• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

pinqy said:
Again, based on what comparison? What would be the differences between a designed universe and an Undesigned universe?
Click to expand...

An undesigned universe would not exist.

pinqy said:
And more importantly, how was the design implemented or rather, how are natural forces not sufficient?
Click to expand...

For several reasons, one is that natural forces cannot rationally be used to explain the presence of natural forces, claiming that natural forces caused the universe when those forces are themselves part of that same universe is a paradoxical argument, nothing more.

pinqy said:
When we look at an object, we can (usually) tell if it was designed/created or the product of intelligence. The reason we can do this is that we know what natural forces can and cannot do and we know what tools are and that an intelligence can use them to make something not possible by natural forces.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true, first we do not "know what natural forces can and cannot do" except in relative rudimentary cases. Take a look at the mechanism in the cell that unravels the DNA molecule to then use it as a template for creating and stringing together protein molecules and then physically manipulating the shape of those molecules.

Why do you think we know that natural forces alone can explain the presence of this very complex mechanisms?

pinqy said:
But when we’re looking at the universe we don’t know if there are the equivalent of tools to make a universe. We don’t even know completely what natural forces on that scale can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

We do know that "natural forces" cannot explain why there are natural forces, this is undoubtedly true.

pinqy said:
There are many things in nature that appear to be designed/created such as crystalline structures, designs and patterns on plants and animals, but we know that these are the result of nature and not an implemented design.
Click to expand...

How do you know that all such non-trivial structures and mechanisms are not designed? how do you know that the forces that causes crystals to form are themselves not the thing that was designed?

Was gravitation designed? if not what led to it existing?

pinqy said:
And sometimes there is no difference: there is no difference that I know of between natural and laboratory-made diamonds.
Click to expand...

How does our ability to design X prove that all other examples of X are not the result of design? if anything it shows that design can lead to diamonds, how do we know that all diamonds are therefore not also the result of design? How do you now that God did not create a universe and laws of nature and matter/energy/forces with the very specific goal of enabling the formation of diamonds and other stuff that you glibly attribute to "natural forces"?

I do not see how one can claim the universe is not designed, the laws of nature and matter/energy must already exist for the "natural" world to unfold, what else other than a creative and very powerful agency can account for the existence of these natural forces in the first place?

The material universe is inexplicably materially, this is the crux of the matter, physics cannot explain why there is physics, laws of nature cannot explain why there are laws of nature, laws of nature cannot be the reason we have laws of nature.

At some point we must seek an explanation for the material that is itself not material, otherwise we can have no explanation, this is "God" and this is why it is written for us "In the beginning God created" that is the true explanation if one can free themselves from the prejudices and biases inherent in empiricism and scientism.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
An undesigned universe would not exist.



For several reasons, one is that natural forces cannot rationally be used to explain the presence of natural forces, claiming that natural forces caused the universe when those forces are themselves part of that same universe is a paradoxical argument, nothing more.



I don't think that's true, first we do not "know what natural forces can and cannot do" except in relative rudimentary cases. Take a look at the mechanism in the cell that unravels the DNA molecule to then use it as a template for creating and stringing together protein molecules and then physically manipulating the shape of those molecules.

Why do you think we know that natural forces alone can explain the presence of this very complex mechanisms?



We do know that "natural forces" cannot explain why there are natural forces, this is undoubtedly true.



How do you know that all such non-trivial structures and mechanisms are not designed? how do you know that the forces that causes crystals to form are themselves not the thing that was designed?

Was gravitation designed? if not what led to it existing?



How does our ability to design X prove that all other examples of X are not the result of design? if anything it shows that design can lead to diamonds, how do we know that all diamonds are therefore not also the result of design? How do you now that God did not create a universe and laws of nature and matter/energy/forces with the very specific goal of enabling the formation of diamonds and other stuff that you glibly attribute to "natural forces"?

I do not see how one can claim the universe is not designed, the laws of nature and matter/energy must already exist for the "natural" world to unfold, what else other than a creative and very powerful agency can account for the existence of these natural forces in the first place?

The material universe is inexplicably materially, this is the crux of the matter, physics cannot explain why there is physics, laws of nature cannot explain why there are laws of nature, laws of nature cannot be the reason we have laws of nature.

At some point we must seek an explanation for the material that is itself not material, otherwise we can have no explanation, this is "God" and this is why it is written for us "In the beginning God created" that is the true explanation if one can free themselves from the prejudices and biases inherent in empiricism and scientism.
Click to expand...

Design is a human concept. Seeing the universe as designed is imposing your subjective view onto the universe.
 
Again, based on what comparison? What would be the differences between a designed universe and an Undesigned universe?
And more importantly, how was the design implemented or rather, how are natural forces not sufficient?
Click to expand...

A undesigned universe implies a universe that has no beginning or end, a theologians worse nightmare. No cause, no creator, no god.

Stephen Hawking’s last study – published May 2, 2018, is a theory, one of many ideas in modern cosmology, many of which lead to the multiverse concept, the idea that our universe of stars and galaxies is just one of many possible separate universes
 
It's cosmology’s most fundamental question ..how did the universe begin?

The question presupposes that the universe had an actual starting point, but one might just as well assume the universe always was and always will be. In that case, there would be no beginning whatsoever.

One theory in Cosmology is the process of inflation as eternal, meaning that once it started, it never fully stops. Inflation might end abruptly in one region of space, such as the one we inhabit, but it would continue elsewhere, setting off a never-ending series of big bangs. Each bang would correspond to the birth of a separate “pocket” universe, which might be pictured as an expanding bubble ..one of countless bubbles floating around within the “multiverse,” as it’s sometimes called.

I think we get confused or locked into the finite because organic life always has a beginning and end ..time as we know it, relevant to us, maybe not so much as to the universe.
 
Individual said:
But WHO designed this God creature?
Click to expand...


Scientist:

Molecules are made from atoms.

Skeptic:

Really? what are atoms made from?

Scientist:

Atoms are made from fundamental particles.

Skeptic:

Really? what are fundamental particles made of?

Scientist:

They are made from quarks.

Skeptic:

Really? what are quarks made of?

You get my point, I'm sure, how does not having an answer for the last question invalidate the answers to the prior questions?
 
Last edited:
gboisjo said:
It's cosmology’s most fundamental question ..how did the universe begin?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm very familiar with this.

gboisjo said:
The question presupposes that the universe had an actual starting point, but one might just as well assume the universe always was and always will be. In that case, there would be no beginning whatsoever.
Click to expand...

This is in fact what theoretical physicists and cosmologists once believed to be the case, it was called the "steady state" model, all evidence today points to that model being false.

gboisjo said:
One theory in Cosmology is the process of inflation as eternal, meaning that once it started, it never fully stops. Inflation might end abruptly in one region of space, such as the one we inhabit, but it would continue elsewhere, setting off a never-ending series of big bangs. Each bang would correspond to the birth of a separate “pocket” universe, which might be pictured as an expanding bubble ..one of countless bubbles floating around within the “multiverse,” as it’s sometimes called.
Click to expand...

This is borderline speculation, the prevailing view today seems to be that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

gboisjo said:
I think we get confused or locked into the finite because organic life always has a beginning and end ..time as we know it, relevant to us, maybe not so much as to the universe.
Click to expand...

The universe exists, but why? what can account for it being here with its matter/energy/fields/laws? one thing is blindingly obvious though we logically cannot use matter/energy/fields/laws to explain the presence of matter/energy/fields/laws multiverse, string theory and so on do not help with this problem.

Finally beware of infinity, it is an abstract concept with a formal mathematical definition, theoretical physics abhors infinities, they are universally regarded as indications of flawed theorizing.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
I have a brain

But you are free to try and prove me wrong everyone who has tried before in history has failed
Click to expand...

I never said I could prove you wrong but asked how you can prove you are right when you said that "Humans were designed" is an unsupportable claim.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What is illogical about faith?
Click to expand...

it has nothing to do with logic. one is an intellectual discipline/process, the other is an emotional state. Faith is about feels, not facts.

I don't think faith itself is illogical. The objects of that faith (dogma) are another matter entirely, however.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I never said I could prove you wrong but asked how you can prove you are right when you said that "Humans were designed" is an unsupportable claim.
Click to expand...

Diversion noted. I will take your refusal to even try as acknowledgement from you that there is none and a tacit admission that my statement is correct

You have no out here either try (and fail) to support your statement or by refusing to do so admit there is no support possible
 
Quag said:
Diversion noted. I will take your refusal to even try as acknowledgement from you that there is none and a tacit admission that my statement is correct

You have no out here either try (and fail) to support your statement or by refusing to do so admit there is no support possible
Click to expand...

Wow, what a reply !

I wrote "Humans were designed".

You wrote "That's an unsupported and unsupportable claim".

I asked "How do you know that (that it's unsupportable)".

You wrote "you are free to try and prove me wrong everyone who has tried before in history has failed".

I wrote "I never said I could prove you wrong but asked how you can prove you are right when you said that "Humans were designed" is an unsupportable claim."

Now you throw a tantrum, accusing me of "diversions" and so on.

You said it was an unsupportable claim, well that itself is a claim and I'd like you to prove it if you can.

You never asked me to prove my claim (you could have) but instead you asserted that it was unsupportable (meaning nobody anywhere ever could support it - a sweeping claim) so I am asking you how you reached that conclusion? how do you know it is unsupportable? that there is no evidence for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom