: You do it because you believe you will be rewarded for it in an afterlife. Because it would be stupid to help others if you don't get something in return, right? :/
Very intelligent reasoning. Oh, and isn't it also close minded to just hear the word "God" and automatically debunk it in your mind without taking the time to really and I mean REALLY think about it? This isn't ultra-conservatism or anything like that, He's being too intelligent and actually using reasoning.
I watched the whole thing, and it's retarded honestly that your reasoning for god to exist is because of something you cannot comprehend. Just like hundreds of years ago when it was beleived the world was flat. They beleived it because they couldn't comprehend the science behind it. Which should say a whole lot because it's not really that scientific to see that the f*cking earth is round.
Good music. Loved the NEDM reference. And thank you for being mature about it (more than can be said for Max). I have to agree with critics that the "Uncaused Cause" still sounds shaky (That's the simplest you can make it? o.O), but this is a step in the right direction for Internet Christians everywhere. It beats 'ur going 2 hell u f*** sry its teh truth'
12 year olds can't come up with this stuff... *ahem* anyway. This owns, except i dont believe in any christian stuff.. Also, when it comes down to it, there is no such thing as time, it's just a measurement, so saying that "before universe" was timeless... isnt thatkinda incorrect? Also, saying that "some thing beyond space/time/matter, without cause or reason, created the universe" is the EXACT same thing as saying "Well he exists just cuz he exists." Both statements have no logical reasoning, it's just saying it's there becasue it's there and nothing else. BTW, it's the big bang that created the universe (i think), so it shoulda been "what caused the big bang". ALSO THIS WENT WAYYY TO FAST, SLOW IT DOWN
"Time" actually exists because space is multi-dimensional, and being as there are more than 4 dimensions it's quite possible that something acted outside of them. At the same time, it's more likely that quantum fluctuation inside the cosmic egg (the big bang singularity). The primordial egg had no real seperation between space and time, and changed it's geometry around once about every 10^-43 seconds. It was when three of the fundamental forces de-unified (around 10^-44.5 seconds after the big bang) that time probably first came into existence.
BTW, think back to when christianity and 'god' where created back in the 1100's or whenver the f*k it came to be... they had no idea about any of this "before universe" stuff, so it's just coincidence that, today, we have 'god' and these facts to pair together. If christians believed in a monkey, we would say "monkey created the universe", bottom line is, god is just a belief, the thing that started the universe is 'something', or else we wouldnt be here right? ... uhh, basically what i'm trying to say is (and will prolly fail), the Catalyst of the Universe goes beyond christian beliefs. Something can't exist, and have done everythign that poeple claim it did, just becuase human people said so.
You bring up a very well argued point, and one that as a dedicated atheist I fully agree on that science has as of yet totally failed to supply an answer to.
I do not agree with your conclusion that the event that started the universe is necessarily divine in nature, but I fully support your pursuit of furthering a discussion on the matter.
Not that YTMND might be the best place for that. An appaling number of atheists are starting to grow so arrogant in their faith that they are almost getting as bad as the the fanatical believers they oppose. "LOL U R WRONG" arguments are for catholics.
Max doesnt deserve to run this site. He opens a site where poeple can post moving images and sound, but than he comes and complains like a child when someone posts something he doesnt like... and to overkill the whole situation, posts some gay picture of some gay guy. you probobly do it just to see all the "MAX FTW" messages. what are you doing with those pictures anyway -_- (IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SITE WHEN YOU CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE CAN/CAN'T POST)
Presage, in easy-to-understand words please... lol. How exactly do you define time? It's just a measurement of how long it takes for osmething to happen, but really that's all it is, is a measurement, it "exists" but not in a physical/energetical way, so how can "before universe" be timeless, if there is no real thing that is "time"?! i'm confused
Um, all you're doing is stringing words together and slapping a God title on something that has hardly been studied or researched yet. Yes we've discovered it but just because we can't comprehend it at this point in time doesn't mean it's f*cking God. Billions of years when man first stepped out of his cave and looked up and saw the Sun did the exact same thing that you're trying to prove. Looking up and slapping a creator title on it.
I'm glad you went through so much trouble playing the naming game.
Right, a sensible argument, much better than other religious freak's.
But... Why does God have to be a being? Why did God decide he wanted a Universe? Does God have his any rules? Is Jesus the son of God? What about other Dimensions... could they have created our Dimension? What about the string theory? Are other dimensions just alternative ways of God's will?
God is one sick bastard if he knowingly created the universe, all other dimensions and watches as we all kill and torture eachother. Life is just pieces of matter that send energy through them to get a response, so why would God do this? To me, you worship a God that has created one big Auschwitz. You might aswell worship Hitler... or George Bush.
Look forward to future YTMNDs :)
Disproving one hypothesis does not prove another. All you have done in this ytmnd is to present arguments (and weak ones in my opinion) that the universe could not have been created by any natural force. You have not presented any proof other than wild conjecture that God had anything to do with it. In the absense of a "scientific" answer you deem correct, you assume that the only other possible answer is the one you have put your faith in when you do not and more importantly CAN NOT (due to the un-knowable nature of the subjects being discussed) know with any degree of certainty whether or not this is the case. It is akin to presenting a series of arguments as to why a certain dog is not a doberman, so therefore it must be a poodle.
I would define time as the following: A measure in our observable reality in which any instant can be related to those events preceeding and following it. Depending on whether Max Planck was right or not, the smallest increment of time would be one iteration of a Planck (~1.054x10^-34), or a Planck second. If you don't understand that, think of it being like the refresh rate on your monitor, but for reality. As to my earlier comment, I was musing over how we really don't understand how time works, so any speculation as to when/if time started or whether any God manipulated/created it in any way is completely m00t.
This is simply an argument for a "first cause." Not for a God, as is commonly understood by most people (i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient being). It could simply be a singularity that exists outside time, a force, or merely just a "first cause" and nothing more than that. Calling this cause "God" is both inaccurate in most senses of the term, and sensationalistic.
"Are there such things as paralell universes?! (aimed at the college
professors)"
I'm not a college professor, nor do I profess to know everything, but it's quite possible that alternate universes exist. It's even possible that universes can spawn other universes - one hypothesis sates that a black hole could create a small universe with much of the traits of it's parent universe. The child universe would expand, remaining connected to our universe only by the black hole. It would be only after the black hole evaporated that the universe would detach itself from ours and become fully independent (or causally disconnected).
“Are there such things as paralell universes?! (aimed at the college
professors)” - shintahimura
Im not a college professor, but it appears to me that no one here has actually studied physics anyway...let alone thermodynamics. I’m currently studying physics at the grad level and so I can try to answer your question by saying “we really don’t know”. There have been hundreds of journal articles written about the possibility of parallel universes, other special dimensions, etc. however, there currently aren’t any practical scientific experiments that we can do to prove or disprove any these theories. In science we do not strive to PROVE anything. We only try to formulate MODELS that describe the universe and then test those models to try to DISPROVE them.
If a model undergoes sufficient testing without being proven wrong then it becomes a theory. What whetstone doesn’t seem to understand is that we currently don’t know everything about the universe, which is why he shouldn’t even be using it in his arguments. Why would a 24 year old mortgage insurance salesman know more about the universe than the thousands of hardworking physicists in this world who DON’T know everything about the universe??????
Nice YTMND, good mind provoker. Too bad there is too many people being immature in this, or they are so blinded by their ideaolgy of God's non-existance, that they go apesh*t about an arguement that tries to prove the existance of God using logic and, scientific theories and hypotheses. BTW, for those of you that do not know the proving of the supernatural is not science, it is philosophy. The existance of God is supernatural, and things that are supernatural are untestible. For something to be science, it requires that it can be tested. Lastly, if you are going to complain and bitch about this, say WHY you don't agree by using some manners. Also, using insults never helps your arguements and makes you look like an *ss and you won't be taken seriously.
The amount of personal venom this attracted is amazing. Very disappointed in Max's contribution. The rest of the indoctrinated graduates of the US education system I can at least understand. They are taught to hate anything that challenges them to reconsider their assumptions. That is why the left is so filled with hate; their politics IS their religion.
What is with the people breaking out into hives and screaming at the first mention of religion? I think everyone's own views should be irrelevent when it coems to judging a YTMND for what it is: a YTMND. And I with great regret disagree with max... This site isn't bad for YTMND, the irrational angry hoard that gets stirred up by it is.
it's kind of funny to see people loosely throwing around accusations. if you're caught critically analyzing a ytmnd about the existence of god you're immediately branded as a bitter atheist. what about the people who are exercising their freedom to choose their beliefs and feel it is necessary to point out logical fallacies in whetstone's reasoning?
+4 for a well made site, -2 for propaganda.
All you did here was prove that we don't yet know exactly how the universe came to be w/o falling back on the millenia-old "umm...an all powerful being or force that exists beyond all we know did it. It can, because it's God." Maybe there is a god, but neither the pro-god side nor the anti-god side have enough evidence to definitively prove their point. Max took the words right out of my mouth: "people once thought the world was flat". Our way of thinking evolves greatly over time, and eventually, many laws we have now will probably be disproven. Your arguments prove that we don't know what the first cause is, but that requires no proof. Try again in a few thousand years when we know more about the universe.
to all those who say whetstone fails because he claims something exists outside causality even though he uses causality as a reason: he merely says everything has a cause. each event and each thing in the universe was caused by something else... that means that SOMETHING had to simply be and not be caused by something else, and since we can prove the universe began.. which includes matter, space, and time.. something had to exist before that.. and something before that and so on until you finally get to something that always just was. look up aquinas's first 2 logical proofs of god's existance, the prime mover and the first cause argument
What I don't understand, is why would you even say "such-and-such EXISTING 'before' or 'outside' of time" It's absolute nonsense. The word "exist" can't even be applied to something outside of time, because the concept of existence relies on time itself. IT'S A F*CKING VERB! Can you tell me what the color blue smells like?
whetstone the red shift indicates the object is moving away you forgot to mention that some objects indicate a blue shift, meaning they are heading toward the center. Stephen Hawking belevies that the universe popped into existence not god. Most scientists believe it is a never ending cycle of big bangs, ie above some red shifts and some blue shifts eventully all matter will be at the center again and ready for a new big bang. also the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with creation of energy.... not matter you f*cktard.
no this doesnt prove that something had to have started the universe, not in anyway shape or form, even if you do point to god your logic is flawed.. who created god? the human mind isnt adept enough to comprehend that the universe has always been here... always. its been here and it will be here for eternity... why? no one knows. and whetstone if you use the logic to comprehend god you have no faith good day sir.
No, I will not watch the whole thing. Because I dont give a f*ck about god or atheism. What bothers me is that you and that Chinchilla f*ggot dont what forums are. No one walks into a paint gallery to stare at large moving blobs of text, and no one comes to YTMND to see the latest in recycled arguments from 7th grade health class. F*ck off. btw I hope I burn in hell so Im not in the same bin with you dumbasses.
"mention that some objects indicate a blue shift, meaning they are heading
toward the center."
Uh.. No. Everything is redshifted since the universe is expanding, thus everything is moving AWAY from us.
There is some stellar body which astronomers call the "great attractor" which seems to be pulling galaxies and the like towards it, but they're still moving away from us.
As someone who is devoting their life to theoritcal physics, the way you're presenting broken syllogisms and misunderstadings about cosmoligcal theory as facts is repulsive to me. The pursuit of scientific knowledge entails the xamination of evidence to find a cause- what you are doing is assuming a cause and looking for evidence to support it. You ignore any which disagrees with your cause or twist it into a totally false but scientific-sounding piece of propaganda. You are perverting the scientific method for your own benefit and, God help us, it might be working.
"mention that some objects indicate a blue shift, meaning they are
heading toward the center." Uh.. No. Everything is redshifted since the
universe is expanding, thus everything is moving AWAY from us. There is
some stellar body which astronomers call the "great attractor" which seems
to be pulling galaxies and the like towards it, but they're still moving
away from us. let me rephrase, the red shift indicates movement away right? these objects are slowing down and some have already started to head toward the center, eventully all objects will be there and a new big bang is ready creating a new universe.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link